Talk:Sammy Wilson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] POV?

I'm concerned about the number of quotes and other information included in this article that add up to a rather POV article. Certainly, one or two of the quotes should perhaps remain if they are particularly notable. But as it stands, this article seems to have a purpose of slating the person it is about, rather than being a NPOV article about a politician. --Mal 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You could surely add your own quotes, then? If you know something he has said of note about say, disability, old age pensioners or something else, feel free to add it. As it is, most people remember him for what he has said about nationalists and homosexuals. Opposition to both has been central to his political success. Consequently, the quotes in question are all very relevant to an understanding of Sammy Wilson's politics, and the section of political opinion which he courts. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. El Gringo 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The quotes should be moved to Wikiquote. As for the tone of the article, the sentence "This particular escapade ... " isn't POV as such, but it is inappropriate. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively El Gringo, you might have executed your research more thoroughly, and included some of his more reasonable quotes as a counter-balance. As it stands, the inclusion of that number of quotes paints a particularly bad picture of the man - THAT is NOT the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Mal 15:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "non-encyclopediac info"?

What do you define as encyclopediac information? Ali G's albeit caustic exchange with him: '"Is you Irish?" Wilson: "No I'm British." Ali G: "So is you 'ere on 'oliday then?"' which another contributor put in this article last year made him better known over in Britain than possibly all else he has said. El Gringo 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And that is what has been included in the sentence I left in. Inclusion of part of the transcript of the 'interview' is not encyclopediac. --Mal 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali G's interview

You can now watch the interview on [1]. Enjoy! El Gringo 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias is creeping back into this article

Where do I begin with this article? A while ago I had noticed that a certain bias had been inserted by one particular source. Now this POV is creeping back in.

The article, as it stands now, makes a value judgement on the subject and does not give its victim the chance to defend himself. The claims are poorly cited, but that is neither here nor there where the overall tone of the article is concerned. Compare this article with that of Gerry Adams - another political figure with whom there has been much controversy. Yet the latter's article is far more balanced and rational.

I note that the article had been changed on the past occasions by an editor with an apparent agenda on Wikipedia, and it seems to be the case again with the new user in question with regard to one particular recent change. I strongly advise other editors to check the contribution history to see if my suspicion is indeed the case.

The new section, cunningly entitled "Controversy", is misleading.. due to the nature of politics, and particularly that of Northern Ireland, where it is nigh impossible to avoid controversy of one sort or another. The quotes may well be taken out of context when presented here in black-and-white. One might as well have written in the article, "That hun Sammy Wilson is loyalist scum" and have done with it: that might be the case, but it is not the place of Wikipedia to lead the reader to that conclusion.

The article, as it stands currently, displays bias described by five of the headings in the bias section of the WP:NPOV official policy page: Ethnic or racial; Nationalistic; Political; Religious and Sensationalist.

This is formal notice that I will be making an effort to remove the poor quality edits from the article if it has not improved, and that I believe the nature of this abuse of Wikipedia merits further investigation. --Mal 10:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)