Talk:John Prescott: Contentious events

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-20. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Split article

Following discussion at Talk:John Prescott this article has been created but no content has been altered. TerriersFan 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

---

A good all-round piece of work by the Conservative Party.--TresRoque 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is your view please add some sourced material that shows that Prescott has handled some contentious events well. Such material would be very welcome. TerriersFan 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of this information is nothing more than a catalogue of tabloid headlines - is this really the sort of material that should be listed in an Encyclopedia? Perhaps someone ought to make the point that much of the 'news' around John Prescott was generated by the tabloids themselves.

For example, the whole Croquet incident - I never understood what the problem was with that. Why should a Minister be asked to resign because he played Croquet? Is there something about Croquet that I didn't know about?

So, while the details of tabloid stories about Prescott might have a verifiable encyclopedic worth - the point should not be that Prezza was hopeless (which while it's not stated here, is implicitly suggested - in line with the 'journalism' being quoted) but that the gutter media was able to bring down a minister by sheer force of bombardment.

From a personal point of view, I find it quite disgraceful that the press was able to focus on such inconsequential matters as the chosen lawn games of the Dep. PM, when all the while, really important events were happening at home and overseas. Events that deserved to receive the focus of their 'investigative' efforts. 147.114.226.172 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The way forward, rather than removing sourced material, is to add sourced material that shows Prescott in a good light or illustrates his achievements. TerriersFan 18:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The way forward is to prune material as appropriate so as to present a balanced viewpoint overall (across the two articles; obviously there is no way that this devolved article (with its inherently POV title and remit) can ever actually become NPOV). Adding material willy-nilly (particulary material originating in the febrile imaginations of gutter-press newspaper editors) is what has got us to this situation in the first place. More sourced material is needed, but so is judicious pruning and editorial oversight. Badgerpatrol 23:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that you will achieve a balance without more positive material. Why not start with your own suggestion of a section on the Kyoto Protocol?

Yes- or you could do it. A full rewrite of John Prescott is what is required to redress the damage; I'm working on this, but it takes time. Should be another week or two. Badgerpatrol 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tag - this article has had this tag hanging on it for well over 2 months with no sign of a concensus or any real enthusiasm for the merger. BlueValour 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I have moved 'Comments about other politicians' to the Trivia section of the main article. However, the 'Croquet controversy' (that caused a political storm and was a factor in him losing his country house) and 'Comments about Bush Administration' (that was headlined in The Independent} rightly or wrongly had enough political impact to stay. TerriersFan 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)