Talk:John Prescott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents

[edit] Photograph

We need a new photograph as the one that's there gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size. AllanHainey 14:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed - Is there any place where we can post image requests on WP? I know a few articles that could do with some new images. - Hahnchen 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I was going to say Wikipedia:Requested pictures & request a pic for this article, but I see you've got there before me. AllanHainey 08:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
can't you just place them here???
Uploaded a new image, it's under Crown Copyright, but it's better than fair-use at least, and I can't see us getting hold of a completely GFDL-compatible image any time soon. GeeJo (t) (c) • 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One funny guy

I ended up on this article after reading [1]. I was looking for why he had lost his power and it looks like its because of fighting in public. In the course of reading the article, I couldn't help laughing sometime. Like, who would use a car to travel 300 yards? I once saw "The gods must be crazy 2" and there was a dude who delivered a mail from his house to a mail box outside on a car and I thought, this has to be a joke, nobody do that. Now, it looks like I was all wrong.

His sentences construct look like a google translation. Is English his first language or what is the hypothesis behind it? Is it always like that, or is it only when he is under pressure? I am aware this a risky topic for me considering my English skills aren't that good, but ....

He is a (unintentionally) funny guy, actually there's a lot of stuff that isn't on the article yet (Greenpeace camped out on his roof & tried to install a solar panel, various comments & 'Bushisms', his comments to a Welsh journalist, etc). It's hard to believe from his Witham comments but English is his 1st (& only, I believe) language. I think he tends to get worse when he's under pressure but he does make a lot of funny mistakes & misuse of grammer/syntax/words. See wikiquote for a few of these. AllanHainey 09:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

He is also prone to a diminished sensibility in his speech (right?) when he hasn't had it prepared and checked and the lines double spaced. Probably because he is dyslexic or something like that. Rdog 10:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up grammar

“and well known for his habit of speaking in which he often uses a confusing syntax.”

Given that we’re referring to the guy’s dodgy grammar, this needed cleaning up. A habit of speaking? Don’t we all have one of them? Changed it to:

“and is well known for the mangled syntax that he often employs whilst speaking”.

You might find the word ‘mangled’ a bit harsh and slang-like but I thing it’s more appropriate than ‘confusing’. It’s usually clear enough what he’s talking about, even if it looks odd transcribed. Bombot 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Mangled fits best hereAlci12 16:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morality

  • The following quote was added by an anon, but feels like a judgement on Prescott's "morality" which this isn't the place for. Wikiquote? Deizio 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

From John Prescott's 1996 Labour Conference speech:

"Morality is measured in more than just money. It's about right and wrong. We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people. We've had enough lies. Enough sleaze."

How can that be a judgement on Prescott's morality - they are his own words?

New entry

Absolutely 100% Prescott--The Guardian ran an article on this on Thursday April 27. If he didn't want it to be in a public record like wikipedia, he should never have said it. Quotation has been reinstated.

[edit] The article is too short!

I have just finished reading the Prescott article here and I am disgraced by how short it is. It needs filing out a bit more - unlike the man himself! Furthermore, I feel that his affair and other activities such as the egg-punch incident should be highlighted more as well.

Oh come on! The "two jabs" section is perfectly adequate coverage of what was a two-days wonder. Any expansion would be grossly POV. -- Arwel (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is too short on his actual job, status, history and functions as a government minister. There is ample coverage of his "mistakes" and such, which, in my view, take too much presidence in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewfelgate (talk • contribs) 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

Fair point; but is there actually much to say, substance-wise?

[edit] current event

hi all - i removed the current tag because the article really doesn't document a current affair - his affair is really not going to impact the article much whatever the outcome - and it all being forgotten in a day or two is the most likely.... Petesmiles 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Actually I disagree. The papers are having a field day - it's on the front page of at least five (as of today). Also, there is an ongoing investigation into whether or not prezza misused his ministerial allowances... I don't think this one is finished just yet! Oliver Keenan 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diabetes

Is it worth mentioning that Prezza is a diabetic? I read it in the UK diabetic magazine. No doubt due to his immense weightage! lol

No, it's not worth mentioning!

