Talk:Harriet Harman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Studies at York

Per the article, "Harman is a niece of Elizabeth, Countess of Longford and was educated at St Paul's Girls' School, London and the University of York, where she studied law." but York didn't get a law department until last year. Anybody know what this should say? — ThomasHarte 14:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

She studied politics at York- see http://www.harrietharman.org/about_harriet.html Vanky 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Experience

Nothing is said about her time at the Brent Community Law Centre where, with Jack Dromey, she was much involved with the Grunwick strike (among other things). MWLittleGuy (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) When you say 'involved' in Grunwicks, do you mean just hung around in a boiler suit pretending to care about workers rights, or more substantial actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.34.245 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

image

--Sandy Donald 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

QC

Is she really a QC? She seems to have qualified as a solicitor, and in the article there's nothing about her being called to the Bar. Perhaps for QC read PC? Millbanks 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Her page on the Ministry of Justice's web site (http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/harman.htm) names her "Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP". --stephenw32768<user page><talk> 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently solicitors can apply to take silk. I expect she got it because they couldn't face the fuss she'd make if she was declined. I'm told that being an idiot doesn't necessarily prevent someone becoming a QC. Heir2blair 11:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting record

I have added an objective voting record summary on key issues. Could people please not delete this as i feel it is more than valid to be here - on a MP's page. I haven't used any "weasel words" Chendy 11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we need to change this. Firstly, we don't bold things. Secondly it is POV, what does 'moderately' and 'strongly' mean? In whose view? We've a statement to say she's normally supported the government, that fine. It is thus unneccessary to narrated all the times she had. I think it acceptable to say something about the excesptions and perhaps a bit about her attitude to Iraq. But the rest isn't any good.--Sandy Donald 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have originally sourced the information from "they work for you" where they list the info like that. On inspecting the source information form parliament i think you are correct that votes are either for or against. I will amend the information as opposed to removing it. Thanks for the clarification.Chendy 12:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine. But don't include all the places she has supported the government. The details of MP, who has been a cabinet member, has supported the government are not remarkable. What remarkable is only place she has either opposed it, or made it an issue by later trying to distance herself (e.g. Iraq). --Sandy Donald 12:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point that to you and (those who understand the intricacies of British politics) that it is trivial to highlight what she is required to do as a cabinet member, but it is her decision to be in cabinet (ie not resign etc) and so i feel it is important to clarify the key/controversial issues she has supported etc. i.e. it is not an excuse to say she voted for certain things because she was in the cabinet - she was in the cabinet because she shared certain views and intended on voting a certain way.Chendy 12:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a need to have a voting record for MPs? It's not useful information, it would never appear in an encyclopaedia entry or Who's Who, and it's very selective and open to misuse. Let's get rid of it. 82.69.77.254 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Alex T
It's a shame to see this go. A voting record is notable, specifically when it references contentious or controversial debates. The Iraq was vote was one such debate, with much public scrutiny and column-inches devoted to the votes. I remember there being some resignations also occurring due to the Iraq vote. To say that it is not relevant to a bio is wrong. As naive as it sounds the voting record of an MP is meant to reflect the will of their constituents. They are after all MPs who represent the electorate, not celebrities. Their votes are a reflection of that representation. Zammo —Preceding comment was added at 12:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I favour removing voting summaries from TheyWorkForYou.com for the following reasons (as well as those listed above). Some of these points were covered on Talk:David_Lammy, where the final decision was removal.

1a) The information is subject to considerable change and whilst TWFY is updated automatically, Wikipedia is not. Keeping it up to date for all MPs is too big a task for editors, and is unnecessary given the information exists elsewhere, on a well-known site that we already link to. This is particularly relevant as I've just compared the info in the current revision (228403824) to that on TWFY for Harriet Harman and it is different - the current revision says "Has not voted on a freedom of information act", whilst the TWFY page says "Voted for a transparent Parliament". It appears the criteria for this policy issue has been amended, or that it has been replaced altogether with a different one.
1b) TWFY.com is not the source of the information anyway. The data comes from The Public Whip and is interpreted by TWFY (although the two sites are have close links). Individual voting details may be relevant for particular politicians (Iraq for Harriet Harman is probably one, given her change of heart) but block copying is not. And I didn't think it was Wikipedia policy to directly copy blocks of information from other sites anyway.
2a) The choice of topics on which voting has been tracked is definitely POV, as they could almost all be construed as anti-government. There's nothing, for example, on whether an MP voted for/against more money for the health service, or for/against the schools rebuilding programme - issues that Labour supporters might point to to show their MPs in a better light. Who should decide if an issue is 'controversial' or not? TWFY.com have made a decent effort, but it's still their POV. For example, "introducing student fees" used to be one of their controversial issues - but now student fees are widely accepted and considered controversial. It has been replaced by "introducing student top-up fees", the controversy over which has declined and maybe that too will be removed in time.
2b) The anti-government POV aspect is reinforced by the fact that voting record summaries are almost only added to Labour MPs and not those from other parties. And from what I've seen it's often added by the same few editors.
3a) The way the summary of the voting record is calculated lacks subtlety. For example, an MP who voted in favour on all the votes on national smoking ban legislation, but voted against the legislation for bans that would have applied just to Wales or just to taxis in London is considered to be 'moderately in favour of banning smoking'. There is an argument to be had here (and a POV one at that) as to whether voting for a complete ban should over-ride not voting for smaller, piecemeal measures. The context is important for the data to be meaningful, and these crude summaries cannot always do justice to complicated issues.
3b) On this particular article, all the 'moderate', 'strong' and 'very strong' qualifiers to voting behaviour have been removed. This potentially makes the information inaccurate, as MPs may vote for one measure on banning smoking and against another. Having just 'for' or 'against' on Wikipedia is potentially misleading.
4) There is no appreciation in the voting record on the quality of legislation. MPs may approve of the intent behind the legislation, but not the wording of the bill in front of them. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is an excellent example, as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats publicly backed the intent of the legislation to remove burdensome regulations from business, but voted against the government's bill on numerous occasions until the text was improved - and then supported it at the end. A voting summary could be produced that showed MPs as indecisive on key issues, when actually the way they vote each time is entirely consistent with their principles and reflects them doing their job of scrutinising legislation well. Principle and practice can justifiably be two different things in this context, and voting summaries cannot take into account.
5) The information is of particularly little value in relation to ministers and shadow cabinet members. It is unnecessary not only because there is an overt expectation that they will vote with the party line - it is the nature of being in party politics at the highest levels - but also because senior figures rebelling against the party line on important votes is so rare that when it happens it gets plenty of media coverage. Those occasions are certainly noteworthy, but there will be better source material (e.g. newspaper articles) to explain what took place and why, than a simple voted for or against checklist.

Despite all these criticisms I think the information can be very useful - when read in context with the explaination you get on the Public Whip site and the debate around the issue - and I support having a link to it on every MP's entry. Annexed (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

private life

... not married? Nobody in her life? 217.230.231.188 (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes she's married to Jack Dromey. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Equalities Bill

I've just tidied up the 2 sections dealing with the equalities bill, as they were slightly unbalanced and had some misleading statements. I have altered it to be more neutral, whilst noting the criticisms made of the proposal. I've also added links to the white paper itself and HH's speech and reply by Theresa May. IJBLondon (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back after revision by an anon user. The phrasing I used was not 'hiding the facts' - it covered the issue neutrally. I also removed the last sentence tacked onto this section about HH's nickname - of course its valid to have it in the article, but it was not a proper sentence and putting it at the end of this section is misleading as it was in use before the Equalities Bill. --IJBLondon (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination against heterosexual white males

I have changed the sub-heading Discrimination against white males to "Positive action" on discrimination. The BBC article referenced in this section says:

"firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to - or vice versa....Allowing "positive action" would help organisations such as the police better reflect the communities they serve by recruiting more female and ethnic minority officers, said Ms Harman. But if, for example, a headmistress wanted to discriminate in favour of a male teacher to balance an all female team that would be allowed too."

