|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The discussion of illiberal policies is highly POV. For a start they're not his policies, they're the Government's policies. And there are just as many liberal policies from other bits of the Home Office that could have been picked to make the same argument - downgrading of cannabis, race relations amendment act, etc. Vote for amendment if it was up to me.
This page needs to be renamed - he's Sir John Gieve now - and revised to include stuff about the Bank of England, to NPOV the rest of it and to sort out the mess at the bottom. Gabriel R 16:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- When I said renamed I should instead have said that a Sir JG redirect shd be set up. Gabriel R
Sopoforic - can you give a fuller explanation for your deletion of parts of the article. The material you deleted is relevant to an understanding of Gieve's career, and his contribution to the running of the Home Office. The material is fully referenced to national sources. Mrslippery 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I could swear that I found a couple of articles that most of the article was copying directly, but I can't find them now, and looking at the article history it doesn't seem likely that the article was copied. More likely I stumbled across someone copying from wikipedia without crediting us. The reason I removed it in the first place was that an IP user told me it was just "cut and pasted from the press." It seems that I was mistaken, although I'm not quite sure how it happened. Thanks for catching that. --Sopoforic 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Mrslippery 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If you believe any part of the article is inaccurate please discuss your concerns here. Mrslippery 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I edited the page to make it shorter.
The sections included by newsnet (or something like that) read more like a trashy novel attacking Brown than a reflection of fact - which is what one would like to see in an encyclopedia.
Sidelines attacking either the person in the article or the British government - however well referenced from the press should be kept in the press and politically active internet forums but do not belong on wikipedia.
Message to Mr Slippery - the material deleted was not relevant to the article - it was more relevant to telling an opinionated version of events to rubbish the individual and the brown government - therefore please can it remain deleted. It would have been relevant if you were writing a comment piece in a newspaper.
Just collating various sources in the press where someone in public life is criticised is not the same as putting together an encyclopedia article on someone that sets out the key facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There is certainly ample scope for improving the article, but wholesale deletion is not the answer. Some people may see that as attempted censorship. I suggest you consult Wikipedias rules on biographies of living persons and consider making some constructive edits. You may not like some of the content of the article, but that is not sufficient grounds for deleting that material. May I also suggest that you consider becoming a registered user and build up a record of contributions. This will allow you to become familiar with Wikipedias procedures. Mrslippery (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mr Slippery - have edited the page below is discussion of what has been done please read before changing back:
1. Deletion of part of NAO section - there was too much detail, too long given the length of the article. Furthermore there is nothing specific about Gieve in any of the quotations.
2. The john reid quotation should be deleted - this was a political statement - and there is nothing to link it to the running of the dept - indeed Reid at no point specifically says that it is anything to do with gieve.
3. Moved the section about the independent so that it is in the section of the BoE - it is about the BOE - and added a line to say that the article does not specify who is doing the pressing for resignation - this is a frequent tactic of newspapers - the bodyless accusation.
4. Edited the section about appointment. There is no evidence, except comment pieces in newspapers - this is conjecture - that King didn't want gieve appointed - king has never said anything of the sort - nor indeed that Brown pushed for Gieve to be appointed. Further there is no evidence that this decision was catastrophic for any of them - unless you think that there is direct evidence that gieve has brought down the british economy - which would be conjecture again. This section was very point of view - an anti-brown point of view.
5. There is no particular evidence that gieve lacked technical knowledge - unless someone has tested him - or is it conjecture from a newspaper again.
6. Deleted the section about it being a humiliatioin for brown - it is not clear that it is a humilitatioin for brown - has Brown ever said anything about this? It seems to me that that brown government did well out of the resignation which was leaked so that it moved the news cycle away from the negative stories about Darling's mansion house speech onto Gieve resigning - i.e. taking the blame. If anything this seems like a success for brown. But either way it is conjecture - there has been no sizable change in the labour party polling as a result of gieve resigning, nor to the economy....
I agree that one doesn't want to censor but this article seems to be a collection of newspaper comment pieces - most of which are pretty nasty about the individual - stuck together - which does not balance well with the point of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)