Jump to content

Talk:Harriet Harman: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Off2riorob (talk | contribs)
80,325 edits
Off2riorob (talk | contribs)
80,325 edits
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:47, 26 September 2011

"Shadow Deputy PM", again

Obviously, there has been an "edit war" over the issue of Harriet Harman's political roles as well as the time she took over from John Prescott. Let me make a few things very clear, she is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot use a title unless you have been given it by the Leader of your party. Ed Miliband has made her Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, otherwise it would not be on her website. She has no right to give herself a title unless it's been allowed. Therefore, I think it is fair to conclude that from that point, she is Shadow Deputy PM. Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not a clear title, though she is deputy leader of the Opposition, it is not a formal title it is just because she is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. For example, William Hague was made Senior Member of the Shadow Cabinet, but he never recieved the title Deputy Leader of the Opposition, even though he was the de facto Deputy. On the point, about Khan. He shadows Clegg regarding the constituion and that is because Labour thinks the MoJ should deal with the constitution whereas the government has made Nick Clegg the de facto Minister for Constitutional Reform, instead of leaving it to Ken Clarke.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, no one knows the point you are trying to make regarding Prescott. Harman took over as Deputy Leader at the same time Brown took over as Leader, so there is no reason why Blair should be listed.
Second, it is no secret that Khan's shadowing Clegg in regards to his political and constitutional reform portfolio. What you fail to grasp is that that is part of the role of the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. That is why Khan's team and others question him on political and constitutional reform issues at "Deputy Prime Minister's Questions", not "Political and Constitutional Reform", or even Cabinet Office, Questions.
Third, you say that since a person cannot claim a title that they don't genuinely given, and since Harman calls herself Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, she was was therefore given the title. The premise is flawed. There is nothing to stop her from calling herself "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" to describe her role holding the DPM to account. It is also not true that a person cannot claim a title she doesn't have. Of course someone can; it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Given that she was upset that Gordon Brown didn't appoint her Deputy Prime Minister and give her a better portfolio when he was leader, she is exactly the sort of person who would stretch a bit and call herself something she isn't, as long as it's close.
Third, a flawed argument from logic isn't needed. What is needed is to look to the most authoritative sources: the Labour Party's and Parliament's shadow cabinet lists. The are the record we have for what titles the leader granted. When Jack Straw held the post, he was "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". Do they call her "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"? No, each calls her "Deputy Leader". Labour calls her "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development".[1] Parliament calls her "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development".[2] Her biography there lists "Deputy Leader of the Opposition 2010-; Shadow Secretary of State for International Development 2010-" as her only current roles.[3]
Finally, as that last link shows, she is Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Inclusion of the title at her parliamentary bio isn't just an accident. I asked the House of Commons Information Office to double check her titles and explain what was meant by "Deputy Leader". The informed me that she is "Deputy Leader of the Opposition".
The authoritative sources have been consulted, and one of them even questioned directly, and the unambiguous answer from those sources is that she is Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Secretary of State for Development, not Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. -Rrius (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ask her about it? And, in the meantime, put something like "her personal website describes her as Shadow DPM, however neither the Labour Party site [4] nor the Parliament site [5] recognise this title." ?