Quite the bigoted little git, isn't she? 24.6.159.76 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The heading Discrimination against white males is therefore incorrect, as it is not only against white males; it is against any significant majority of gender, ethnicity or age in a workplace. "Positive action" is how it is phrased in the BBC article, and keeping the quotation marks around it implies that the 'positive' nature of this discrimination is in dispute - as does its appearance under the 'Controversies' heading and the accompanying text explaining why it is controversial. Annexed (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added reference to Harman's desire to increase the representation of gay MPs to the very precise number of 39. I think it's worth highlighting. (I amended above heading to include 'heterosexual, since its inherent). Gmunder (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Have removed 'massive'.137.73.160.27 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

False sub heading

There is nothing positive about discrimination and that part of the proposed changes to the bill is soley intented to discriminate in favour of women and ethinc minorities. It is blantant that white males are going to be the main, by a massive margin, group to be discriminated against. The BBC article referenced does not call it 'positive' action, that is HARMANS name for it and it is blantantly untrue. She is an openly militant feminist and far leftie.

Harman pushes discrimination plan: "Harriet Harman sets out plans to MPs. Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out plans to allow firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority job candidates." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm That is black and white mate. The bill is against white males.

What a load of crap. Keep your political rants to your blog - wikipedia has enough of it already. At least sign your goddamn username. 212.120.231.220 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


How helpful!
A 'load of crap', what an incredibly persuasive argument.
READ, my myopic Guardianista friend:

'Equality supremo Harman admits new law will lead to discrimination against men' "The forthcoming Equality Bill would allow organisations to hire a woman or worker from an ethnic minority over a white male of equal ability." http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4229199

'Equality Bill: Labour's latest attempt at social engineering' "Faced with the choice of two equally skilled candidates the State would welcome employers opting for the woman rather than the man; the ethnic minority candidate over the white alternative." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/richard_tyler/blog/2008/06/30/equality_bill_labours_latest_attempt_at_social_engineering

'Harman pushes discrimination plan': "Harriet Harman sets out plans to MPs. Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out plans to allow firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority job candidates." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm

The bill is intended to discriminate against white males. I wish it were not true but it is. So why attempt to mask it in the newspeak nonsense of the person who is pushing it? Is Wikipedia not in theory supposed to strive for UNbias articles? Then why take your 'facts' from the horses mouth in such a contentius issue? 86.165.192.165 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooh! You can quote a couple of right-wing newspapers in favour of your view. I'm quivering in my vegan boots! My idiotic Guardianista views have never been challenged before!
My point was that wikipedia is not the place for political ranting. It is the place for a nice section explaining why some commentators (like the ones you are quoting) hold one view, balanced out by other commentators, and the person in question, holding a different view. If you want to push viewpoints, do it on your blog or the comments section of a newspaper, and stop wasting our time.212.120.231.220 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. Well done on the wikilinks to illustrate your incisive comments. I'm feel so much better informed. 212.120.231.220 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the equality bill is listed twice. Two entries for this seems unnecessary, these could surely be merged?86.165.192.165 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We could even consider merging "controveries" section with the rest of the article. It would be a more balanced way of presenting the debate, which deserves more than merely a little postscript at the end. 212.120.231.220 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Second home

There is fleeting reference in this to her second home. This is in the pretty village of Waldringfield (I don't have a source, sorry). If anyone could elaborate that would be good.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.228.14 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed the infobox a while back and was reverted. I have today changed it back. I began changing the infobox because it showed the wrong date for the end of Harman's term as Solicitor General. Along the way to getting it to work right, I changed a couple other things. First, I changed it from template:Infobox Deputy Prime Minister to template:Infobox Officeholder. They former seems to just redirect to the latter, but still seems odd to use since she is not Deputy PM (I assume it was copied from John Prescott's article). I also changed the order in which the offices are displayed. It seems to me that Harman's current public offices should be displayed before her current party ones. The only reason I can think of for putting Deputy Leader near the top is the fact that she has deputised at PMQs. The article Leader of the House of Commons suggests that she did so because of that office, not the Deputy Leadership. This might be supported by Harman's apparent belief during PMQs that Theresa May, the Tory Shadow Leader of the House, should have deputised for those sessions rather than William Hague.

As I said, I was reverted. If someone seeks to do it again, could we please talk about it here? -Rrius (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Harman is just clueless about that. If she had any sense of memory she will recall that the opposition always put their number two up as the second regardless of whether the second government figure is the deputy leader or Leader of the House or what. Labour did the same when they were in opposition, without her whinging. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article Prime Minister's Questions supports the interpretation that the post of Leader of the House, not Deputy Leader, explains why Harman deputises, "If the Prime Minister is away on official business then a substitute will answer questions. This is usually the Deputy Prime Minister, a post currently unfilled; the Leader of the House of Commons, or another senior Minister." -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Age

An IP editor recently changed Ms. Harman's birth year from 1948 to 1950. The only thing I saw on a very quick Google search was a IMDB knock-off that agrees with the IP editor. Does anyone have a real source for either year? -Rrius (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This BBC page from 1997 agrees with the 1950 date. Road Wizard (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, my concern is that she may have shaved a couple of years off at some point. If we can't get a definitive source (such as a legal document), can someone use her years in school or year admitted to the practice of law as circumstantial evidence? -Rrius (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
GRO Index birth entry September quarter 1950 Marylebone volume 5d page 470 - Harriet R Harman mother's maiden name Spicer Keith D (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why no DPM?

I think this article needs more detail on why Harriet was not made Deputy Prime Minister, at the moment I think there is only a light mention of it. It says she did want to be DPM but no reason to is supplied to why. I hard that she was given Party Chair instead but that's no real substitute. Also is it right that on the Cabinet of the United Kingdom page Harriet is not in second place in the hierarchy of the government. She used to be in last place but got promoted to around 5th I think.

[User:thealexweb|thealexweb]] (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons not to: just because Prescott was Dept. Party Leader and Dept. PM doesn't mean every person holding the former office would hold the latter. Also, we can't just speculate about why GB would choose not to have a DPM—we'd need verification. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
On the government hierarchy question, I don't think there is any formal precedence over which role outranks another. It is just a matter of perception of the importance of the post and the influence of the holder at any given time. For example, a Foreign Secretary is seen as important when the public gaze is on foreign affairs but less so when there are bigger domestic problems to sort out.
If you want to place her in the number 2 position you will need to find some significant source evidence, as even the official Downing Street press release lists her in 11th place.[1] Road Wizard (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think in times past there was a formal ordering for Cabinet ministers, but it tended to be worked out on an ad hoc basis for each government rather than a strict ranking by job held. Also it would probably have only been of importance for various ceremonies and very formal lists, and even then different listings might use different orderings. (For example for a long time the Home Secretary ranked above the Foreign Secretary, simply because when the two posts were created the first Home Secretary was a peer and the first Foreign Secretary a commoner. I believe the Palace lists continued to follow this ranking long after government lists used the reverse order.) Timrollpickering (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Surely the passing of confidential documents to her by her sister should count as a controversy? Currently under the family section. Bedeage 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits.

I have rewritten some sections and moved things around a bit, I thought the article was a bit negative towards Harmen abd that it was a bit tabloid. If anyone has gone any comments or concerns about any of my edits, feel free to discuss them with me here. Off2riorob (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, some good edits. I came across this article the other day and thought it way too negative, with far too many pinion pieces from the Daily Mail. I tried to add some counter quotes to give balance.

Couple of things? Perhaps source TB's support for Harman rather than just delete. Of course someone can have more than one job! If I have a day job then take on a weekend job, I have more than one job. Some of Harman's roles are party roles, some are governemnt etc.

