Talk:Bob Crow/Archive 1

Archive 1

Importance

The article doesn't really say what is important about Mr. Crow. If his only notability is that he is a leader of a union, then it takes a long time to not really tell anything. It is rather unencyclopaedic, and reads like a who's who biog. Is no one able to expand the article, perhaps about Mr. Crow's role in union/government disputes? Or his work in industrial relations and/or actions? For example, we are told that he is one of the "awkward squad" but in what way? User: Devious Viper 12 June 2006

I think in part this is long not just because he's solely a trade union leader but is also regarded as a bit of a figurehead for the left. I agree it should really be restructured and probably a bit more info added if it is to remain as it is, although most of the union leaders pages are laid out simalarly. 217.41.44.182 3 July 2006

He's the leader of the RMT. That makes him important enough to have an article in this encyclopaedia. I'd have thought sounding like a biography was a good thing, for a biography. If Devious Viper wants more information in this article then they should do some research and add it themselves, though I can't imagine what sort of thing it is they are hoping for. GrahamN 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sedbergh School

Anyone got a source for that claim...? Its a leading public school Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

REmoved pending reference Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

conterversy

there should be a section for controversy / criticisms for bob crow. as long there are references to the critisisms. and not mindless abuse (though admittedly it is very tempting as most people who use the trains hate the guy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.174.20 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 30 July 2009

No. Criticism sections inevitably attract attacks on the subject and the airing of grievances. Good articles don't contain separate sections for critical material; they integrate it into the article as a whole. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article does not give an accurate representation of the individual.

Bob Crow has publically contradicted himself in various quotes - most notably regarding the July 7th bombings. Once I find links to these I'll add them into the article.

I think there should be a criticism section. Many BLP articles on here about key right-wing figures (politicians, journalists etc) contain a criticisms section with 90% of references from The Guardian so I think a neutral and properly referenced criticisms section for someone as militant and outspoken as Crow is not unreasonable. I will start researching some articles. Christian1985 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Salary

People keep re-editing this article to include his salary. It is entirely irrelevant and being used politically. Surely people can make up their minds based on Crow's trade unionism rather than an arbitrary sum which he is paid. I know what I think about other political figures without knowing the amount they are paid. sevendaughters 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

[Reply] The salary figure is fact; not opinion. Excluding information because it might be used politically is censorship. Knowing what he earns doesn't prevent people from making up their opinions based on the other information on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.129.157 (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite undoing your edit, i do agree that mentioning it is justified. My concern is the fact the figure includes benefits and we do not mention that so it is misleading. So if the total sum is included there needs to be a note somewhere explaining its pay+benefits. Or simply use the Pay figure from the source. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Also there is a more up to date source [1], But the same thing applies as i said above, it would be safer to use the figure for the basic page in the infobox "His basic pay rose from £84,923 in 2008 to £94,747 at the end of last year, according to figures published by the RMT." Then perhaps include a note that mentions other benefits. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

lol nice, i see its just been added to the article. Its probably best to have a section like that rather than a single full package figure in the infobox. Thanks Marcika BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

the new section is much better than a single number at the top. and it's more consistent with articles about politicans, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.129.157 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Crow lives with a partner in a rented Housing Association property even though he earns more than £140,000 per annum" I didn't realise that it was a legal requirement to buy your own home when your salary reached a certain level. I think its his business whether he chooses to rent or buy, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.149.5 (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is that Housing associations are set up to provide affordable housing for those that can't afford it. Someone earning Bob Crow's salary should be able to pay full rent for a property rather than tieing up an affordable house which could otherwise have gone to someone on a much lower salary. Ethorad (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

He lived in an area, he was comfortable there. He didn't want to move. Why is it an issue? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Elections

Why does it say that he contested the East of England region in the 1999 European Parliament elections? He did not stand, just go on the hyperlink and you will find the SLP candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.5.20 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of Champagne Socialism

There have been many accusations of Champagne Socialism levelled against him from various sources. Surly this is an important enough issue given his position and supposed political viewpoint to warrent its own section on this page. A good unbiased article would definitely include negative information (backed up by facts and figures) as well as positive and plain neutral information. Rifleman jay (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments about Thatcher

Should the article mention his remarks about the death of the former Prime Minister Margaraet Thatcher? (92.11.202.19 (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC))

Were these remarks written about anywhere reliable? Samwalton9 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, "The Guardian" reported them. People are discussing it on the website right now. (92.11.202.19 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC))

This discussion is largely a troll. The quote was in April 2013: "I wont shed one single tear over her death... She destroyed the NHS and destroyed industry in this country and as far as I'm concerned she can rot in hell."

Wikipedia does not need to quote Crow but can certainly get by with telling the reader that Crow strongly disagreed with Thatcher's policies. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was an image of Crow removed from this article?

