Talk:Leighton Andrews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Isn't it just a POV that he has one of the sharpest political minds. You could argue that Lord Elis-Thomas is sharper?

I think that needs to be re-written User: Scifry

Also, does he need two links to his blog. IMHO we should only include that latest link as he should migrate data accross. User:scifry


I will add links to other prominant welsh politicansd referenced in this stub {{user: scifry]]

From the article: His blog remains a “must read” of Welsh politicos That's hardly a fact, more of an opinion (and one I'd probably disagree with!)--Rhyswynne 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is highly POV - it reads as if it has been copied from one of Andrews' election leaflets. Cantiorix 07:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


The above issues now seem to have been resolved and puffery/POV removed. Only one of the subject's blogs is now cited. That should mean there is no longer any dispute about POV on behlaf of the subject. However, some of the references are to highly tendentious blogs, contrary to WP:BLP. Surely these should be removed and more reliable sources inserted if they exist? Penpych (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity

I agree with much of what has been said previously regarding bias. I deleted the POV comment that said his blog was a "must read". The winning of awards is a fact that can be reported here, but to suggest that Mr Andrews blog is a must read is not a verifiable fact. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also say that:
"He is also seen as one of the most hard-working constituency Assembly members"
"He masterminded the high-profile campaign to keep Burberry jobs in the Rhondda."
"His re-election in 2007 with Labour's highest share of the vote in Wales, despite a national swing against Labour, was seen as an acknowledgment of his efforts."
"Andrews is one of the highest profile Welsh Assembly Members."
"He is seen as bright and articulate, and his excellent communication skills mean he is a regular face on Welsh media."
are all a bit POV - looks like someone's got a crush on him!--Rhyswynne (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rhys. I've made few edits to the article, going through it in steps so that reversions are easier. I've commented on each edit, with justification where appropriate. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of this puffery now appears to have been removed. However, the link to the 'Brit-nats-watch' blog should be removed and replaced with a more objective reference, in accord with WP:BLP, and so should the link to the bramley.demon blog Penpych (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article vandalism & David Taylor

This article seems to be subject to an awful lot of vandalism, especially with anonymous edits from some one keen to puff-up the description of the article subject. On the subject of anonymity and puffery, I note that previous mentions of one David Taylor were removed from this article some time ago. Why ? --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is taking its toll - there are a number of pojnts where the text doesn't read correctly, and most of it is disjointed. I have resultantly applied a wikify tag. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Trident13 it needs to be wikified, and put that down to my and others' inexperience, but Darren Wyn Rees above appears to have been the source of a lot of the vandalism over the last three days, replacing objective text and meaningful references with a quote from - er - a blog he is closely associated with, apparently in order to mount a personal attack on the subject, counter to wikipedia rules and probably UK libel laws. Penpych (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see there has been a lot of editing, during which the previously applied PoV tag from November was removed - by conclusion there is still debate over the PoV taken form the mass of edits and the debate: hence reapplication. Secondly, if you want to quote sources, please make sure that they comply with WP:RS - blogs generally don't, especially current political ones which are highly POV by nature. However, on the good side at least there is concensus that an article is needed and that one could be constructed which includes all facts. If we could sort out the points of debate, I think we could get back to a stable article. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Trident13 - sensible comments and advice. Penpych (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)