Talk:Robin Teverson, Baron Teverson

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government

	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 WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

European Union

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Terrye Teverson

My reasons for removing the Terrye Teverson section of the article are covered by the MOS (MOS:BODY) in two regards:

1. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. The Terry Teverson section was 1 and a bit lines. It was too short.

2. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar. Most UK politician articles have a single "Personal life" section for the person's marriages and family, and perhaps an "Early life" section to describe their background and education. I cannot think of a single UK politician who has a separate section about one of their spouses. Given the precedent of other pages, this section is not justified.

On a more specific point, it seems completely odd that we would create a section for his second wife, and not one for his first, who he was married to for 30 years, including during the time he was an MEP. Frinton100 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The entire article is rated as a stub and all of it is very short at the moment. That does not mean that the article should not be given structure as part of the articles continuing development. I shall make the Terrye Jones section longer, which should address this concern.

2. You have not used WP to support your case but say you havn't seen any and therefore claim precedent. If needed I could provide examples of where this has been done elsewhere.

3. The creation of a specific section assists the reader in locating a part of an article from a link. That aside, I don't think that relative tenure of an event is a strong argument for not highlighting a part of someone's life. Any other editor is of course at liberty to create a section for his first marriage. Graemp (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have used wikipedia to support my case, once again the link is MOS:BODY. And if you don't think that covers the issue, WP:STRUCTURE makes clear that undue weight must not be put on one aspect of an article through its structure.

I would be interested to see any articles where a similar section has been created, because as I say, I can't think of any, and I have read a lot of similar articles. Frinton100 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't get that quite right. I should have said that your point in 2. is not supported by WP. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar is not in itself enough to rule out creating a section heading for a spouse. WP:Structure is a WP developed to address undue weight issues relating to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In this, undue weight is concerned with bias, not the extent to which some parts of an article are developed more than other parts. In the Herbert Asquith article there is a section headed Venetia Stanley, who was not even his wife. There are of course many others. Graemp (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 in my first post is also from the MOS:BODY section - the italicised text is copied straight from the article. The Veneita Stanley section in H. H. Asquith is a subsection within the "Personal life" section. This section is quite long, so has been divided into subsections. What has not been done is to create a completely separate section away from all the other personal life elements as had been done with Teverson. Stanley also has an impact on his premiership, so it is important to give a brief background of her life. Frinton100 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)But Venetia Stanley is notable enough to have her own article, and her relationship with Asquith is significant to his premiership. I see nothing to suggest that Terrye Teverson is either notable enough to merit an article, nor that her relationship with Robin Teverson is particularly significant to his actions in office. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Thank for contributing. I don't think it helps to dwell too much on the Venetia Stanley situation. I provided this an example of where a biographical article used as one of its headings the name of another person and then gave over that section to providing some biographical details. This was to address the point about "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar". Frinton100 did not know of any such examples. I agree with you that Terrye Jones lacks sufficient notability to warrant her own article, that is not in dispute. What is also not in dispute, is that she should appear in the article, given that she is the wife of the subject. I think as his wife, she could merit her own paragraph in the article, almost regardless of the extent to which she is involved in either his public or private life.

This is rated a stub class article and before today, it was a genuine stub of an article. Today Frinton100 has done some good work on expanding it. With further expansion, it would not appear odd for such an article to contain a separate section on Terrye Jones, particularly given there is more to include about her that would be interesting and informative to the reader. Given the relative stage in development of this article, it might be best at this stage to create her section as a subsection of "Personal life". Graemp (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. She's stood for election a few times, not been elected. A mention in the personal life section is perfectly adequate. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DuncanHill. No need to mention any more than they got hitched, she stood for election a few times. End of. And I definitely think there is no need to link her name in the election boxes when she was a candidate to this page. Frinton100 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]