As to the first point, I have already sent a request to through that very site and to Ed Miliband as a press inquiry. On the second point, I would have no objection to a note after "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" saying that she claims the title "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", but the reverse would be unacceptable. With the authoritative sources using the one title and not the other, it is clear which should be in the infobox and which should be in the note. -Rrius (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. What does our IP friend say to that? Well done for writing in to them. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am sure that Rrius is lying.Secondly, her website, the Guardian, the BBC, the LSE, several Labour Party websites, Labour MPs, Ed Milband in many different sources have confirmed her as Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. They are not allowed to give her a title which is not hers, for example that is like William Hague giving himself the official title Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party! It's nonsentical. She could not use a title which is not hers, the fact her party have used it shows she is the SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. I have consensus, I have support and I also have a TON of information which is accessible to all! Now, can you please allow me to continue editing instead of making yourself look even more foolish than you already do! You cannot block me since you are in in fact the one guilty of misconduct such as blanking my page, deleting information that backs up my point, being aggressive and attempting to block me without the power - in order words vandalism. Now, you are vandalizing Harriet Harman's page which has been already established as SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER! Get a grip. Sadiq Khan shadows constitutional affairs, he is NOT the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, his role is because traditionally under the Labour government the Lord Chancellor has ALWAYS been responsible for matters involving the constitution. Nick Clegg wants that power, so he took charge, normally it is the Ministry of Justice's power! If you weren't such a vandal, and knew something about politics maybe I wouldn't have to teach you a few home truths about Westminster politics. --195.171.221.67 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly - Rruis is not lying, he might be in good faith mistaken but accusations such as lying are considered personal attacks here and continuation of such comments may well get your editing privileges restricted - see WP:NPA. Please keep it polite, thanks. Secondly, it clearly is disputable, so get a WP:3O or start a WP:rfc. Its also a minor issue unworthy of all this dispute, so reel it in a bit please. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Off2riorob - I apologize but I personally do not believe he is being honest. He is vandalizing my talk page in order to conceal information that was given to me and he denied it though I have evidence, now he claims that he spoke to the Commons information office. He also has been posting threats on my page, which is not true. I have got a stack of sources from Labour, LSE, Guardian and others which say Harriet Harman is Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, not Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think we should reach an agreement but I am not going to put up with bullying. Also, why hasn't Rrius got a warning from you about edit warring, surely he should too - if not he should be blocked!--195.171.221.67 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outrageous. Show me one edit at your talk page where I have removed anything. I've already challenged you on that falsehood, and that you persist in it makes it very hard to believe you aren't just lying to cast aspersions on me. I was willing to believe you just don't know what you are talking about, but that is becoming untenable.
You are now accusing me of "posting threats" and "bullying" you, but all I did was warn you, twice I think, that if you persist in edit warring you'll be blocked. Those were warnings (indeed, one used the edit-warring user warning template), not threats.
As for who gets warned, I have been trying to discuss this with you on this talk page and even on yours for weeks. You've had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a discussion, and even after joining have persisted in edit warring despite there being no reasonable claim that you have obtained consensus on the talk page.
And yes, I exchanged emails with the House of Commons Information Office, and they confirmed that she is the "Deputy Leader of the Opposition". I'm happy to prove it, as well as the fact that I have already sent e-mails to Miliband's and Harman's offices, but I don't know how. -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas he has been reverting you - you have been reverted by multiple editors. Also in the last 24 hours- he appears to have a single revert and you have at least three. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a WP:RFC if you want to discuss and attract new attention..? Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post a WP:RFC but I will not accept bias. Other editors agree with the stance taken on Harriet Harman and have also been reverting the ludicrous changes made by others. I have got a load of sources, and I will show them but I hope we could come to an unbiased solution to the issue, rather than resorting to threats. Surely, he should be blocked for vandalism and personal abuse.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything to warrant blocking of anyone. Lets just try and find a solution ot the content dispute. What question shall I ask for the RFC? Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Shadow Deputy Prime Minister

Are there reliable sources to describe Harmen as the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister? See - Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) for detail - These sources have been presented to support the claim.


  • RfC stalker here:
  1. OTRS question to her office will resolve the matter conclusively - suggest this be done
  2. In the meantime, lets go with what her official bio (ie Deputy Leader of the Oppo/Shadow for Int) says unless there is any reliable source verifiable (ie not OR or SYNTH) that contradicts it - which doesnt seem to be the case. All "contradictions" are incidental, ie they use different terminology without explaining why, which cannot be used as evidence of an intent to contradict unless other sources say so (ie cannot do OR/SYNTH) on it.