[edit] ""

Can someone sort out the quoatation marks on the following:

Barrie Williams, 46, currently Miss Temple's partner told the Daily Mirror: "I feel sick. I can't believe the woman I wanted to marry has slept with John Prescott. "I feel sorry for Mr Prescott's wife because, like me, I'm sure she had no idea what was going on he added.I've been betrayed by one of the most powerful men in the UK."

I havn't read the article in the Mirror so i don't know where they are meant to go. Wright123 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

I've punctuated one of his quotes properly. Whilst it does still contain some mangling of grammar, it does actually make a lot more sense with the right punctuation (you'll note I didn't change a letter, just added dots, commas, question marks, brackets and stuff). I don't think removing punctuation from hesistant and broken speech entirely represents it fairly. If there's an audio version available it would be interesting to see where the pauses are, and whether the things that look like questions (rhetorical or not) actually are voiced as such. Morwen - Talk 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag on affair section

The affair section seems to my reading to conflate unproven rumour with absolute fact, particularly in totting up 'official' counts for the number of Prescott's dalliances etc. Fact is fact, rumour is rumour, we're only interested in the former here. Badgerpatrol 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have taken some steps in this regard, but I note that some of the claims are supported only by links to obviously partisan blogs and the like. These are not suitable sources- not because they are partisan (although neutral sources are always ideal) but rather because they are blogs. Anyone here can post their thoughts on the web- that doesn't make them true. Badgerpatrol 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As the only links now on this matter are to bona-fide news sources, I think the POV tag might be removed. I have also deleted a lot of the lubricous stuff and irrelevancies like the opinions of the secretary's boy-friend.--Smerus 12:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree- I've rm'ed the banner. Badgerpatrol 12:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Jags/Two Jabs/Two Shags/Two Shacks/No Jobs

Is it completely inappropriate to have 3 sub-headings covering these? I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't be fun to read. I'll add them and people can remove if they really object. Kayman1uk 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have just removed the "No Jobs" in the "Benefits Controversy" header. The comment is unsourced. If we can find a source we can add it back in. Kayman1uk 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"No Jobs" has miraculously reappeared with no source. I'm taking it out again. Now sourced. Nowhere near as good as the others, but should stay. Has been quoted by the Telegraph and the Mirror.Kayman1uk 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Also adding back in "Two Shags". Dmn said that it "seemed inappropriate" but given that I was positively encouraged to use the word 'f*ck' on the Ian McKellen page (due to wikipedia's No Censorship policy), I really can't see why "Shag" is causing a problem. It's a correctly sourced comment and was mentioned on Have I Got News For You, BBC Question Time and in multiple tabloids.
I feel like taking an unusual moral stand, so I'm going to put "Two Shags" back in. If anyone wants to argue properly against it, feel free. Kayman1uk 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
A careless edit (hopefully not mine) has removed the "No Jobs" section so that it doesn't appear as a header. Fixed. Kayman1uk 12:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not Encyclopedic material - and really shouldn't be in here - or, at the very least, treated as trivia. 147.114.226.172 08:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

'No Jobs' added back: Here are just some of the "No jobs" sources: [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] ]32.106.49.60 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Independent source is good enough - I'll add it back when I've finished another edit Im doing. BlueValour 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Its up now. BlueValour 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why the source is so important to you; with a choice from Telegraph, Mirror, BBC, Independent etc. Does it matter?

[edit] PM box for the DPM?

Although the box to show Prescott's leadership dates and the like is a nice addition to the page, it shows him as being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I guess that we need a new, slightly altered template. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a template for MP's details? Each Wikipedia page on an MP seems to have a different custom made box of details. Matthewfelgate 11:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deputy PM

Moved the mini-essay on the role of the Deputy PM from the intro and then beefed it up a bit. Kayman1uk 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is still lacking in detail about policy

We should aim to include more on his activities on planning permission, since he actually seems to have done quite a lot there. I'll do some research. If that makes the article too long then we can make a sub-article on "Prescott's controversies". Kayman1uk 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit 19:54, 17 June 2006 by 217.44.43.247

I have corrected another spelling mistake in this. The edit contributed no new information; the material added is already in the article. It is a question of whether it is right that the material repeated should be in the article header. I will leave it to others to decide that. Viewfinder 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I have reverted edits by John Hustings who seeks to replace Prescott's picture with another which I feel is not appropriate [6]. Although this seems to be vandalism (see similar changes made by the same user to George Galloway) it is not clear cut enough for me to continuously revert it without violating 3RR. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I thought John Hustings picture was much better also the old picture gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size. Rastishka