Anyway these are minor quibbles as the article is looking miuch better today than it did yesterday. Grakirby (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The 5 jobs are more like positions and titles than actual jobs. A couple of times it is mentioned and there are cites including that Harmen is a blairite, link me the diff and if you think it's important lets put that back. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
Sorry I didn't reaslise there was a talk on the recent edits. Some were ok, but as others have pointed out there really was uncalled for deletion of really key sentences - eg the complete removal of key quotes of the findings of the electoral commission and such edits clearly needed to be reverted immediately. The worst edit of the lot was the wholesale deletion of the fact Harman's sister was found in contempt of court for passing papers to Harman herself. Then the same editor proceeded to add a fact tag questioning whether Harman even has a sister called Sarah, when he himself had deleted the actual source proving as such. Please don't just delete the controversial parts of her career or quotes which are critical of her - just add something supportive instead if relevant. Also please spell her name correctly - it is "Harman" not "Harmen".--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen the message I left on your talk page? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Harman's sisters.

Hi, I see you have reverted some or most of my changes to the Harmen article. did you see the talk page where my comments were left? As I spent quite a few hours attempting to improve the article I would appreciate a discussion with you about your reverts. I am out now but I will comment there later. Regards. 09:56, 8 August 2009 Just to get us started the comment about the sister, it is unexplained and I could find no more citations to explain it, what happened? can you find me another citation that supports and expands the daily mail citation? [[2]] Her sister Sarah was a lawyer and part-time judge. She resigned having been caught passing confidential papers to Harriet Harman, then Solicitor General. Sarah Harman was found guilty of contempt of court and "conduct unbefitting a solicitor". She was ordered to pay £25,000 costs.

As this is a very controversial comment about a living person, If you want to insert it, could you please explain and support it with a another citation.

this is all there is in the mail citation....Her sister Sarah was a top lawyer and a part-time judge until a bizarre case when she wrongly passed confidential papers to then Solicitor General, er, Harriet Harman. Sarah Harman was found guilty of contempt, "conduct unbefitting a solicitor", was ordered to pay £25,000 costs and stepped down as a judge.

That citation is in fact a bit of an attack piece, also there is nothing in the citation to support the fact that Harman has three sisters or that the other two are soliciters.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Especially this edit, if there is no support for this comment and it is left unexplained, I would like to remove is for protection of living person BLP, and when you come back we can discuss it. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

I have rewritten it and added stronger cites. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

This revert.

[[3]] with your edit summary of... restore previous version of this section so it does not falsely imply Pizzey is her only critic. Previous version also better as it is much more focused on Harman herself.

Frstly I would like to say that excessive criticism is a bit undue weight, my rewrite doed not falsly imply anything, it states the point and adds a comment a best selling novelist and internationally renowned for starting the first womens refuge. , the comment I left in is actually the one that is worthwhile, the Leo Mckinstry guy is a small time columnist, what was it whty he got upset with her? she sacked him or something? and if harman was to turn all things into gold he would say that it wasn't gold enough. The version that you have replaced is overly critical.

here is your opening ..Harman has received criticism for her perceived negative views of fathers and dislike of families particularly from the right wing and conservative press. Erin Pizzey criticised.......

criticism criticism...in the first two lines.and you have inserted another link to the right wing daily mail..don't you see the issue..Hariet harman did this ...but according to the daily mail, this is rubbish and this is wrong and she was ctiticised by the daily mail for this...by overly adding these right wing comments from people with no standing in the respected world you are adding undue weight to the article, we can find ten axe wielding criticisms from the right wing press but inserting the makes the article overly negative.

it is overly negative. You say in your edit summary that your version is more focused on harman. I disagree with you, your version is more focused on critism of harman, my rewrite is more focused on the actually story and also included the disagreement of a very respected person. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

here is my version that you removed...I have added a commet that clears up the fact that other people were critical of the report, that is actually unspoken, there are always people critical especially in politics, usually about half the people are critical, the other parties supporters. This new version no longer could be said to imply that pizzey is the only critic.

Harman was involved with other leading female Labour figures in the creation of the 1990 IPPR report "The Family Way". The stated goals of the report were "the formation of strong, loving and lasting bonds between fathers and their children".[26] The objective of the report was to encourage men to assume more responsibility for their children and partners, with a focus on "inter-dependence" in family relationships as opposed to women's "independence".[27] Some people disagreed with the report, including the renowned author and the creator of the first womens refuge Erin Pizzey ,writing in the Daily Mail, she accused the report of being a "staggering attack on men and their role in modern life" as a result of the report stating "it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion".[28]

As the previous version is overly negative and with excessive critism and I have adressed your issue with the implication that pezzey was the only critic, I suggest that this version is much clearer and encyclopdic. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Attached to the same comment, I have written this..

In May 2008 an interview she gave to the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, Civitas, Harman stated that marriage was irrelevant to government policy and that ministers should not tell people how to bring up their families.[29][30]

and you reverted my edit and inserted this ..

In May 2008 an interview she gave to Civitas appeared to show her views had not changed, with Harman stating that marriage was irrelevant to government policy and that there was "no ideal type of household in which to bring up children".[30]

My edit is imo far better. Your edit includes the original research...appeared to show...that is unsupported by the citation. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Harriet Harperson

your revert here..[[4]] were you inserted this statement which includes original research again..

Harman's strong feminist views and policies have reportedly made her unpopular with some Labour MPs, and have earned her the nickname Harriet Harperson [1][2].

my trim and tidy edit here..

Due to Harman's views on sexual equality, she has aquired the nickname,'Harriet Harperson'.[3]

You will see from your insert that harman is accredited to have not only feminist views but strong feminist views and strong feminist policies. She does have views on equality issues but the attribution to her in your addition are excessive and unsupported by the citation. Also the comment that she is reportedly unpopular due to her feminist views and feminist policies is a step too far towards speculation. Again you reinserted yet another citation from the right wing tory paper the daily mail. My edit is clear and consise and cited with a very nice profile report from the independant. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

I have reverted for the following reasons:
  1. The Daily Mail, whatever your opinion of its slant, is a sufficient source for Wikipedia.

reply, yes it is, in this case with this article there were an excessive number of citations from a source that is well known to be right wing tory, basically harmans enemy..leading to comments in effect...according to harmans enemy..bla bla...so I have been working towards removing a few of them and relacing then with slightly more neutral citation and also comments.

  1. The claim is that her views are "reportedly" unpopular with some Labour MPs. The claim is proven by providing a link to the report.

reply, you can not say that just because the daily mail said that its source repoted..bla bla, ... that the bla bla is a fact, it is not a proven fact, it is a unproven comment by a tabloid right wing tory enemy of harmen.

  1. The source uses the word "strong", so its use is justified. If that article is not enough for you, I will be happy to put references to articles wherein she is quoted as blaming men for financial crisis and as saying leading the party/country can't be left to men. It is frankly absurd to assert that she is not a strong feminist. I get the idea that she would insulted by anyone trying to say she is not.

whether the sources use strong or not unless we have a cite for harmen herslf saying she has strong femenist views then we should not repeat the speculation.

  1. The edit is also clear and concise, and it reflects the source provided.

reply, again you are using biased citations and wondering why the article is crap, we should use sources that are as neutral as possible.

  1. It is no good to try to excise everything that could be seen as reflecting negatively on Ms. Harman. The article was certainly slanted against her before, but there is such a thing as going too far. -Rrius (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

reply, I dispute totally your comment here and I would appreciate it if you took it back or provided citation to support your claim I find it hard to understand why you have inserted this comment.Having a biased right wing tabloid comment does not mean that it is beneficial to the article to insert it.

what a waste of my time your revert has been and the insert is now rubbish imo.


Ok, please show me citations to support that she has strong feminist views and policies.You have inserted a comment that says she has strong femenist views and policies. It is basically a biased lie.Show me her strong feminist policies, it is a rubbish insert, rubbish and biased(Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

she is reportedly unpopular with some mp's ...have a look at that and see what rubbish it is. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

You could add it to each and every politicians article..

