Talk:Philip Davies

Parliamentary Spokesman?

I don't think Philip is officially a 'Parliamentary Spokesman' for the CAPC, a third-party group to Parliamentary Politics. It is true that he is a vocal supporter, who happens to be a relatively high-profile MP. On the CAPC website he is only mentioned as a 'Yorkshire Spokesman'.

I will change this back unless you can show me in writing that he is the CAPC's Parliamentary Spokesman.--Albert 16:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As of 3 November 2006, the entry “English Heritage to rewrite the histories of its properties to include slavery, 29 October 2006” at http://www.capc.co.uk/latest_news.htm on the CAPC website describes Mr Davies as “Parliamentary Spokesman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness.”

FlashSheridan 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Davies and Muslims

I removed the text: 'On 7 October 2006, the Sun quoted Davies as referring to Muslims as "vile thugs" and that "If there’s anybody who should f*** off it’s the Muslims"' referenced to a story in The Sun [1] and an unsourced claim about advocating 'the expulsion of British Muslims'. In the source, Davies is clearly refering to a specific group of Muslim vandals who were alleged to have painted "f*** off" on a house (it turns out the incident never involved Muslims anyway, according to the indepenent [2]). --h2g2bob (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Section heading

I reverted the section heading back to the informative and entirely correct Attitude toward minorities and "political correctness" (look at the content of that section and tell me its about his political views) from the totally uninformative and incorrect Political views. Please discuss any changes here before reverting. Famousdog (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point, but there is a wider issue here -- why is an entire section being given to what is essentially a couple of throwaway remarks? Looks like a case of undue weight. With this in mind I propose that the section be deleted or at least seriously curtailed to form a small section in a proper "political views" section which would more befit a BLP. Jprw (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Reading through the article again I am struck by how negative it is towards the subject, cherry-picking the most controversial aspects of his career to date. As a result I am putting up a neutrality banner until these issues are addressed.Jprw (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you aware of any positive aspects to this man's political career ommitted? He does appear to have a habit of making Richard Littlejohn-eqsue statements.  Francium12  23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are favourable aspects to his career, the point is that editors have only bothered to include controversial aspects, which came across as thinly veiled antipathy towards the subject and which were unacceptable from a BLP standpoint. There was even one awful and completely unjustified connection with the BNP made. Jprw (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restructured the article in what I hope is an acceptable manner, with sections on Davies' contribution to various issues. It had degenerated into a hopeless mess after recent edits. Famousdog (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)