It seems to me that the moniker of "Shadow Deputy PM" in RS is used informally to describe her de facto role in the Oppo to a coalition gvt, but it is also clear that the nature of a coalition govt has created complexities the media has not updated their language for. We seek facts from sources, not transcribe them (ie not transcription monkeys), so we have to look at this background.--Cerejota (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, with the amount of sources clearly stating that Harriet Harman is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister (including her own letter to Andrew Mitchell and her own website), wouldn't it be fair on the basis of clear sources an evidence to call Harriet Harman "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". I have looked for other sources and I have found very little - only one in fact - which calls Harriet Harman "Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That source was in fact an edit made by User:Rrius on the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet page on Wikipedia.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, to address Cerejota: I have already sent an email to Harman's office and Ed Miliband's office but have not yet received replies. I agree with your characterisation of what is going on in IP's sources, with the addition that Harman seems to call herself "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" and some of the other sources may well, in fact some seem to be, merely drawing from that.
To IP: The number of sources is irrelevant. Despite what you have said in edit summaries, no one is suggesting that Harman is lying or filling her page with "nonsense". If she calls herself that to provide a simple description of part of her duties, there is really nothing wrong with that. But that is different from her having been officially granted the title by Ed Miliband. So the question becomes, how do we know what titles Ed Miliband has granted her? The best evidence available is the Shadow Cabinet List. Miliband posted it on the Labour website and gave a copy to the House of Commons Information Office. The version on the Labour website calls her "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development", the version on the Parliament website says exactly the same thing. Harman's bio on the Parliament website says "Deputy Leader of the Opposition 2010-; Shadow Secretary of State for International Development 2010-". Because the Parliament Shadow Cabinet list only says "Deputy Leader", I sent them an e-mail asking about it, and I received the following response:
1. Thank you for pointing this out, I have taken the matter up with the House of Lords Information Office and hope that this will be resolved shortly.
2. Because Harriet Harman is listed directly beneath Ed Milliband, whose full title as Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition is given, we would hope that the fact that she is Deputy Leader of Her Majesty’ Official Opposition would be clear without having to repeat the full title. To my knowledge this is the first time it has been queried but I will look into whether it is a common misunderstanding and of course amend the page if necessary.
I hope this is helpful.
Kind regards
Lynne Preece
I would have left out the first paragraph, which is about an unrelated issue dealing with Lords whips, but I figured IP would make more false accusations against me if I did. I would also like to address a point IP has made about custom. He suggests that it is always "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". That is in fact not true. No leader of the opposition named any such thing when Michael Heseltine and John Prescott were Deputy Prime Minister. When Heseltine was Deputy PM, the office held no responsibilities, so his Labour counterpart shadowed his regular portfolio. When Prescott was Deputy PM, successive leaders of the opposition appointed his counterparts as either "Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" or Shadow Secretary for the substantive portfolio, e.g., "Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions". I have not finished looking at the Kinnock years, but at least from 1983–1988, there was no Shadow Deputy Prime Minister.
So we can go back about thirty years, and the only person who carried anything like the title was Jack Straw, who as Shadow Justice Secretary was responsible for Clegg's portfolio of political and constitutional reform and therefore called "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" on the official Shadow Cabinet lists produced by Harriet Harman as Leader of the Opposition. To me it is clear, as Deputy Labour Leader, she wanted the post of "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", which is why she called Straw "acting" SDPM. In any event, when the new Official Shadow Cabinet list came out in 2010, Miliband did not retain the title. Responsibility for shadowing Clegg was divided: Harman shadows him on cross-government issues, and Sadiq Khan (the Shadow Justice Secretary) and his team shadow him on political and constitutional reform. Thus, it makes sense for Miliband not to have named a Shadow Deputy PM since the duties were divided. It also makes sense for Harman, who was upset she didn't get "Deputy Prime Minister" after her election as Deputy Leader, to want to describe her responsibilities that way. Ultimately, though, what matters is not what Harman calls herself, whatever her motives, nor how the media choose to sum up her responsibilities.
