Talk:Anthony Bailey (PR advisor)

Photo

I've always wanted to bring this up, but the new flurry of activity gives me a chance. The photo used on this article definitely violates the Wiki rules on images. It was added by 'Culture759' who elsewhere on this Talk page has said he's never met or known the subject of the article. Yet on the photo, it's listed as his own work. For a long time I've suspected Culture759 was another account of the subject himself. Given the photo clearly wasn't taken by that user, I think we should remove it. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Culture759 provides a self-portrait of the subject and then says he's not the subject. Clearly, one statement or the other must be untrue. Personally, I'd be inclined to believe that he is indeed the subject of the article and did indeed supply the picture, and I'd also suggest that it's reasonable for us to accept the picture as useful to the article. I'd keep it. Hunc (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although there is a copyright issue here, as the photo was clearly taken by someone else. I don't mind, but it's just further evidence that Culture759 was a puppet. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Antigua knighthood rescinded

From an official source, https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2836491 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.222.164 (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Title

Philotam, Marie-Therese von Hohenberg appears to be an Austrian citizen. Austria - being a republic rather than a monarchy - does not have royalty. While she can call herself whatever she wants, much as her husband appears to do, WP does not need to repeat such spurious claims. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Add Portuguese and Slovak awards

I noticed the sudden removal of some sourced references I found online concerning the above article and there was a suggestion that this was some sort of whitewash which I am confused about. I have sourced two government sources concerning Bailey's knighthood from the Portuguese President and the Slovak medal he received. Both are relevant to the subject as he is actively engaged with both countries and neither is related to the controversies concerning Antigua or the given to him in some official exchange with the Order.

I have tried to correct a biased opinion presented as a fact in the wikipedia page. The mentioned opinion is unsubstantiated or is covered in other articles. The references to the Constantinian Order are more appropriate for the pages on the Order rather than Bailey but I leave that for wider community consensus. This is felt also with the references to the Mail on Sunday which Wikipedia has anyway considered it as unreliable as a source here. Again I am sure there are much experienced Wikipedians to deal with this. orelofhampton —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase what I just posted on my user talk page in response to your question there: There has been a fairly long-term pattern of disruption to the article with various accounts being created to remove anything that is not directly flattering to Bailey. There is a consensus among experienced editors (with no conflict of interest, which is crucial) that the material belongs; it is well-sourced and neutrally written. If there are some specific details that are not covered in sources, those can perhaps be removed after discussion. As for the awards that you added, both of them were previously mentioned in the article but were removed after a discussion had ended in consensus for their removal, about a year ago. You'll find the discussion a few sections further up on this article talk page. The "whitewashing" comment was in reference to your removing the criticism of Bailey, not the addition of the decorations - I should perhaps have included a comment about addition of material against consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I believe the references to the Portuguese and Slovak awards are relevant to Bailey's new roles - one of which involves my local parish. I don't feel the article is particularly balanced in some areas and seems to be sources principally on tabloid newspapers such as the Mail on Sunday which editors have already decided are unreliable. What are your thoughts on this? I have thought such references should be removed unless sourced from more reliable sources.

There are also numerous references made by other single interest editors which concern me having read them as to how neutral they are having read there comments.. Ultimately and having just become an editor I am attempting for my contributions to be an informed and balanced contribution as I believe Wikipedia wishes. If you can help me I would be appreciate it.

I believe my proposed additions should given serious consideration in what concerns Portugal and Slovakia. I have also studied the latest edition of Who's Who 2017 which is a first rate source of information. Let me know what you think.

In what concerns Antony Bailey's role in the Constantinian Order I believe it should be significantly cut down and instead be placed on the pages of the Constantinian Order which covers the issues associated with this catholic order. Bailey is not the order but an officer in it. OrelofHampton (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)orelofhampton

Thanks. You may note that the references are not to the Daily Mail, but to the Sunday Mail, a different newspaper with different editorial policies, though it shares a website with the Daily Mail. The issue with the Portuguese and Slovak awards isn't sourcing their reality, it is the excessive list of frankly-insignificant awards. Who's Who is in the business of listing these things when the holder wants them listed, so listing is totally appropriate for them. Wikipedia is in the business of providing a brief encyclopedic entry, including notable facts covered in secondary sources. This would include the rescinding of the Antiguan and Grenadian knighthoods, but doesn't include most of the baubles previously listed. There have also been unfavourable comments about the mechanisms used to attain these awards. Guy Stair Sainty, vice-grand chancellor of the long-established Order, is reported as saying "The Order purportedly revived in the UK by Bailey is described on its website as the “Delegation for Great Britain and Ireland”; however, in a follow up email, Guy Stair Sainty, vice-grand chancellor of the Order, said it has no connection with Bailey, his business activities or the order of which he is described as “delegate”. Sainty explained that the Constantinian Order concentrates primarily on its Catholic mission and never “exchanges” its membership with anyone for any reason, since this would be contrary to the statutes and character of the Order as a Catholic, chivalric, confraternal institution.