Did you really? Well I am surprised. Nevertheless, the copyright status of the image is uncertain. I have left a note on John's talk page- whatever we think of the image, if it is a potential copyvio then it can't go in. Badgerpatrol 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Please - let us keep the lead pictures neutral. They should not be used for the purposes of sneaky POV pushing. The use lower down in articles, with appropriate captions and sources, may not be inappropriate. Viewfinder 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we name the women involved - RW and NW (this abbreviation shouldn't be libellous). Anyone interested can visit the most prominent political blog and find out the names anyway...

Also, the allegations about RW are covered on her entry on WP.

[edit] First Secretary of State

I have managed to track down this source which lists John Prescott with the title FSOS in October 2001. If anyone can find the exact date he gained the title, please list it here. Thanks. Road Wizard 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How annoying. I posted the original link to Dod’s Parliamentary Communications (here), which had a really good bio of JP and they've made it one of their subscriber-only articles. I suppose all the controversy made him more valuable to them. In any case, as noted in the article, he must have received the FSOS title when he lost the super-department title in 2001. That would have been in the July 2001 reshuffle, as noted in the select committee research notes attached here.
Incidentally, this link also contains a list of everything JP (supposedly) currently does. Might be useful info for expanding the acticle. Kayman1uk 07:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected some of the details in the article about the ODPM and also removed the phrase that the title FSoS was purely honorific. As he had control of a (very) small department carrying out ministerial functions, his acquisition of the title seems as valid as any other Secretary of State.
As a second point, I have also removed the reference to Dod’s Parliamentary Communications as it now seems to be an advert for a commercial website.
Finally a note of cautioin should be made in using that PDF you linked to as it contains a factual error. At one point it says that the ODPM was created in July 2001, but then goes on to say:
Following the reshuffle of June 2003, the department of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed from the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. John Prescott remained Deputy Prime Minister.
I think this should have probably said June 2001 as that was when the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was split up. Road Wizard 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it was May 2002 - Transport, Local Government and the Regions were a department for about a year. I recall the ODPM was created out of the breakup of that one. Timrollpickering 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have done some further research since I left my original post, and have identified the correct time line. The ODPM was created from the breakup of the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in June/July 2001. The Environment portfolio went to the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, whilst the Transport and most of the Region portfolios went into the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The ODPM was created as a sub-department of the Cabinet Office with responsibility for the remaining sections of the Regions portfolio. With the breakup of the DTLR in May 2002, the ODPM absorbed the entirety of the Local Government and Regions portfolios and became a separate department independent of the Cabinet Office. John Prescott would have gained the FSoS title in the cabinet reshuffle of June 2001 when he was moved from DETR to ODPM. Road Wizard 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetorical problems

Rhetorical is more precise than oral:

oral [áwrəl] adj

3. spoken: existing in spoken form as distinct from written form

rhetorical [ri tórrik’l] adj

2. of effective use of language: relating to the skill of using language effectively and persuasively

Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TerriersFan 23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


On the contraray, I was going by the Wikipedia definitions (from Wiktionary):

Retoric

1. The art of using of language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.

Oral

1. Relating to the mouth. 2. Spoken rather than written.

The former is making a judgement on Prescotts ability to persuade, whereas the latter makes the more accurate description of his Oral problems. Matthewfelgate 12:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is making a judgement; that is what the paragraph is all about. As a compromise I have now used the term 'speaking'. TerriersFan 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Good move. Matthewfelgate 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Sex related categories