What matters is that we reflect her actual official titles. We have two authoritative sources, ones that come from the man responsible for handing out official titles for the Opposition, and neither says she is Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Other sources, no matter how numerous, do not trump the best evidence of what her true titles are. -Rrius (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can send a letter to any organisation. I have sent letters to Buckingham Palace! You should produce the letter in full with your real name!147.188.236.102 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not helpful or informative - as the user is long term and trusted we assume good faith and there is no need at all to post anything with anyones real name on. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no argument that HH is not deputy PM, am I missing something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying she is Deputy PM; she can't be because Labour isn't in Government. The argument that she isn't Shadow Deputy PM has been made several times: The infoboxes only record titles granted by appointment or election. It is clear that Harman has called herself Shadow Deputy PM and that other sources have imitated her. On the other hand, that doesn't mean she was ever officially granted the title by the one human being on Earth with the right to grant it: Ed Miliband. How would we know what titles he has or hasn't granted? The obvious answer is to look to the Shadow Cabinet list he drafted last year. The list is available at Labour's website and Parliament's website. Both show her as "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development", not "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". It has also already been explained above why she and the media would call her Shadow Deputy Prime Minister even if she doesn't officially hold the title—basically, it is a simpler way of describing her position that the title she actually holds (Deputy Leader of the Opposition). At Wikipedia we must follow what reliable sources tell us. Reliable sources certainly call her "Shadow Deputy PM". No one is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether that is an official title in Her Majesty's Opposition. Reliable, indeed authoritative, sources show she was not given that title, so it should not be treated otherwise and certainly should not be in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. Very few sources - next to none - say she is "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" but sixteen reliable sources have named her as "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", but even in the Labour Party website. Ed Miliband has given her that position otherwise she would not be allowed to use it, it is very clear. You cannot use a title unless appointed by your Leader, in the event of another Queen's Speech she will be standing next to Nick Clegg not Andrew Mitchell. I think 16 reliable sources, is enough to actually conclude she is SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. "Deputy Leader" is not sufficient to give her Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I will change it, until more sources are found which rebuke my point instead of speculation from User:Rrius. Sixteen sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.221.67 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not missing the point. It doesn't matter how many sources use "Deputy Leader of the Opposition"; the sources that do use it are impeccably reliable. That is all that matters as far as that goes. I don't actually want either one in the infobox, but including Deputy Leader of the Opposition seemed a reasonable compromise. You keep saying that she can't use the title "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" if she didn't get it from the Leader, but that just isn't so. It has been explained to you over and over why she might call herself that, and even why it is understandable that she would, even though she clearly hasn't been granted the title. You also say the Labour site uses that title for her. That's not true. Her personal space at the site and articles clearly drafted by her office use it. Not a single one of your sources uses the title in a way that connects it to Ed Miliband. Who she stands next to is irrelevant. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be as likely to stand next to the Deputy PM as anyone else. You say that "Deputy Leader" is not sufficient to "give her" Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That is untenable. I have produced an email from the House of Commons Information Office where they explicitly told me that that is exactly what is meant by it and that they don't repeat "of the Opposition" because it is understood. I have also produced her Commmons biography which lists her as holding the role of "Deputy Leader of the Opposition (2010-)", and notably not "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". Your conclusion that she must have been officially given the title of "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" if she uses it is speculation at best. My conclusion that if the Shadow Cabinet lists and her Commons bio call do not call her that, then she isn't, is not. In addition, my conclusion that she has the title of "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" because the House of Commons Information Office, which receives its information directly from the Opposition, says so is also not speculation. Finally, you have not obtained consensus for your changes, so stop edit warring. If the discussion ends with a result favourable to your position, then it will be time for your edit, not before. Your persistence in edit warring even as a discussion, let alone an RfC, is in progress is wholly unacceptable and completely out of step with the way this project works. -Rrius (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I obviously missed out 'shadow'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't trying to be snarky. My experience, both from join participating in discussions that go to RfC and from joining because of an RfC, tells me not to assume a mistake like that is an accident. -Rrius (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the argument now. It seems to about whether we can use a title used in many sources but which does not seem to have been officially bestowed by the shadow PM. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. I think IP's one-sided framing of the discussion obscured the actual point of contention. -Rrius (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution to this problem is quite simple. There is no written British constitution and most things in British government are purely a matter of tradition. There probably is no 'official' answer to the exact title of many politicians. This is surely a case for a classic British compromise. Let us state the facts as they are in the sources and state that HH is described in some sources as SDPM but she does not appear on certain other lists as having that title.