“Neither are we interested in expensive entertainments nor in constant publicity, which is why we have not issued any public statement until now, when the good name of our Order has repeatedly been the subject of so much critical commentary,” he added.

Sainty went on to note that the grant of awards for “’interfaith’ services or whatever” to the likes of President Assad of Syria and former President Saleh of Yemen and various state officials in other countries, including the Caribbean, has no worth.

“The self-evident conflict of interest between Mr Bailey’s role as a businessman apparently acting on behalf of states for fees, yet exchanging decorations of this controversial Constantinian Order … and then claiming awards in return would appear to be entirely contrary to the spirit of this ancient Catholic institution,” he said."

As for the shenanigans over the Constantinian Delegation, they are arguably the main reason why the existence of this article can be justified at all. Your desire to remove them strongly suggests that you are one of the various editors, closely associated with the subject or actually consubstantial with him, who have repeatedly tried to remove the notable points that do not redound entirely to his credit. To repeat, this is Wikipedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion. Hunc (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to read your comments and in many ways seem unbalanced and certainly not without bias. Having looked into this it is clear that Guy Stair Sainty is not an unbiased and suitable source for comment re the Constantine Order. From all the sources I have read on line he is non other than a clear opponent to Bailey by virtue of his role as head of a rival Constantine order based in Spain. Indeed there are various other sources that show both Bailey and Sainty being at war with one another over many years. Therefore I would propose that this section he greatly reduced and left instead to the pages of the Constantinian Order rather than going into detail on a biographical page with all the wikipedia rules concerning this. I would suggest that any references to Mr Sainty be replaced with more impartial and unconnected sources to the subject. Why do you think?

Getting back to the point of my original reason for going on line to suggest some amendments it is quite wrong to my mind to suggest that both the Portuguese Government knighthood and the Slovak presidential award are 'frankly-insignificant'. In fact some might consider that quite rude coming from two prominent European member states! A look at both the Heads of state awards show that both awards are quite rare and rarely bestowed unless for good reason.

I have proposed them too precisely because Anthony Bailey has longstanding roles with each nation and both awards where given outside of any connection to the controversies with the Order of Constantine and as can be seen from the embassy links which I have referenced. I therefore suggest again that we add those. There is no whitewashing on my part but it does seems however from your own talk pages that both (talk) may not not have an unbiased role in what concerns the order and the Naples royal family or in the case of CaribbeanTruth (talk) has seemingly a sole interest in Caribbean matters relating to Anthony Bailey and shows this account interesting being created at the time of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday which are both covered by the wikipedia ruling as I understand it. Surely if these matters are so relevant then other sources can be found to other than the the mail group. (talk) orelofhampton —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To engage with the process of improving this encyclopedia, please see the discussion of these "awards" above, and provide new arguments rather than rehashing old ones. And, more specifically, we quote Sainty in the article for facts on which he is an indisputable authority. I'm sorry that I have to reiterate: this is Wikipedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion. Please read and digest our guidelines on conflict of interest before returning to this subject. Hunc (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"a rival Constantine order based in Spain" - what? The Constantine Order, which is based in Spain, I think you'll find. As opposed to "A branch office based in England of a rival Constantine order based in France." Or whatever order you're founding yourself, for all that it matters... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the reasons for the Portuguese and Slovak awards are clear from independant and well recognised sources. Both awards were granted on his merits from what each course says. Maybe a compromise could be to record that the subject has been honoured various other countries including Portugal and Slovakia. Its quite surprising that you are so dismissive of two important and historic European nations. As a new editor I must say I find your confrontational language rather bullying. As to the references to the Constantinian order there are clearly two branches or orders and so to be quoting one major source and official regarding the other doesn't seem balanced or appropriate and should anyway be left to the page of the order itself. This is a biography of a living person and form what I read there are rules and the need to be balanced and unconfrontational in the use of language. Its seems the last three editors of Baston, Hun and CaribbeanTruth are hardly neutral having read their comments in this user page. I hope common sense would prevail and the references to Portugal and Slovakia are included and someone else look to trim down the references to the Constantinian order in line with the rules of wikipedia. I have no personal or professional connection with the subjectOrelofHampton (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC) (talk) orelofhampton

A "new user" whose only edits to date have been concerned with this article? Sure. Are you familiar with WP:COI? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit war

At this edit a comment attributed to the Mail on Sunday - a fairly reputable source - has been removed again. I note that the MoS is not the Daily Mail, a deprecated source, and the MoS is usable, certainly if there's a consensus to use it. But I also note that the comment referenced to the MoS duplicates one from another and better source. We don't need duplicated comments and I suggest that the simplest way to stop this edit war is to leave the duplication out and save arguments about the MoS for another and more appropriate occasion. Hunc (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Same printer, same building, same website, sunday version of the same newspaper, not a good source because they make stuff up. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)