David cameron tony blair gordon brown are all reportedly unpopular with some MPs. peter mandelson Harriet harman

when I got to this article there were excessive citations towards the daily mail and I have been working towards balancing the article and I would ask to not to comment that I am removing anything negative about her, I have worked in a neutral good faith way for the benefit of the article and wiki, in the article, I have only written them more truthfully and less from a attack mentality. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Right off the bat, please do not weave your reply into another editor's contribution. It is confusing to readers (especially as to who said what) and, as was the case here, it can disrupt the contributor's formatting choices. Also, it is normal to indent your reply to another contributor to help readers differentiate comments from the various contributors.
Substantively, your position seems to boil down to a dislike of the Daily Mail. News, as opposed to opinion pieces from the "right-wing tabloid" are sufficient for WP:RS. The article itself states as follows:

My edit of the article said,

If it were reworded to put "reportedly" at the front, it would be exactly true. The assertion, the one I said above is proven, is not that she is a feminist, a strong feminist, unpopular, or nicknamed "Harriet Harperson". Rather, the assertion is that it is reported that she is those things. I will admit that as written it does at least appear to carry the unproven assertion that she is a strong feminist.
Of course, there is still the matter of whether it is fair to characterise her as such. First of all, your statement that it is "speculation" is wrong. It is characterisation, possibly opinion, but it is not speculation. The next thing to consider is whether it is merely a right-wing slur, or something else entirely. At least one left-winger has used the term as a compliment[5]. The Guardian explicitly called her a "strong feminist"[6]. Dozens of others refers to her as having "strong feminist credentials",(e.g., the Guardian[7]) or otherwise use "strong feminist" as an adjective, which is not the same thing exactly, but it is close. A simple Google search reveals a strong connection between Ms. Harman and feminism. Further, she is often referred to as Labour's "in-house feminist". Since she is not the only feminist in the parliamentary party, it is clear she is seen as a banner carrier for the feminist movement in the UK.
Finally, there is the question whether it is fair, whatever the sources say, to call her a strong feminist. She has championed women's issues her entire career. She has said that men caused the financial crisis, and that there should always be a woman in one of the Labour leadership posts because men could not be "left to run things on their own".[8] It is fair to say that Harman is a strong voice on women's issues and sees the world through a gender-tinted lens. Acknowledging that is not an indictment of her. If you believe that calling her a strong feminist or acknowledging that she makes some men, even Labour MPs uncomfortable is somehow a criticism of her, then you don't understand how activism works. Harman, and anyone else in the feminist movement, would tell you that the only way to make progress is by being in-your-face making people uncomfortable.
It is clear to me that you are trying to protect Ms. Harman as much as you are trying to remove bias from the article. The information in the article as I have it now accurately reflects the sources (I added the Guardian article) and explicitly notes that it is what is reported, not objective fact. If you intend to revert without a compelling reason, I think we are going to need an Request for Comment or Third Opinion. -23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of this and that. My edits are not to protect anybody, to be honest with you... I dislike her and her attitude and her actions and her opinions.I am going to work on this article until I am happy with it. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
I am not accusing you of anything. Regardless of how you feel about her, your edits here and related to the conversation below have the flavour of trying to protect her from the nasty Daily Mail. I have no doubt that your central motivation is to improve the article. None the less, there is a flavour of protecting her or fighting the Mail or something else. Whether that is conscious or even real, it is how it looks. The reason is that you are fighting against perfectly valid text verified by reliable sources even when the text is self-conscious of the claim by its use of "reportedly".
As to your most recent edit, it is erroneous. The Guardian is not a "right-wing conservative newspaper". Both sources reported the "strong feminism" and dislike of her as fact. The nickname is fact and is widely available on the internet. Finally, "opinioned" is not a word.
I would also note that you did not address a single point I made about her feminism. Please explain how she is not a strong feminist since I have provided ample evidence that she is. -Rrius (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I left that comment on your talk page. why have you reverted me again, this is developing into an edit war and what is in the comment now is rubbish, do you really prefer it or are you attempting to make a point and edit war wih me> Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a point or to edit war. I have made one revert and several constructive edits. What I am trying to do is to present the material in context.
Since my talk page is not the place for this discussion, I am transferring it here. -Rrius (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A feminist is a feminist. Adding strong is silly. I talk to girls...are you a feninist...yes I am..they don't say..oh yes I am a strong feminist. Absolute sillyness. and pointy. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

That is your opinion. I have known people who would call themselves "sort of" feminists and others who (men and women) would call themselves "rabid feminists". Feminism is not a binary state. You can be in favour of a pay equity and a general sense of equality on one end, or employment quotas, women-only short lists, and any number of woman-oriented issues. You can also more or less buy into the full panoply of feminist ideals, but not be terribly committed to the cause. Someone who is very active in supporting women's issues is almost certainly a "strong feminist". Also, it is flat wrong to say "a feminist is a feminist". What feminism means at all can vary according to generation or society. For instance, in 1990s Eastern Europe, feminism meant having the choice not to work or serve in the government. You are acting based on a simplistic view of the issue and in doing so ignoring reliable sources. -Rrius (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
what rubbish. sort of feminist, is this a joke or some attempt to start an edit war with me? and you go on...it's in the cite...it's in the cite.... rubbish. what is your issue here, be honest with me, why are you talking this twaddle? Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you unable to assume good faith. I am telling you the truth of my life experience. The last time I looked, reporting that one's experience is vastly different from another's is not edit warring. As for my insistence about "it's in the cite", Wikipedia is about presenting information that is verified by reliable sources. The information at issue is verified by reliable sources. The current version, to try to assuage your issues, excessively dwells on the fact that the information present is based on press reports. Your general objection at Talk:Harriet Harman to using media reports, though, makes it clear that your objections cannot be assuaged short of calling the media a bunch of right-wingers who make things up. The fact is, press reports are used in Wikipedia extensively, and there is no reason not to use the ones at issue. -Rrius (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

here is what you have created...you have 2 citations from the daily mail and one from the telegraph to support this tiny worthless comment that she has a nickname, which I actually though to remove as they are inherantly negative, but I left it in as it in as it is not overly negative and quite well known....

According to some press accounts, Harman holds strong feminist views that have made her unpopular with some, especially male, Labour colleagues.[4][5] Some have nicknamed her Harriet Harperson, a nickname that is attributed to her detractors.[4]

and here is my simple clear neutral comment....look at it and see how simple it is and there it is , undisputable and neutral, I am proud of my edit.

Due to Harman's views on sexual equality, she has aquired the nickname,'Harriet Harperson'.[6]

Okay, first, there is no cite to the Telegraph. The second cite is to the Guardian. Second, there is one repeated cite to the Daily Mail. Third, the nickname connotes antipathy, and as such removing any reference to why takes away from the value of the article. Fourth, the text as I've written is not negative toward Harman. It is just as easy to take it as negative toward the men who were petty enough to create the nickname. It does not impugn her views, but merely states that she holds them strongly. In addition, it states that press reports tell us that her views alienate from some colleagues and that apparently they have chosen that nickname. Where you get that such a passage is negative toward Ms. Harman is beyond me. Unlike you, I actually like her, though not some of her views. As such, I have no desire to score political points off of her or cast her down. I do want to help make an encyclopedia article that explains who she is. Your sterile edit simply bypasses important context and is, as a result, inferior to my edit. Your implication that my version is disputable is nonsense. It says that news reports say X, then presents two reports from different sources saying X. As a result it is indisputable.
Finally, please stop being nasty. Referring to another's work "rubbish", "useless", "absolute pointy rubbish" is uncalled for. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This discussion continues approximately half way through the following section ("Serious matter."). -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious matter.

Regarding this edit of yours...[[9]]

my edit is this...

The commission said that "having reviewed all the evidence" they would not refer the late reporting to police

you replaced this...

In June 2009 Sir Michael Scholar, head of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to Harman giving her an official warning

your comment is supported by cite 63 the download of the letter from Scholar, I have downloaded it and there is no reference to an official warning.