I'm talking about this. It looks legit, but I can see every time a user attempted to add it, someone else kept removing it. 86.143.27.57 (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That is quite clearly not a photograph of Bob Crow. It is just another balding caucasian man... Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism

I have removed some of the comments sourced only to tabloid journalism sources. These are not generally regarded as reliable sources. I would be happy to see some of the content readded, provided it is sourced to more reliable sources to establish its significance. If the BBC or the Telegraph said that the criticism was made, then it can probably be relied on. If only the Daily Mail said it, then who cares honestly? --_nonsense ferret 21:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there Nonsenseferret; I should clarify that I am the user who has been making significant contributions to this article over the past few days, having already pulled other left-wing political articles such as Ken Livingstone and Nelson Mandela up to GA over the past few months. Thus, I am the individual responsible for adding a number of the sources which you are querying. Unfortunately, we lack a lot of good quality sources that deal with Crow; as far as I am aware, there is no published biography of him, nor any academic studies which discuss him and his significance in the British trade-union movement. Hopefully that will change in time, but it is the state of affairs at present. This being the case, I have had to rely on the sources that we do have; articles provided by the British press. Now I'll be the first to stand up and say that these are not ideal; they focus largely on sensationalist issues and deal with serious issues in a rather ephemeral manner. Regarding the comment that the BBC and The Telegraph are better sources than tabloids like the Daily Mail, again I agree, although I do not think them to be very much better. They avoid some of the sensationalist right-wing populist rhetoric of the Mail, but the actual quality and depth of the information imparted is rarely very different. And as for the comment "who cares honestly" – well, unless I am very much mistaken, the Mail is the second most widely read newspaper in Britain after The Sun, so I'd say that quite a lot of people care ! Anyway, I hope that we can both work together in pulling this article up to a better standard through the appropriate use of sources in future. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My view is that there does seem to have been a great deal written about Crow in reliable sources, even although some of the details they present are not quite as reliable as they should be. The criticisms raised by the Mail are often mentioned in other sources who present a more balanced view. I feel it is reasonable to point to a secondary discussion of the criticism in a reliable source, rather than a direct quote from a daily mail journalist without being able to offer any sort of analysis of how significant that criticism was. The argument of popularity of the paper isn't really very persuasive when you point out that the Sun was the first most popular, and surely we won't be using that ;) My comment "who cares honestly" should of course be read in the jovial collegiate manner it was intended, and from a strictly encyclopedic perspective. I'm sure it won't be a problem at all to get to good content we are both happy with. --_nonsense ferret 00:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% that where possible, we should make use of a slightly more reliable second-hand source (i.e. BBC News, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) rather than a tabloid (i.e. Mail, Mirror, Express, Sun) where those are available. There are cases, however, where I deem it necessary to quote directly from a tabloid. For instance, in the "Final Years" section I have included a quote that Crow gave in an interview to the Daily Mirror which I think adds greatly to that particular section. I have not seen the quote replicated elsewhere, and thus I think it necessary to stick the tabloid in as the source. I hope that in situations such as this, you will agree that this is necessary. Oh, and regarding the argument about the popularity of the Daily Mail, I was being light-hearted too! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, could I respectfully make the suggestion that you consider incorporating your sentence and sources on champagne socialism ("Both the Daily Mail and Daily Express deemed him a "champagne socialist" for his lavish lifestyle") into the section I hived off to develop discussion on that point further. I struggle a bit to see it as a legacy as such, rather than just a criticism that occurred during his lifetime. Seem reasonable to put it there? I think our edits on this point probably crossed over with each other. Sometimes I don't save as often as I should, so I'll try to bear in mind someone else may be working on content at the same time. --_nonsense ferret 00:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest that we include the reference to "champagne socialist" in both sections ? And may I add that you are really making some excellent additions Nonsenseferret. Really glad that you are contributing to this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring the "Trade union career and politics"

Hello all. As regular observers of this page should be aware, I am one of a couple of editors who have recently contributed much to the construction and expansion of this article in the wake of Crow's sudden death. However, I am a little concerned with the current structure of the "Trade union career and politics" section. Rather than offering a chronological analysis of Crow's career, from his rise to RMT leadership, through the various strikes that he led and onto his brief political career and death, it seems to be a little bit jumbled, offering sections on different themes within Crow's life, including sections devoted to the criticism which was aimed at him. Specific criticism/controversy sections are of course deemed bad practice here at Wikipedia; instead we as editors are advised to incorporate any criticisms into the main text. I really think that we need to restructure this section on a chronological basis. As an example of the sort of model which I am advocating, look at the GA-quality article on another prominent left-wing figure in recent London history, Ken Livingstone. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

UKIP

Just reverted an edit which was made on the basis that UKIP are "not a major party in the UK". First off, I'm pretty much a lefty, and no fan of UKIP by any means. But, facts is facts: Ofcom says they are a "major party". eg Our decision is that the United Kingdom Independence Party ("UKIP") should be added to the list of major parties in England and in Wales for the 2014 European Parliament elections. Keri (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1