Re edits by User:Zargulon. OK, "adultery" and "sex scandal" are not exactly the same, but there is considerable overlap. I do not think an adultery category is appropriate. It could capture a vast number of people and, imo, damage public opinion of Wikipedia. Are we going to list Lloyd George and Karl Marx in it? If not, then why John Prescott? If so, then why not create a "sinners" category and a "perverts" category? If adultery becomes a scandal then it will be covered by "sex scandal". I do not want an edit war so I will cool it for now, but I would appreciate comment on this from more experienced Wikipedians. Viewfinder 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with you, it is wholly uencyclopedic to go down the News of the World/Mail on Sunday alley. Philip Cross 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I disrespect tabloid journalism as much as you guys, I'm sure. But this is an historically and culturally interesting and valuable category. Of course Lloyd George and Marx should be included (if the affair is documented), but it is a little much to expect me to have put every recorded adulterer in existence in the cat within a few hours of forming it. Sinners and perverts represent a value judgement, whereas adulterers does not. Zargulon 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue goes beyond John Prescott and is best continued, if necessary, on User:Zargulon talk page. Btw it is well documented that Lloyd George and Marx fathered illegitimate children by mistresses outside long term marriages. Viewfinder 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adulterers for ongoing discussion about this issue. Viewfinder 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed article split

I am proposing to split this article, spinning off 'Controversies and incidents' to its own page. The article is now longer than its optimum length. More importantly, though, the 'Controversies and incidents' section (which is both fun and encyclopaedic) is starting to dominate the article making the more 'serious' parts of the biography harder to navigate. May I have any views, please? TerriersFan 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some attention, but I don't think the best approach is to create an article called, "John Prescott: Controversies and incidents" or anything similar. In general "criticism of..." articles are a rather bad idea, they allow all the negative information to be removed from the main article and ultimately tend to prevent us from reaching our ideal, a neutral point of view. A "Controversies and incidents" type article is rather likely to develop along these lines. I advocate the following: first remove the section "Controversies and incidents" and merge the information into the body of the article, specifically into the "Deputy Prime Minister" section in chronological order. Then second, if any section is too long extract it to make a new article (the Tracey Temple affair may merit it's own article, as may the 2001 General Election debacle). Anything that is removed in this way should be replaced with a suitably modified intro section from the new article. Andreww 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for these considerative thoughts. I am not enthusiastic about filtering the incidents chronologically into the article since, because the timelines overlap, this could result in a splintering of the accounts. I agree with you on the need for NPOV. However, the present section has that problem. What are needed are some positive incidents to provide balance but I have not found these easy to find. I also agree that 'John Prescott: Controversies and incidents' is not NPOV. I therefore am proposing to call the new article 'John Prescott - specific events'. This will allow the inclusion of 'good news' events. I also intend the preamble: 'John Prescott is a serious politician who has attained a series of high government offices and is a heavyweight figure in Labour Party politics. However, he has been involved in a number of incidents that have caused controversy and widespread public interest.'. TerriersFan 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the controversies and incidents are dominating the article. I agree that they should be split off. Wikipedia is meant to be primarily a source of information, not entertainment. More about the career of Mr Prescott that has not made entertaining tabloid headlines might be a good idea. Viewfinder 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now carried out the split, the new article being John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a split. All it does is "sanitise" the main article. An objective article requires that all the controversies be included here and not hidden away in a separate article. The facts might reflect badly on Prescott but that is for the reader to decide. Lancsalot 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the sadly wasted AfD, I have proposed a re-merge between the two articles. Note that I don't have a serious problem with how the split was done, nor with any of the editors concerned, but I just don't feel that this split is appropriate or presents an improvement to the article. Badgerpatrol 00:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the article split is quite useful. One can skim the contentious events in the bulletted list and see any or all by clicking on one of them. Why do you think merging it back into the article would be more advantageous? TransUtopian 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Assuming the information is properly transcluded, it will be possible to navigate it in exactly the same way using the contents listing (although for my part I am not sure that it is advisable to list the controversial events in such a stark way- I actually think that this is what has led to some of the current problems). The summary that is currently in John Prescott is not sufficient; bullet points lists are not great stylistically and do not properly articulate the events which they aim to describe. Most importantly, I simply cannot see how splitting the articles can satisfy NPOV. Currently John Prescott contains little information on the kinds of controversies which have come to define his ministerial career, whilst John Prescott: Contentious events is (in style if not in intent) an attack page. Basically, there was no reason for the split; the failings in the page (which were, at the time, manifest but not overwhelming) can only be addressed through careful and well-referenced edits. It is simply not necessary (the article was nowhere near the size where a split was required for length reasons) nor parsimonious to split one mediocre article into two bad ones. There was no proper consensus for the split, and a reasonable majority of those adding to the AfD discussion are in favour of the merge. Badgerpatrol 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge. (Discussion & not a vote, but it helps to summarize. :) Your statement about how it's an attack page in style if not in intent is well taken. While the theory (see the Proposed article split section above) was to include positive events as well, it wasn't leaning that way.