I am of the opinion that how serious can it be? It was not reported to the police was it? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry I don't really understand what you are talking about here. The statistics controversy and the "serious matter" quote are totally unrelated. That quote pertains to her campaign donations not that statistics issue. Which of these two subjects are you talking about here? You post is tremendously confusing, I'll try to deal with both issues. Firstly, the fact that the Electroal Commision found wrongdoing is notable. Just because it wasn't serious enough to become a police matter is irrelevant. If all mentions of rule breaking by politicians were removed from wikipedia just because the police didn't become involved, then a great many articles would be significantly shorter. As for the official warning quote, it was reported in the press as an offical warning, i haven't read the letter in full though if it sin't actually worded that way then we'll ahve to alter the terminology slightly.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


The daily mail called it an official warning, they would wouldn't they, but the letter form Scholar to harman does not support that at all. Filling up biographies of living people with tittle tattle and opinionated potitical tabloid gossip is not a good thing. It is true that this was more scandal mongering by the press than a serious warning.(Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
Your dislike of the Daily Mail is not sufficient reason to disregard it as a credible news source. If you can find other news sources that reported the incident differently, then do so. Otherwise, your edits look like an attempt to protect Ms. Harman or to replace what was formerly a right-wing bias with a left-wing one. To be clear, I am not saying this claim reflects a right-wing bias. In fact, I think the article is fairly well balanced now after all the work that has been done of late. -Rrius (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

the article was overly cited comment from a newspaper that is right wing tory and I have spent hours attempting to balance this article, not to as you claim, remove all critism of her but to make the article encyclopedic instead of the tabloid trash that was here when I arrived (Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

In my contribution I noted the efforts to balance the article. There is such a thing as going to far. I apologise for being too loose with my language, though. I meant to say that this edit and the Harperson edit looked like an attempt to protect her, not the overall work you did. That said, you cannot dismiss everything from the Daily Mail because it has a slant. Most of that slant is on the opinion pages and headline writing, but even to the extent the slant appears in its reporting, it is not appropriate for you to throw out the baby with the bath water. If the claims conflict with reporting in the quality papers, then by all means dispute the claims here, but it is going too far to simply dismiss anything written by the Mail. -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is more than enough in this article from the daily mail to make that in itself a undue weight pov, as in excessive negative comment fron a nknown negetive sonurce, (Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

I dislike the press in general not just the daily mail. they have licence to fabricate material and then that bias is cited by editors here who care less about neutrality and it is awful.according to the source,,,bla bla and then an editor comes here and adds the rubbish and then resists having it taken out. hilarious (Off2riorob (talk) 1:00 am, Today (UTC+1))
I didn't add the material, so you can stop that right now. Your disregard for the media as sources is your problem, not mine or the project's. News sources are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. I have provided two for applying the term "strong feminist" to her and for noting opposition to her within the party. Even so, the article said these things were "reportedly" true. I even adjusted where that qualifier fell in the sentence to bring as much as possible within its coverage. When that wasn't enough, I explicitly attributed the claims to "press accounts". Rather than be satisfied or offer a some further attempt at compromise, you said in a dummy edit summary, "better, are you joking, it is rubbish, absolute pointy rubbish. strong feminist, what is that? a feminist is a feminist." Please direct me to some evidence of your claim that, despite the sources and objective reality, feminism is a binary state, that there are no differences in the beliefs and levels of commitment of people who consider themselves feminist. -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You have added it. You reverted my edit and replaced marterial that I had removed and left my reasons in the edit summary..Is this a joke? or an attempt to embriol me in an edit war? My edit that you reverted was absolutally fine, and you have been scrambling around and what is there now is silly rubbish. twenty words supported by three cites. Lets work on it more tomorrow.Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No. I learned about the "Harriet Harperson" nickname from this article, so it is impossible for me to have been the one who added it. I haven't dealt with the information addressed in this section at all. What I did was revert the elimination of the heart of the "Harperson" passage, then start making changes to the original to accommodate your demands after your edit. Your version was not "absolutely fine" because it removes vital contest. There is nothing wrong with the current version. It carefully attributes the claim to the media, then cites two press reports to back that up. Also, it is two cites: The Mail is repeated because the Guardian does not attribute the quote her detractors. In fact, it doesn't mention it at all, so I am going to tweak it. -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you revert an edit of mine , then you are responsible for the addition. If you only learned about it today and my edit was simple and clear, no vital anything was removed at all. Your edit is absolutally rubbish, poor and pointy and overly cited, three citations to cover twenty words. I fail to see what your issue is, what a waste of typing and time, worthless pointy , she is a strong feminist twaddle. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

To respond:
  1. You said I added it; I didn't. You were wrong. Your trying to change that to "responsible for" is doesn't change that fact, and the idea that I become responsible for the edit is debatable besides. It depends on context. What's more, I have taken responsibility for trying to improve the text. None of that means I added it. That was just an error on your part.
  2. I never said I only learned about the nickname today, I said I learned about it here. The text has been here for quite a while.
  3. Your version eliminates the context of who gave her the nickname, why they did, and what it says about her.
  4. While I can be concise, I doubt those two sentence only use 20 words.
  5. For, I believe, the third time, there are two cites, not three. One of them is repeated because the other does not mention the nickname, but backs up both "strong feminist" and the animosity felt by her colleagues.
  6. Where I have made grammatical and stylist mistakes, I have corrected them, which is more than I can say for you. You have made up words, used poor punctuation, and misspelled words. The text is somewhat more cumbersome than I would like or than is completely necessary, but it is that way to address your concerns. If you have such a problem with it, I can go back to the single sentence beginning with "reportedly".
  7. Your opposition seems to be three fold. First, you object to the term "strong feminist" as even describing anything real. There are two sources using it, I have explained to you my personal experience, but these are not enough. How about logic. Like conservatism, liberalism, and socialism, feminism is a broad set of political beliefs. Just as one can be a weak socialist, a staunch conservative, or a devout liberal, one can be a strong feminist.
  8. Second, you reject media reports as reliable sources. Too bad—Wikipedia accepts them.
  9. Third, you seem to think it is somehow negative to note media sources call Harman a strong feminist and that some Labour MPs don't like her. It is not. The sentence simply explains that people who don't like her because of her firm feminist beliefs have nicknamed her "Harriet Harperson". There is simply no merit to your claim.
  10. I hope you get some sort of pleasure from insulting other editors and accusing them of edit warring when there is no basis for doing so. If this were a simple matter of dueling reversions, it would be edit warring. Instead, we have each made edits in good faith in an attempt to reach consensus.
-Rrius (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this? I can not bring myself to read it, all of this typing is such a waste. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) my opposition is not three fold at all. you say there is no merit to my claim, please add that it is in your opinion. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I have just read the article again and it is clear someone is reverting good faith edits with no consideration for why they have been edited. I do not know who as as yet I cannot be bothered to look.
I did some work on the "use of statistics" page. My edit although perhaps badly worded far better explained the argument.

a) Official warning is a risky phrase to use as it implies some form of punishment. b) Neither figure 23% or 12.8 is more accurate. The issue is that two government bodies cannot give out different statistics.

I am reverting my edit and then bring it up for comment... here....

Grakirby (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The dispute is quite simple really .. it is which of these two versions of the same comment is the one to insert. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Version one:


Version two:


  • Explanation of first version: The first version is close to the version that has long been a part of this article. It conveys that Ms. Harman has the nickname "Harriet Harperson", and explains where that nickname came from and why. In doing so, it is careful to point out that the information is gleaned from press reports. Originally, the article said she is a "strong feminist" and that "reportedly" that made her unpopular with some Labour MPs who then gave her the nickname. Off2riorob objected to the reliance on the Daily Mail as a source, to it being possible to even be a "strong feminist", and some general sense of "negativity" that he has never adequately explained. I disagreed, but edited to the point where now it also includes a Guardian cite for the proposition that she is a strong feminist and is unpopular with some Labour colleagues. I also changed it so that it is her views, rather than Ms. Harman herself, that is referred to as "strongly feminist". If the information were stripped down to version two, it would have no context. As a result, a reader could gather that the nickname was an affectionate joke created by fellow feminists, that it came from the Tories, or that it Came from the media. Further, it removes insight into how she is viewed by colleagues, which is clearly relevant to understanding her as an MP, thus should be in the article. -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Explanation of the second version When I arrived recently this article was a bit negative, this is not disputed by anyone, I set to work improving it. My comment actually is clear and simple and reflects the single citation I attached. The nickname Har-person is actually a joke about men and women and job titles like workmen, why not workperson or manhole cover , why not person-hole cover etc,and reflects well documented stated by herself, views on equality and has nothing to do with Harmans speculated strong feminist views (is there a quote from Harmen stating that she is a strong feminist, no there is not.My version reflects the simple facts and is not speculative or sensationalist. Version one is actually pure negative press speculation. I feel we should not tag her here as a strong feminist purely repeating the comment from negative sources unless we have a specific citation from Harman herself. Here is what version one actually is attempting to say....According to some newspaper columnists who dislike her, Harman holds strong feminist views (this is pure speculation and attributes something to her for which there is no evidence at all, ProtectionWP:BLP) which have made her unpopular with some (we are all unpopular with some especially in politics) a nickname attributed to her detractors (this again is speculation, the nickname is not overly negative at all, It merely explains the rise in legislation which Harman has been involved in regarding equality issues, which is again reflected in my version of the comment. Just to add that the definition of detractors is ..To speak ill of; belittle. We are not here to repeat belittling comments of people are we. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The over reliance on Daily mail citations when I got here is a side issue, as that newspaper which represents the opposite side of the political spectrum to Harman and is a well known critic of Harman and the labour party of which Harman is a member.Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the second one is more balanced. The nickname Hatty Harperson has been banging round for a while and I dont think anyone knows who first used it whether it was Labour MPs, Tory MPs or journalists. Considering she was elected deputy leader she cannot be that unpopular with colleagues - male or female - besides what politician isn't in some ways?

I think considering the general negative tone that this article had until off2riorob got hold of it it would be a shame to revert to that slant. Version 2 says all that needs to be said. If people want opinions they can read the sources.

I totally agree re the over-use of the DM as a source. In some of my edits I tried at least to put forward a response from HH

However do we mean gender equality?

Grakirby (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment regarding this matter Grakirby, it is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Sexual equality or gender equality (I have checked) are both fine... however I still prefer gender equality as i think it is clearer.

Grakirby (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If gender equality is a more correct I am happy to change to that. 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)(Off2riorob).

I am willing to compromise by taking version two and adding "mocking" before nickname. No purpose is served by avoiding the fact that the nickname was not meant kindly. Also, "acquiring" and several other words would have their spelling corrected. -Rrius (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your move towards compromise, I have corrected acquiring, as regards to mocking, perhaps whoever started it meant it mocking but it was taken up and supported by large parts of the population, women liked it and I was in the construction industry and it was not sneered at in a mocking way, and it still isn't, in construction the workers accepted it and would say, lift that person-hole cover for me and they would say, I am a work-person and not a work-man and a few painters and other trades attracted some women and the workers were polite and accepted that women were equal and this is an example of harperson not being regarded in a solely mocking manner. The nickname in itself is not at all overly mocking and I feel that inserting the word mocking is actually adding undue negativity to the nickname. in truth if we have to add the word mocking then we have to remove the whole comment. As we are not here to repeat mocking comments about living people.Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That the nickname is capable of a less harsh meaning is all the more reason why the context is necessary. It was not intended to be nice. It originated in the 1980s when she did things like ask Margaret Thatcher about women's issues. Here is yet another source, not the Daily Mail, saying it was meant to be insulting toward her because of her feminism. Context is important. -Rrius (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is the comment from the standard..Hattie Harperson invented by enemies to lampoon her feminism... Again .. I repeat.. we are not here to repeat belittling press comments about living people. lets not lampoon her. We can add the citations and people can go and have a look at the bellitling but we don't need to add such pointless negativity. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You are missing a vital distinction. The people who first used the nickname were insulting her. The news account is not lampooning her. It is reporting on the fact that the nickname was created to lampoon her views. Our using it also does not lampoon her, it discusses the fact of its being created to lampoon her. You have to understand that it is not insulting for us to note that the nickname was meant as an insult to her. Please acknowledge that you understand the distinction. -Rrius (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The nickname is in no way overly insulting and we can't say that whoever first invented it meant it as overly derogatory. There are quite a few other worse nicknames around for other politicians. Of course your political opponents will attempt to slur you in what ever way they can, this nickname is not cruel or horrid at all and has actually been a vehicle to advertise her opinions on equality. As someone mentioned, she seems to be quite popular as she was voted deputy PM. Adding mocking is a step too far as regards crystal ball, there are plenty of people that don't find it mocking at all. Lets just insert my clear, simple edit in and we can move on and have a look at some other things in the article that need looking at.Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ok.....

Due to Harman's views on gender equality, her detractors have given her the nickname,'Harriet Harperson'.[7] 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

or...

Due to Harman's views on gender equality, her political opponents have given her the nickname,'Harriet Harperson'.[8]


I like detractors, as it is less specific and could be press or political or whoever. 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer detractors as well because it is simpler. The Guardian cite and the one I linked to above are better than the Independent cite you provide. All that one does is present a false rumour that Harman was going to change her name to "Harperson" and let her respond to it. The others actually support the notion that it is a nickname and that it was created by those who don't like her. -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We can add two citations, one of your choosing and one of mine, and go with detractors, ok? Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I still have a problem with your citation. It does not address the fact that this is a nickname. The question asks whether it is really true that she was going to change her name to "Harperson", then Harman replies that that "sounds like" something from the Daily Mail. No where in there does it say that "Harperson" is a nickname or that the Daily Mail created the nickname. In short, it is irrelevant. -Rrius (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, which citation do you want to use? Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I put the comment in, have a look ,the citation is a bit weak and doesn't actually mention the Harperson, just refers to ..Ms Harman’s campaign focused largely on her appeal to women voters and her record in promoting gender equality. She has been described as Labour’s “in-house feminist”.this is perhaps relevent as regards to Gender equality, a expresion that is directly reflected in the comment, add one of your own to support the detractors and the Harperson nickname and it should be ok, ok? Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added another citation that mentions the nickname specifically, all comments in the sentence are now exactly covered in the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The combination of the two do not get the job done. Even together, all they do is establish that there is a nickname. I have therefore replaced them with the Evening Standard cite that I have twice linked to on this talk page and do so again here. Once again, the point of this passage is not to prove she is a feminist or holds certain veiws on gender equality; it is our task to tell readers about her nickname and where it comes from. -Rrius (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That standard citation has comments added and opinions from the general public and I could go there and add a comment now saying anything I wanted to, I have removed it. The cites I have provided cover the comment completely. One says she holds strong gender equality beliefs and the other says she has the nickname Harperson. That is fine. Off2riorob (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The pertinent information comes from the main text, not the comments. Moreover, your cite still does not support the proposition. Yours does not discuss a nickname at all. It discusses a rumour that Harman was going to change her name to "Harperson". -Rrius (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You didn't even look at my citation at all did you, I had changed that citation and removed it for another totally different one???, you reverted and you didn't even look at what I had inserted, what is that about????
Your citation with comments from the general public is not correct at all. I see you have again reverted. I tire of such boorish tiresome editing. Your citation is nor correct, have a look at the comment section where anyone can post anything they like, that my amigo is not a good citation, I tire of this and will ask for an opinion on your citation, Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, but the two sources you use, even in combination, do not support the proposition. The Times piece says she is disliked by some Labour colleagues. The FP thingy says, "(nickname: Harperson)". That's it. There is no way to justify that the nickname is based on her views regarding gender equality from those two. Mine states in the text, "Ms Harman seemed hurt, however, by the nickname Hattie Harperson invented by enemies to lampoon her feminism." Your concern that there are comments on the page is irrelevant. News pieces are used across Wikipedia, and most allow internet readers to post comments at the bottom. It is a not a reason to oppose the source I have provided. -Rrius (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Your mistake? I would say reverting with out even looking at what I had inserted is representative of your position here. Newspaper sources are not widely used here at all where the general public are allowed to post whatever they want, at least I have not seen that they are.Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I did look at it, but I also had the old one open. I mistook which you used in that version. As for the comments, You are completely wrong. There are millions of links on Wikipedia to newspaper articles and such where the story is being used as a source, and the cite allows comments to follow the story. Here is a story from the front pages of several reputable newspapers, each of which allows comments from the general public: Times of London, The Guardian, The Scotsman, Chicago Tribune, The Globe and Mail, San Francisco Chronicle, and Times of India. -Rrius (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The The Independent, which you thought perfectly acceptable as a source, also allows comments from readers. -Rrius (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is preferable to use links without comments from the general public especially such slanderous ones as are on the link you have inserted, I ask you to remove it and replace it with a less contentious link. You are blinded by your desires. Here is the link I inserted,[13] no comments have been added. This comment is clearly visible from your citation...- Rogan from Irving This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. That is slanderous, please remember we are here to write a neutral encyclopeadia whatever our opinions about the subjects within them. Please look for and insert a link without such comments from the public Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And you are back to the incivility. I ask you to show me where WP:RS it says that media sources are okay unless they allow comments after the article and some poster has said something "slanderous". Wikipedia is linking to the article as a source for its claim. It is not responsible for anything else found there. Your complaint is unmerited, and if anyone is blinded by something, it is you. I listed news sites above that are linked to as sources throughout Wikipedia that allow user comments, and countless of those contain comments that are "slanderous" or would be considered offensive to someone. I have indulged your concerns time and time again, but there is no reason to set up a special rule for this article where sources with comment sections won't be used, or at least when the comments run afoul of Off2riorob. I think this should go without stating, but with the odd views you have on the media, it might not: Comments sections after news articles are not statements by the media outlet, but rather of individuals who read the article and wanted to post. Each has its own standard for what sorts of comments are rejected, but none is responsible for the content of the comments, either internally within the news organization or to law enforcement.
For perhaps the fifth time, the Independent link is wholly inappropriate. It states,