Doing this leaves some very minor issues. Should we use DSPM in the info box and then state that some sources do not support this, or do we not use that term in the info box and state later on that some sources do use that term, or do we complicate the info box by trying to give the complete picture there. Maybe an asterisk would do the trick. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Martin makes a good point. Obviously, Rrius has lost not only the point but the plot! You cannot use a title in the shadow cabinet unless you have permission from your Leader, it is afact. Now you are talkign absolute nonsense. I think that the Guardian, the Labour Party, the LSE and Harriet Harman - are more reliable sources. I contacted the House of Commons too, and they seem to also accept what I am saying. Some boigraphies have nopt even put down Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor! She is the SDPM, and nothing you can say will change the reliability of SIXTEEN sources compared to your incorrect word.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most encyclopedic solution is simply to explain both sides of the situation. Something like:
"Harman, supported by A, B, and C, considers herself to be the SDPM, but E and F contend that she does not have that role because XYZ."
That may be an optimal solution. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the optimal solution would be to include neither in the infobox and describe the situation in the prose. -Rrius (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what is going on. Harman cannot use a title which is not hers, for eg, she never used the title Deputy Prime Minister even though she was, effectively, at one point! You cannot consider yourself to be something, you either are or you are not. That is the fact of the matter, all these sources - which actually include very respected sources, claim she is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Why don't you leave it at that?--195.171.221.67 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that she can't summarise her role as "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" even if she doesn't carry that title? You are making an assumption, an unwarranted one at that, and Wikipedia can't make content decisions based on your personal assumptions. -Rrius (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@IP: You may want to read WP:Truth. The goal in WP is not to establish what is true or not, but rather to summarize in an encyclopedic way what the sources say about a given topic. I gather from the discussion above that some sources say she does have that role, and other sources say she does not have the role. As editors, we don't need to determine which side is correct. We just have to represent them both. --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius can you count! Over 16 sources, not including Harriet Harman herself, have called bher SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER whereas YOU have made an assumption. I think Wikipedia, is shooting itself in the foot having your suggestion. I think it should remain Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, but say that she is also in effect the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!--195.171.221.67 (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no assumption. It is a fact that the Labour Party's announced list of shadow responsibilities calls her "Deputy Leader" and in delivering their list to the House of Commons Information Office, they made it know she is "Deputy Leader of the Opposition". That is confirmed by the e-mail I reproduced above and by the presence of that title on the biography of Harman produced by the HCIO. Whether you have 1, 16, or 16,000 sources calling her by some other style doesn't make them any more authoritative. It is Ed Miliband, not Harriet Harman or the news media, who decides what to call shadow cabinet roles. We know what he has called the roles because he assembled a list and posted it at Labour's site and distributed it to the HCIO. You are most certainly making an assumption. You assume that if Harman or the media use a title, it must have come from the leader, but that assumption has no basis. She can summarise her responsibilities as "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" without technically having that as an official title. Perhaps you could take a break from edit warring to grace us with a response to the proposal that we include neither title in the infobox and explain the situation in the prose. -Rrius (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone on either side thumps the table again they need to produce some evidence that there is an official rule about titles of British politicians. Otherwise, this is just a matter of opinion and the balancing of sources against one another and there should be a compromise reflecting that fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The leader of the day of the Opposition names the Shadow Cabinet and assigns portfolios and shadow titles to members of their