I agree that integrating them into a timeline would be unwieldy if some events overlap. Having separate sections for each event makes them more coherent. However, I no longer believe that a separate article for the controversies surrounding John Prescott is necessary or preferred to satisfy NPOV, and that the article could be balanced with good editing. It'd be long, but lots of articles about prominent, especially modern politicians are long, accounting for their impact, the amount of easily accessible, verifiable data, and the interest invested in them.

It seems from the short conversation above and the AfD that the split was largely uncontested primarily due to lack of discussion/interest. Hopefully the merge template at the top of the article will persuade more to give their views so it'll be more of a consensus. I'd say the AfD was more "no consensus" than a clear consensus to merge. TransUtopian 03:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I'm genuinely not sure. These are all interesting; but this article on the controversies is, and has to be, longer than the main article. (And this is not just that he's messed up often; it is that these stories need more detail.) These are a lot of little incidents; putting them back might be undue weight. JCScaliger 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate. I see no pressing reason to merge these articles. I understand that they were separated due to the former 'controversies' section dominating the main article, a problem as JCScaliger rightly says is only going to get worse. The hope is that the slimmed down main article might attract an editor who is prepared to do a job of work on it. I think that we should leave things as they are, for the time being, to let the split articles settle down and see if this hope is realised.

I don't buy the 'attack article' approach. Certainly it is no more an attack article than Criticism of Tony Blair, for example. The title allows for some 'good news' stories to be included. If an editor considers that the article is too negative then the opportunity is there to research and include some contentious incidents where Prescott has done well.

If anyone wishes to press the merge then I think a good approach would be to work up a draft in their sandbox to show what it would look like. BlueValour 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Remain as two articles - nothing has changed since I split the article. Both articles need a lot of work but that won't happen until the uncertainty is ended. Since the article split we have had an extended AfD and now the merge proposal. TerriersFan 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And, to reiterate, the AfD strongly supported a merge. The daughter article is, and always will be, inherently POV. There is no escaping it. Badgerpatrol 23:51, 3 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 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I have inititated the semi-protection of this page because of regular IP vandalism. Please leave a message here if you consider, at a future point, that the protection should be lifted. BlueValour 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement Section

The article reads that Prescott will stand down at the same time as Blair. It then says party members want him to stand down at the same time????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfoxton (talk • contribs).

