Talk:David Wilshire

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NPOV

This article is weighted very negatively; there is a huge focus upon thing which have received negative attention. There is zero mention of any of the other parliamentary work he has done. One-sided and appears to fall foul of WP:UNDUE. – Toon 13:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean like claiming that Britain was full? Or saying that Princess Diana should stay away from Parliament?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You surely don't disagree that the article is being used to push someone's POV here? – Toon 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched through Google News looking for something to balance it with. I didn't have any luck -- how about you?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed. If it is truly the case that this politician has never been written about positively in any reliable source, then we may have a real problem. But for now, stubbed while we work on a balanced biography and not something that reads like a Labour hit piece. Thatcher 14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LexisNexis contains 278 articles containing the terms "David Wilshire", "tory" and "Spelthorne" prior to Jan 1, 2009, before the scandal broke (plus numerous articles from 2009 about the scandal, of course). Probably most of those are for the correct person. (There are more than 1000 articles on "David Wilshire" but they may not all be about the Tory MP.) I imagine somewhere in those 278 articles there must be an occasional positive statement. I don't have time to look them all up, and this is not my area of expertise anyway. But they are out there. Thatcher 14:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem wasn't soley what information was presented, but how it was written, as Thatcher alludes to, it read like the Lib Dem flyer I got through my door at the last general election _{(bias disclaimer: I voted for a Lib Dem MEP)}. – Toon 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the problem is. I wrote most of what was on the Wikipedia page (and I don't have any party political leanings!) Everything I wrote was a fact and I backed everything up with sources. Just because something seems unbalanced to some people, this doesn't mean it is negative. For instance, it is a fact that David Wilshire was the architect of Section 28 legislation and that he is so opposed to the National Minimum Wage that he tried to launch a bill in May to have it abolished. To some people, these are causes to support mr Wilshire, to others these are causes to oppose. But what cant be ignored is that these are facts. I don't believe it is in the principles of Wikipedia to delete facts on this, or any, basis. The expenses story is a major story in his local constituency and it is a fact that Mr Wilshire caused quite a stir when he was exposed in the Daily Telegraph and then appeared to change his story to the local press - to the point that his former colleague has set up a group that is trying to force him out. These are all facts with sources and what it currently states about him denying the charges doesn't explain the full story nor does it do justice to the truth. I wouldn't dream of deleting any facts about Mr Wilshire that show him in a positive light (bar the fact that some people will view him in a positive light because of Section 28 and the minimum wage), but as someone else has said, I cant find anything that does show him in an objectively positive light. Please can I reinstate what was originally written? Albo2005 (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "Mr Wilshire caused quite a stir when he was exposed in the Daily Telegraph and then appeared to change his story to the local press - to the point that his former colleague has set up a group that is trying to force him out." - I have no problem with facts but I do have concerns around misleading arguments and suggestions.

The exposure you describe in the Telegraph is currently under litigation as factually untrue. The change of story to the press you elude to... His comments refer to his stance on the expenses row as a whole not his own part in it. The same story goes on to explain he refused a conference stating he preferred to answer each concern one-to-one, which I understand he has been or some time now with evidence rather than sensationalism. His former colleague has been gunning for him for a long time for reasons far less substantial than this and not backed up with evidence. They had an opportunity to oust him last week but presented no evidence to support such a motion.

Your tone I'm afraid does suggest bias and your 'facts' are very suggestible to someone that most certainly does have a political leaning. I won't pretend I don't, but I'm still very concerned by the leaning of this piece.

Fear not facts and references to follow. Might I suggest this article is reviewed further and until a balanced tone can be found or perhaps a factual account without such strong leanings, that it remains as per its previous version under 'Thatcher'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.134.192 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Wilshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Wilshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052721/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stainesguardian.co.uk/li/member_of_parliament.in.Staines/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23496659-details/Supporters+of+third+Heathrow+runway+blast+Cameron%27s+%27lie%27/article.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Wilshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216053648/http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=30&info_id=11965 to http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=30&info_id=11965

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]