party. In doing so, they are not constrained by the particular titles used by the Government. When David Cameron became Leader of the Opposition, John Prescott was Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and Deputy Prime Minister. At the time, Prescott no longer had a substantive portfolio. As a result, Cameron didn't name anyone to shadow him. He did give William Hague the title "Senior member of the Shadow Cabinet". Back when Prescott had a substantive department handling Environment, Transport and the Regions within the "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister", Conservative leaders appointed people to shadow him as "Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions" or "Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of Deputy Prime Minister". This goes beyond shadowing Deputy PMs. When Lord Mandelson's Business department swallowed Universities and Skills, Cameron kept Shadow Secretaries for both departments. When Michael Foot was the Labour leader, there was a Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, but at one point he named separate Shadow Health and Shadow Social Services secretaries. Those are just the ones that occur to me off the top of my head. Sometimes configuring or naming portfolios is a signal for what the party leader intends to do if elected. The media has no role other than reporting what it has learned (usually through press release) from. Again, I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for, but if you are looking for sources, it is easy enough to google "named Shadow Cabinet" or some of the particular things I've mentioned to see they are true. -Rrius (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say, 'The leader of the day of the Opposition names the Shadow Cabinet and assigns portfolios and shadow titles to members of their party'. This is undoubtedly true, but where does it say that the names assigned as above are the 'official' or 'only' or 'constitutionally correct' names. This may seem eminently reasonable or even obvious to you but it seems that this is not so to some other people. Most of British politics is governed by tradition and custom. Most of the names used for government positions are informal or customary. There simply are no hard and fast rules or absolutes in British politics and to continue to argue as thought there were is pointless.
You must either produce an official document which states that your preferred title is the only one possible or there must be compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is simple logic. If Leader of the Opposition hands out and names portfolios; where in the process does someone else acquire the right to rename the portfolio? Something is "official" because it comes from the source with the right to produce it. In the case of shadow portfolios, that entity is the Leader of the Opposition and him alone. You are asking, no, demanding that I do the impossible. The Shadow Cabinet is a creature of custom, not law. Even the IP editor implicitly recognises the obvious: that the Leader is the source. His argument is that Miliband must have given her the title because she uses it. If you don't believe me, go back and read what he has written. In any event, I do everything in my power to produce a source such as you request if you produce one suggesting that anyone else has any say whatsoever in the naming of Opposition portfolios. -Rrius (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a perfectly reasonable opinion, that the leader of the Opposition bestows titles on members of the Shadow Cabinet. On the other hand, since the titles are customary and not defined in any written constitution, it could equally well be argued that custom is defined by practice and the media actually decide the titles. That point can never be definitively resolved so we must compromise.
As for your other option, compromise, I have proposed one that is eminently reasonable: remove the position from the infobox altogether and present the information we have in the prose. Unfortunately, no one has bothered to respond to it. -Rrius (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That might be acceptable to the other side. Would you accept having the title in the infobox but with an asterisk or link to the prose description you suggest? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the title were "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", sure. I would not agree to the other. The authoritative source for official shadow titles is the Shadow Cabinet list, which does not include anyone as "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". When Harman was leader, she named an "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", which should make clear that that is the sort of title that would originate with the leader and that Harman wanted to be Shadow Deputy Prime Minister when a permanent leader took over. That helps explain why she has adopted the style even though it was never given to her. -20:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving this page.