Fixed, thanks. TerriersFan 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between standing down at the same time as Tony Blair stands down as party leader and at the same time as Tony Blair stands down as Prime Minister, if he stands down at the same time as Tony Blair stands down as Prime Minister then this means that the elections for Leader and Deputy Leader will be held on 2 seperate days adding to the amount of cost, if he stands down as Deputy Leader at the same time as Tony Blair then the elections will be on the same day meaning that they will get sent out in the same envelopes saving Labour money, especially because of a shortage of Labour funds many party members think the 2 elections should be on the same day, he can stand down as Deputy Leader and Deputy Prime Minister on the same day because there is actually no need of a post of Deputy Prime Minister, an incoming Labour PM can appoint someone else other than the Deputy Leader to the role or simply not have such a role, in fact the role of Deputy Prime Minister is unofficial with John Prescott's actual only officially defined role being as First Secretary of State whereas f course the role of PM is vital and normally the party leader is the PM.--Lord of the Isles 09:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I'm not a Prescott fan, but this article seems to overly emphasize criticism of Prescott. Bwithh 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you consider that the article is too critical then the best way forward is to add some positive material about his successes. I spun off the 'Controversies' section to a separate article because it was dominating too much. If those who want the articles merged have their way then this article really will look critical! However, I don't accept that the article fails NPOV. NPOV requires The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views.; if there are no conflicting views, that is all views are in one direction, then there is no NPOV issue. The fact that this article is critical of Prescott is only a NPOV problem if positive views/events had been ignored or if a sourced positive response to one of his difficulties had not been included. I do not believe this to be the case so I have removed the NPOV tag. As I said at the start, please feel free to add any positive sources that you are aware of that are missing. TerriersFan 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is spurious, I think. So you are saying that in John Prescott's near-decade as one of the most senior figures in one of the (in objective terms) most successful governments of all time he has done nothing positive whatsoever? That is, of course, ludicrous. Statements like "Prescott pursued an integrated public transport policy, with little evident success." (no reference, of course) are blatantly not NPOV. (In fact, that single sentence is the only one relating to Prescott's involvement with transport policy). We have nothing about the environment portfolio whatsoever- one might suspect because much of it (i.e. Kyoto) might actually reflect favourably on Prescott. One would have to blind to suggest that Prescott has been a success as DPM etc- it simply isn't the case- but I think we can do better than parrotting the (often salacious and usually specious) witch hunt perpetrated by elements of the press (I note that 7 out of 9 newspaper references (and we require much more by way of citations in general) are from The Sun, The Telegraph and The Times). I have substituted the NPOV tag for a general clean-up one- regardless of what one's stance on the POV issue, I think that surely nobody can argue against the notion that this article, in its current iteration, is crap, and requires a LOT of work. Badgerpatrol 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete agreement with Badgerpatrol - much of the critisism is based on parrotting gutter headline journalsim of the worst kind. The article split is a good start 147.114.226.172 15:33, 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)
Not at all - just because material is 'sourced' does not make it relevant.
Adding more and more rubbish is not going to improve the quality of this article. Perhaps nicknames such as 'Two Jags' or 'Two Jabs' etc is relevant in an article entitled 'John Prescott and the tabloid press' - but not in a serious article like this one *should* be.
Perhaps someone can explain why 'Two Jags' is considered Encyclopedic content?
I don't care about showing 'Prezza' in a good light, a bad light, or whatever - but an Encyclopedia article should present points of serious interest, not make schoolboy jibes, even if they are 'sourced' from the red-tops. 147.114.226.172 08:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
...in comination with judicious editing and pruning to maintain editorial balance and the appropriate style. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The Two Shags and Two Jags nicknames certainly have been very much in use by the media and so to mention that these were some of his nicknames would not be NPOV even though they are a negative spin by the media about him, there is an element of truth in that he has admitted an affair with Miss Temple and he certainly does end up using a number of vehicles although in fairness most ministers do and to some extent they are stuck with what the civil service provides. I did see a picture of him once on a bicycle although promoting some kind of scheme to encourage people to take to bicycles, there is no doubt that he has made great efforts in government - Regional Government has had mixed fortunes in that while it still exists he totally failed to move it to the fully elected lines he intended, although it is partly the fault of Tony Blair for not going for a more holistic approach to constitutional reform although it has to be said that constitutional reform in the UK has always been on a somewhat ad-hoc basis, other than this the Strategic Rail Authority is being woundup and the new structure has more to do with his successors, the Integrated Transport Commission though is still going, the yellow buses he brought in are apparently being scrapped although in a sense this is achievements of his being undone after he lost control of responsibility for those areas, so it's certainly been mixed and for Tony Blair and before him John Smith his major use until the last 2 years had always been to persuade Labour rank and file to accept modernisations, he has had more of a party political use for Tony Blair than a directly ministerial use.--Lord of the Isles 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC).
And of course the claim by Paddy Ashdown (oft repeated since) that John Prescott had said that "The Green Belt is Labour's Greatest achievement and I intend to build on it" - in a sense that was NPOV but it was NPOV by one of his political rivals, a party leader and MP no less so to mention it (I have no idea whether it has been mentioned or not in the past in this article) as being something that had been said of him would be alright although to say it was true would be NPOV, whether it should be mentioned or not is another matter.--Lord of the Isles 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo needed

The powers-that-be on Wikipedia seem to be objecting to official government photos of British politicians being used on Wikipedia as Crown Copyright is not a sufficiently free license. Apparently they are readily replaceable with free images. Not that I can find any. So here's the challenge people. If John Prescott (or one of his colleagues) is going to be in your area and you have a spare minute, grab your digital photos and get snapping! Hopefully we'll get a new photo soon. All efforts appreciated.WJBscribe 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Free image of Prescott found. Will have to do for now, I guess. Clearest view of him in photo is overhead screen. Makes him look like 'Big Brother' from 1984! WJBscribe 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Prescott_9201.html"