Talk:David Wilshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.

If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] My removals

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 11:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The material may be replaced if and when the replacer can provide proper references. However, I'd also like to point out that a whole paragraph on his views on homosexuality when we've so little on his other views may constitute "undue weight". Is he a single issue campaigner on this issue? Further, "his opposition to rights for lesbian and gay people" is too vague to be NPOV. Does he oppose ALL rights for these people? The right to breathe the air? Is that how he'd describe his views? It is better to be specific - what exactly has he opposed. Whilst editors might not like his views, NPOV in a biography means that we should describe him in a way that both he and his strongest critics would deem fair and accurate.--Doc^g 11:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation - I agree with all the above. I think his sponsorship of Section 28 is the one thing that probably does deserve reinsertion; I'm not sure what other legislation he has sponsored but Section 28 a particularly notable in terms of the controversies that sparked it, the strongly held views on it, and the subsequent debate around its repeal. Referencing of that should be easy. SP-KP 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested text for reinstatement:

Wilshire has a record of opposition to equality for lesbian and gay people. In 1987 he introduced Section 28 as an amendment to the Local Government Bill. The amendment made it illegal for local authorities to "promote homosexuality or ... promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality". The ban was eventually reversed by Parliament in 2003.

Any comments/suggested changes?

SP-KP 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"equality for lesbian and gay people" is not an NPOV description - it is value loaded. I suspect he'd say he does support equal rights for ALL people. Most supporters of clause 28 (which I agree is notable - and particularly since he proposed it) would not say "we oppose equality for gay people", they'd say "we oppose the promotion of this lifestyle" etc. Others may view that as opposing equality for the people themselves, but best for Wikipedia to record exactly what he has done and said, and not use interpretative commentary - let the reader decide that for themselves.--Doc^g 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think you're saying your'e OK with the suggested reinsertion, but we just need to agree how the first sentence should be worded - is that right? How would you word it? SP-KP 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just stick to the facts: "In 1987 he introduced Section 28 as an amendment to the Local Government Bill. The amendment made it illegal for local authorities to "promote homosexuality or ... promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality". The ban was eventually reversed by Parliament in 2003. [give reference]". --Doc^g 11:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. Thanks for discussing constructively & promptly. SP-KP 11:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide the citation before reinserting the material. We can't have controversial claims about living people left with ^{[citation needed]} on them.--Doc^g 11:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I thought, finding a ref proved easy. I used the google search engine ... don't know if you've heard of it, it's rather good :-) I searched for "david wilshire section 28" and that gave plenty of options. How about we use:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf House of Commons Library Research Paper 00/47 The Local Government Bill [HL]: the ‘Section 28’ debate

SP-KP 11:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)