This Wikipedia article does not claim she ever planned to change her name to "Harriet Harperson". As such, the article is a terrible source. What's more, the site allows comments, so anyone could add something nasty, which would run afoul of the ridiculous rule you are trying to invent.

In sum, your concern has no merit as similar articles with similar nasty comments are to be found throughout the Wikipedia project, and the question-and-answer piece you want to link to is unacceptable both because it does not support the matter asserted at this article and because it is open to the same problem you accuse the current source of having. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you to remove it and you insist of keeping it in, supported by all of your opinions here, I have removed it as , removed link which includes slanderous comments, protection of living person. please find a less contentious citation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted you as your removal is wrong. The comments after the article do not reflect on the article and do not trigger BLP in any way. The fact that you have asked me to remove it is irrelevant. You have not addressed a single point I have brought up. There would be a BLP problem if the Wikipedia article contained an potentially libelous comment. It does not. Linking to a libelous article does not implicate BLP or in any way put Wikipedia at risk of liability unless Wikipedia repeats the libel. Since the article itself does not contain the remark at issue, it is even further removed from any danger. Finally, the remark is not libelous (or as you erroneously call it, "slanderous"). No reasonable person would believe that the person leaving the comment is actually trying to defame Harman by stating she suffers from a mental illness that makes her a danger to herself or others. Rather, the person is simply saying he vehemently disagrees with her. We are all entitled to state our dislike for others.

Finally, for what I believe is the sixth time, the piece you link to does not support the claim. It does not even support the idea that "Harriet Harperson" is a nickname. Someone asks whether she was going to change her name to it, and she says it sounds like something circulated by the Daily Mail. Please learn what you're talking about before continuing with this nonsense. -Rrius (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

you have reverted me without discussion?? I have left comments here, pease do not reinsert that citation, it contains slanderous comments towards the subject. Please find a less contentious citation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Saying there has been no discussion is rich. I have explained over and over why there is no problem, but you have simply said you don't like it because you think it is slanderous without even knowing what slander is. -Rrius (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't insert it again, I am another editor asking you to please get a better citation as I don't think comments like the ones on that page should be linked to as it is slanderous to the subject, what reason can you have for resisting my simple request? Why not, just change it for a better citation?Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You reject every citation for one silly reason for another. The Daily Mail isn't good enough. A random member of the public made an insulting remark that has nothing to do with the article. That you are asking for a new citation does not mean that it has to be changed. It is pretty clear that you do not understand WP:RS, WP:Libel, the difference between libel and slander, and what actually constitutes either one. That you or any other single editor has an irrational problem with a source does not make the source unusable. Every time I come up with a source you find some bizarre objection to it and try to push a source that doesn't even support the claim about the nickname. It is not clear what is driving you in this, but please stop. At least try to address some of the points made instead of just continually making your declarative statement that the source contains "slanderous" material. It does not. Even the comment were, it would still not affect the suitability of the source. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
In this situation any other quality citation is fine, if there is no slanderous comments there, if need be, ok daily mail is better. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Good lord. All of this crap started because you were upset about the Daily Mail source. Now you are saying that it is better than another perfectly acceptable source because the latter has a comment from a third party that is insulting toward Harman. That makes no sense at all. Why do you refuse to address the reasons I have listed for retaining the existing source? Is it that you realize you are wrong and can't bear to back down? It is beyond belief that you could continue to believe that there is anything wrong with linking to a news source that contains a public comment that is offensive toward her after the source. No reasonable person would think that by linking to the article, Wikipedia is endorsing the comments at the end of the article that the news source itself maintains it is not responsible for. -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You took me wrong there, the mail is ok, just when I got here it was a bit over used. I feel strongly that the citation you want has slanderous comments attached and I feel that there are other citations commenting on this nickname and I ask you please to look for and insert a cleaner citation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
You said more than once in the discussion here and at my talk that you object to this specific source because, you said, it was offensive speculation and that the Mail hates her. The fact is there are relatively few sources that explain where the nickname came from. That you "feel" the source has "slanderous" comments is irrelevant. Your feelings don't matter. What matters is that the article contains no libelous material, is reliable, and supports the claim contained in this Wikipedia article. Even were the comment after the article libelous, it would not matter because the article itself is not and the article is using the article, not the comment, as its source. Moreover, the comment is not libelous for the reason I stated above. Finally, since you are still using "slanderous", I can see you haven't bothered to read up on any of this. That is disheartening. If you wish to have an actual discussion based on facts, rather than your feelings, you really should have some idea what you are talking about. Read WP:RS, WP:Libel, and WP:BLP before continuing. It is hard to take your uninformed declarative statement that the source is rubbished by some "slanderous" remark in the public comments seriously as it is, but when it is so clearly based on absolutely no facts, it is even harder. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tidied the citation and I am happy the comment has gone. Thank you for that. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't done. There is no reason not to use the Spectator cite, and you are not the only one at this article who has objected to Daily Mail cites. Since you can't seem to address the issues on you own, I have developed some prompts for you: Please provide some factual basis for you claim that the comment at issue after the source article is
1) "Slanderous"
2) In anyway calls into question the article itself, which was written before that member of the public commented
3) In anyway makes the source unusable at Wikipedia
Also,
4) Provide specific reference to any and all Wikipedia policies that preclude use of an article because it contains a comment section for third parties to comment on the article and there is an insulting comment included.
5) Explain what you think "slander" means and why you think that definition should trump the real one.
6) Explain why Harriet Harman needs more strict policies than WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:Libel provide for the rest of the project.
-Rrius (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to change policy here, I am requesting you as another editor to find a cleaner citation for the comment. Each and every citation is not very important but the comments there were very poor and it is better now. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You continue to fail to address the issue at hand. You assume that an editor has a right to demand that a source be removed. That is not the case. For you to think it is, is just one new policy you think should apply here.
There is nothing wrong with the Spectator source. The presence of an insult in the comments is completely irrelevant to its suitability for Wikipedia. Why you seem to think that comments are part of the source is beyond me, but it does not make it fact. If your opinion held, articles in print editions of newspapers would not be usable as reliable sources if someone on the opinion pages said that Harman was crazy. Your inability to separate the actual article from the public comments is just silly.
Since you cannot respond to the simple prompts I set out above, here are some new ones:
1) What does "slander" mean? (Hint: go to defamation for the answer.)
2) How could a reasonable person take the comment you specified as libel?
3) What libel does the article itself contain?
4) Assuming you realize the answer to #3 is "none" and assuming for the sake of argument that the comment at issue is libelous, how does the comment magically make the article libelous?
5) Where in WP:BLP does it say that an otherwise reliable source cannot be used if it has a section for public comments?
5) Where in WP:RS does it say that an otherwise reliable source cannot be used if it has a section for public comments?
5) Where in WP:Libel does it say that an otherwise reliable source cannot be used if it has a section for public comments?
-Rrius (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in here. After reviewing this discussion and the edit history of the article, it appears that this dispute is over the use of the nickname "Harriet Harperson" and the sources supporting its use. The sources provided are, so far:

  1. The Daily Mail - "Her strong feminist views have made her unpopular with some Labour MPs who refer to her as 'Harriet Harperson'..."
  2. London Evening Standard - "Ms Harman seemed hurt, however, by the nickname Hattie Harperson invented by enemies to lampoon her feminism."
  3. The First Post - "Tellingly, Harman (nickname: "Harperson") was conspicuous by her absence..."
  4. Times Online - ?

