Talk:Matthew Parris

Letter

"The start of his career was overshadowed by a letter which he had written to a council tenant on behalf of Margaret Thatcher..."

...but what did it say??!! Badgerpatrol 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I found a comment here [1] that says he responded to a complaint from a council tenant about the state of their council house by telling her she was "lucky to have a council house to complain about". Ironic, considering it was the Conservative "Right to Buy" policy/bill/act enacted when Thatcher was prime minister that permitted a huge volume of social housing stock to be sold in to private hands. I suppose the money it raised for local councils might have improved the quality of the council tenant he sent the letter to. I couldn't find a reliable source. There might be something about it in his biography if he has one.--Chris (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Castle in Spain.jpg

Image:Castle in Spain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Mathew Parris calls for cyclists to be decapitated http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece This so called journalist has been reported to the pcc for his article calling for people to behead cyclists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.158.120 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hair washing

Why does Matthew Parris' views and actions on hair washing not merit listing on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's trivial and because its inclusion gives it undue weight. He probably has views on a whole range of subjects, and some of them may be quite interesting, but that doesn't mean they all have to be included here. Rossrs (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If hair washing itself warrants an entry in Wikipedia, why is it trivial that a notable person repudiates the practice? Mr Parris indeed does have views on a range of subjects, but the fact that he has stated that he never or hardly ever washes his hair is quite interresting, and certainly less trivial than "From a young age, Jackson often punctuated his verses with a sudden exclamation of oooh" (from the Michael Jackson entry). Matt Stan (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Chilterns/Manor of Northstead

The article mention 'Parris "took the Chiltern Hundreds" and left Parliament...' but he actually became Steward of the Manor of Northstead (see List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead) so I am going to amend that now.Half Price (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Tony Blair

The quote from Matthew Parris is inconsistent. It starts in the first person, "I believe...", and ends in the third person, "Parris' cowardly attacks...". The Times reference given doesn't include the last three sentences of the para, and the last two sentences concern an attack on Matthew Parris by John Prescott, and have nothing to do with the subject of the section. A brief search on Google didn't reveal any source for the last three sentences, two of which include direct quotes. The third to last sentence makes little sense to me. Howevere, I've moved it to a new para and added "citation needed"; perhaps it should be deleted? I've moved the last two sentences to a separate sub-section, "Estelle Morris Controversy", in section "Radio and television work", again with a "citation needed". Oniscoid (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Siblings

"Parris is the eldest of six children (three brothers and two sisters)" appears to be self-contradictory. I'm guessing it means he has three brothers and two sisters, not that the six children comprise three brothers and two sisters. But there isn't a citation. Perhaps someone who knows for sure could clarify?

--Clive Jones (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Life & Career Vandalism

I do not know huge amounts about Parris, but his "Life & Career" section seems a bit farfetched and looks like it has been, rather comically, vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.187.4 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Times Newspaper references.

Many of the references in this article are from The Times (unsurprising as he writes for it). But they are unavailable except to paid subscribers ever since a "paywall" was put on the site. Is there a way to fix this? 87.113.174.20 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an issue. A source is just as acceptable, whether or not you happen to have access to it. To suggest otherwise would be to exclude most printed books and academic journal articles, along with newspaper articles published prior to around ten years ago from being acceptable sources, which would reject the vast majority of human knowledge and many of the best encyclopaedic sources. Atshal (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

2007 Cycling controversy section

I suggest this section be removed. It is a stretch to describe this as a controversy since the only citations suggesting notability are a letter and a followup article in the same publication within a week of publication of the original article (and a blog citation I have already removed). This incident does not seem notable at all. There are certainly many other incidents in Parris's life that could be considered more worthy of inclusion and much writing of his that is more controversial and received wider recognition than this minor piece from six years ago. It seems odd to include this - the sections seems to be have been written by someone who was irritated by the original article he wrote, based on the inappropriate conjectures and poor sources I have already removed. Atshal (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and remove it since nobody has responded. Leaving a substantial section for this article, which really is not so noteworthy, gives undue weight. I will also separately remove the Tony Blair quote, since his criticism of Blair is already mentioned, and this quote seems quite random in a way and not particularly notable for an article on Matthew Parris' life and career. Atshal (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Geekpie (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)I would like to reinstate the Cycling Controversy section. It caused serious dismay to cycling advocacy groups at the time of publication and illuminates a side of Parris's character that is not included elsewhere in the article. I agree the section is too long. Unless there are responses, I intend to include a shorter section that simply includes the relevant quotation.

Dubious

“Parris came out in a late-night debate in the House of Commons in 1984”

Is it in the Hansard? I could not find it. If not, it may just be apocryphal though he claims this to be the case. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)