Why have large sections of this page been deleted, I have no connection with them. It is not normal to delete other editors comments even if you disagree with them. Please explain or restore. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stale and resolved and antique discussions have been archived not deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective archiving just because you disagree is unacceptable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I disagree, I archived stale and resolved discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are not normally archived out of sequence. Who says the discussion is 'stale'? There does not seem to be much sign of agreement to me. What is the harm in restoring the deleted sections? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been deleted - as for harm, in one topic that has been archived, there has already been a warning from an administrator - BLP applies just as much on talkpages as in articles - continual attempts to smear a living subject of an article by association of enlarged discussion about distant connections and affiliations to pedophilia when there is not possible chance it has any place in this BLP is a violation of BLP itself. As in - no - there is no chance of inclusion in the article so please move along and cease to discuss it on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the BLP restrictions and fully support them but if there has been admin involvement regarding BLP issues and the talk page discussion had been considered unacceptable then the admin would have completely deleted the discussion, as has happened in other places. This clearly has not happened and it t is not up to you to enforce BPL issues on the talk pages by selectively archiving discussions, which still leaves the allegedly offending material visible to the public. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to us all to enforce BLP violations as we see them. All content was archived , it wasn't done selectively. The content has been archived for 12 days now. The archive is noindexed so as it won't appear in search results. I suggest if you want them replaced from the archive to the talkpage you ask an administrator to do it for you, telling him which threads you want replacing, I won't object if an administrator will take responsibility for replacing them to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A whole section of discussion was archived in which you were involved was deleted from the current talk page as this diff shows. I will ask an admin to look at this. I have not read the relevant section but if it clearly violates BLP policy for talk pages it should be deleted completely, otherwise it should be restored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, if there are issues you'd like to discuss (in relation to editing the article here), the best option at this point is to start a new section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also echo the concerns about the selective, out of sequence archiving highlighted above. It seems rather inappropriate to me, especially given the fact that the archiving in question was carried out by an involved party and the discussion wasn't stale. Even if we assume such an action was correct and carried out in good faith it really should have been left to an uninvolved party and certainly not someone who had perhaps the strongest views of any editor regarding the issue. Also, I don't believe an editor should have to start a new discussion if a perfectly good one containing a wide range of well argued points already exists and has been archived by mistake. --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I've been asked to comment here. I'm largely in agreement with Rob here; BLP issues apply equally to talk pages as to mainspace and we need to be aware of that. Also, archiving of old discussions should be routine and not a big deal. However, the fact that Rob was already involved in the now-archived discussion meant that he should have left it to a third party, to prevent issues such as this. If the discussion was truly stale at this point, then it should be left archived, but if not, it probably *could* be resurrected. Given the BLP concerns, I'd rather it was not - Alison ❤ 02:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there BLP trouble with the actual text of the discussion? If so, shouldn't it be deleted from the thread. Rob says archives aren't indexed, but isn't the mere presence of defamatory material sufficient to warrant removal, no matter how hard people have to work to find it? -Rrius (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no BLP problem, in my view. Have a look at Index #3, linked at the top. Having said that, I think (having looked a bit more closely) that O2RR's action here was inappropriate: Twobells added a comment to the discussion in question (diff) and then 12 minutes later O2RR decreed that the discussion was finished and then archived it. Pretty heavy-handed, lacking any justification except his own opinion. Under the circumstances (i.e., it was not a stale discussion), restoring it here would be fine. By the way, I will oppose inclusion of the information in question -- undue, coatrack, etc. But O2RR had no business archiving an active discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomoskedasticity the archiving took place on September 12th, not the 25th so Rob did wait a week (though really it should have been left for much longer than that). The edits on the 25th were an attempt by Twobells to restore the material, who I expect was quite rightly very surprised at the premature archiving by an involved party. Rob then removed the discussion saying it had been archived (i.e. on the 12th), also completely removing the very latest contributions by Twobells so his additions on the 25th his not in the archives at all.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twobells reverting of the page was quite disrupting to the ongoing discussions. He completely removed all the ongoing discussion, including the RFC. He reverted back to a moment in time and then made a comment - if his post is not in the archives I will look and add it, but in such messy reverting you have to accept the loss of a comment here and there, the wheels will not drop off. The discussion has gon on long enough, the continually posting of blpocks of text under a pedophile header when there is no chance of addition in this article is imo a BLP violation - let it go - move along to something more constructive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that's a very upside down way of putting things. You are the one who inappropriately archived the material despite it not being stale and despite your involvement. Twobells isn't the most experienced or prolific editor and I'm sure he tried his best to undo a problem caused by you, therefore any disruption results from the original problem of which you were the cause. I think it would be highly useful to reopen the discussion as I have done further reading and have ideas for a compromise not yet suggested that I think most people would be satisfied with.Shakehandsman (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted discussion the was stale enough to not get noticed for twelve days. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harriet_Harman&oldid=452555874"