1 and 3 seem to be generally accepted as usable. Obviously, I can find no reference to the use of the nickname in source 4; hence, it should be the first discarded. As for 2, which seems to be the sole cause of conflict now, I don't see anything slanderous or even un-journalistic about it; it comes from a mainstream media outlet, and only makes reference to others calling Harman "Harperson", as the text of this article reflects. Comments left by the public do not form a part of the source itself, and therefore don't weigh into this discussion at all. In my opinion, there's no reason to exclude the article as a reference. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Number 3 doesn't really explain where the nickname comes from, so it isn't terribly useful. As for the Daily Mail, I don't think there is anything wrong with using it, but Off2riorob had one earlier (whatever he says now), and so apparently does Grakirby. My fear with the using the Daily Mail as the source is that even if both Off2riorob and Grakirby agree to leave it there, some like-minded person will come along later and mess with it later because teh only source is the Daily Mail. Since we have a perfectly acceptable source in the Standard (which I have repeatedly and mistaken called the Spectator in this discussion), there is no reason not to use it instead. -Rrius (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how all three sources can't be employed to support the claim in the article; the more valid references, the more substantiated the fact. However, I agree that 3 is a bit weak, and so could possibly be left out, with 1 and 2 remaining in use. If anyone wants to tamper with the sources in future, they can be directed to this discussion, no? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think using the two sources is a fine idea, especially given how contentious this issue was even before the silly issue of insulting public comments came up. The third source simply doesn't address the facts asserted in the nickname explanation anymore. It used to back up the Daily Mail in saying that she is unpopular with some Labour colleagues due to her feminism. In bending over backward accommodate Off2riorob, the text no refers to her as being a strong feminist (despite numerous sources), nor as holding "strongly feminist views" (despite an even greater bounty of sources). For the same reason, it no longer refers to the nickname coming from within Labour, despite the Mail being a source for that (and possibly one other, but I don't recall off hand). Since the only point of the Times cite was to support the claims of "strong feminism" and unpopularity with some in the Labour Party, but the claims are no longer there, I see no point in using it. -Rrius (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverts

Having been away for the weekend I have come back to see that someone has just reverted some of my edits. Of course one expect this to happen. However if someone has an over-riding desire to revert something can they at least keep the improvements in grammar and be a bit more discrimating.

I refer specifically to my edit of "Use of Statistics" and "MPs Expenses" the latter being grammatically more pleasing whatever the merits of the actual content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grakirby (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fathers' rights protest

The claim was made "It emerged that Harman's statement was false when Fathers 4 Justice published a previous letter from her refusing the request for a meeting [36][original research?]". I added the original research tag as the only source is the letter (i.e. a primary source) and from an unknown source, yet the sentence makes the explicit claim her statement was false. [14] Looking into it more, the problem is worse then that, and the article was rather misleading. Harman has claimed the protestors never tried to meet her, which from what I can tell is true and has never been denied by anyone. F4J have claimed that Harman rejected requests for meetings for them, specifically that the founder (O'Connor) requested a meeting via his MP (Mark Oaten) but was rejected which also appears to be true. I can't find any real evidence she denied rejecting a meeting with O'Connor or F4J just the protestors at her house, in other words her statement appears to have been largely true, even if easily misunderstood (whether intentionally on her part we don't of course know). Similarly F4J statements appear to have been largely true even though also easily misunderstood. The problem is, I can't find any sources which describe this very well, it's more of a case of carefully reading the sources and reading between the lines. For example, I can't find any RS mentioning the letter or confirmation from Mark Oaten that Harman rejected meeting with O'Connor. There is also no source which makes clear she has never denied she rejected such a meeting. So the best I can do is to just put what they each said [15] and hope the reader can read between the lines. If someone can either find better sourcing or think of a solution which doesn't involved OR or the use of primary sources particular the copy of the letter on some unknown website they're welcome. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Prologue

Apologies. Both of us editing at the same time. Frelke 13:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

" became Secretary of State for Social Security and was given the task of reforming the Welfare State. However, she made little progress" ..... I seem to remember that she cut benefits for lone parents and Tony sacked her because that proved so unpopular although it may have been his idea in the first place. Seriously , someone should describe this in the article. It is significant to her career. I am too biased to do it in neutral terms 20:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL

"The media contrasted his treatment with that of another fellow first-year, who had died on the way home after suffering the usual punishment, getting lost, and wandering on to some train tracks." - removed this paragraphy because it has terrible grammar and no references

"She is the longest continuously serving female MP"... this is wrong. 26 years is a lot less than, say, 32.5 years by Mrs Thatcher, 29 by Barbara Castle, to name but two of many examples. If she is the longest serving female MP in the 2005 Parliament, this is not clear. - Versalius, 16:58, 28 June 2008

She isn't the longest serving female MP, not even in the 2005 parliament... Diane Abott serves longer for example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.90.129 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The foregoing paragraph was written anonymously. I think the grammar is very good and that the information is relevant and that the entry should have been left alone 82.38.112.68 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)mikeL

Nickname

Off2riorob and I had a discussion here wherein he fought to exclude parts of the previous consensus version of the passage on the Harperson nickname, such as Harman being labelled a "strong feminist" or holding "strongly feminist views", because he didn't believe there was any such thing as a strong feminist (he believed feminism to be a binary state, like pregnancy, despite evidence to the contrary). He also objected to actually attributing the nickname to her Labour colleagues despite one and arguably two of the sources supporting it. He seemed to think a comment from Harman on a slightly different issue meant we should blame the Daily Mail and her right-wing opponents.

His overriding notion was that the information presented was insulting to Harman. At the time, I gave in because no one seemed willing to engage in the discussion, and he wore me down. Off2riorob was never able to address the issue of why we should ignore policy other than to say, in essence, he wanted the text change and to insult me. It also turns out that Off2riorob has engaged in this sort of disruptive editing and insulting conduct before.

Regardless of his reasons or prior (and subsequent) bad acts, consenting to Off2riorob's version presented a POV version of the information we had because it stripped out valuable context. Without the information, not only were the reasons for her nickname obscured, but the version also stripped out the fact that she rubs some colleagues within her own party the wrong way with her view. This is clearly relevant to her service as an MP. For these reasons, I have restored an improved version of what was there before this all started. If anyone has a valid reason for changing the text, please set it out below. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked through the entire article and there's not a single mention of her being a feminist, nevermind a very strong feminist. This really is an incredibly serious omission. It's what she's known for more than anything.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
yet again someone has attempted to mention her feminism and yet again such ma term has been censored from the article. This is getting silly.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Daily Mail - The fall and rise of Harriet Harperson".
  2. ^ "Harriet Harman elected deputy leader of Labour Party". Times Online.
  3. ^ "Harriet Harman: You Ask The Questions". the inderpendant. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ a b "Daily Mail - The fall and rise of Harriet Harperson".
  5. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jun/08/labourdeputy.labour
  6. ^ "Harriet Harman: You Ask The Questions". the inderpendant. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Harriet Harman: You Ask The Questions". the inderpendant. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ "Harriet Harman: You Ask The Questions". the inderpendant. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harriet_Harman/Archive_1&oldid=648039550"