Talk:Grant Shapps

Read Before Removing parts of this biography

• This change keeps happening and I keep undoing it. The points removed are valid and relevant and seem to belong on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangers (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'll undo it again. Please do not remove postings simply because you do not agree with them. Place a comment here as to why they should be removed Bangers (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have put a request in at Biographies Noticeboard to see of these facts should be removed. Please do not remove anything until there is some feed back Bangers (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• To whoever is removing text: Please stop. Your fake threats are making you look very silly. You may not like what has been written about Grant Shapps, but it is sourced and appears to be a valid part of his biography. If you disagree, please post why here. If you just keep removing it I will just keep putting it back. Bangers (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Bangers. Your repeated edits are clearly based on a partisan motive which breaches Wikipedia rules; including; "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner...", whereas your approach appears to be from a deliberately partisan Liberal Democrat perspective. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented...in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." I have re-added ikipedia is to remain a reliable reference source. These types of disputes are rarely very productive and our last post was designed to incorporate some of your concerns. We've replaced it once again and suggest that you edit in your comments to the more detailed biography which is now present without contravening any of the guidelines and we can all get on with something more meaningful elsewhere on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The comments being removed were not made by me, which you can verify by looking at the history. I do not have a pro Lbaour/Liberal or anti Conservative agenda, but I do not see why they should be removed, which is why I keep putting them back.
  • I do not see that the information is anything more than mildly embarrassing to Grant Shapps, but it is true and it is relevant.
  • I did remove some of your last post. This was unintentional as I thought I could roll back two revisions. I will try to reinsert your missing text.
  • Please do not remove the text again as this edit war must end. Ask an editor to review this and I will abide by what they say
  • If you think this fails in a NPOV, please reword.
  • Bangers (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I see you have already reverted it again. This is getting silly. I'll leave it like this for noe but will ask an Editor to adjudicate in the morning Bangers (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Have requested editorial review also. Editor: The problem we have with Bangers amends are not specifically related to this individual but that the facts quoted are all disputed, whereas Bangers presents them as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The amendments are not mine, I am reinstating them because I think they belong here. The facts quoted are not in dispute and they have been properly referenced. I will reinsert the missing information latter today, but I will try to ensure that it is insert in a more neutral way (Gaffs is not a good header). If you do not agree with my inserts please modify them if possible, mark 'citation needed' or indicate the facts are disputed by others (giving citations) or discuss it here. Please do not simply remove them. Bangers (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP response

I've cleaned the article up a bit, including removing the material about Hodgkin's Lymphoma and remission, which must be cited before it can be re-added into the article (text can be found in history if citation is found). This still needs some clean-up and if any parts are still under contention for BLP, make sure additions are well cited to reliable sources. If something is even a bit iffy, it should be left out until well verified. --Faith (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealing Southall by-election

I have re-added the YouTube postings. I have reworded them to be NPOV. If you do not feel this is not yet sufficiently NPOV please edit or expand. Please do not simply remove or we will be sliding back to edit war again. One of us needs to find out if Grant ever denied or admitted making the posting. Bangers (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see we are heading back to an edit war. The changes now mean that the YouTube incident is reported in an unbalanced way and that citations have been removed, making it less well referenced. My last posting stated what happened and how Grant Shapps explained it. I don't see that reporting his explanation as undisputed fact has improved this article. Please update this to be more balanced and better referenced or I will revert it back to my last edit again Bangers (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not considered WP:RS. I can't see how www.order-order.com could possibly be a RS either. --Faith (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The parts removed are not what I entered. What I would like to add included a reference to a blog to give Grant Shapps' denial, but otherwise referenced 'relaiable' sources. I will post the NPOV section to your talk page Bangers (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, please keep related information on this talk page. I have it on my watch list now and I'll see your reply. IIRC, the last blog listed on the section I removed may have qualified for a RS blog. Review WP:RS to see. --Faith (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thinking about the YouTube I think it should be reworked as part of him being Vice Chairman in Charge of Campaigning . I'll try to post it up in the next few days. Bangers (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shadow housing minister donations

I've added back in the bit about the donations. Again I've tried to make this NPOV and have included the denials that he was influenced. Again, please do not simply remove. Instead work with me and we will make this bio both extensive and neutral. Bangers (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the refs, removed the bad refs, and added the end of the story that they were allowed to take the funds in the first place and were exonerated for their failure to report. This presents a NPOV of the topic. --Faith (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Computer programmer?

A long shot, and I suspect the answer is no, but... in the 26th July 1983 issue of Home Computer Weekly, on page 41, there's a letter from a Grant Shapps, the managing director of Firefly, talking about a computer game called "Dodger". I appreciate that "our" Grant Shapps was only 14 at the time, but teenage whizz-kid computer programmers weren't all that uncommon in the early 1980s, and it wasn't unknown for them to give themselves grand titles. Any chance they might be related? Loganberry (Talk) 15:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the same person. Although I believe the actual programmer was Grant's cousin. I'll check with my sources.--Umbriel (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How remarkable! There's a scan of the magazine (not made by me) on this site; the relevant letters page scan is near the bottom left, with a drawing of a blue(!) pillar box. Shapps' letter is in the second column. Loganberry (Talk) 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was at school with Grant at this time, I am not sure any games where actually produced, but Grant claimed to have sold the company Firefly to BT for £3000 in 1984.

Homeless vs. Sleeping Rough

I have corrected an apparent error in the reported reasons for why Grant Shapps spent a night sleeping rough. It was quoted in the Telegraph that Shapps was drawing attention to the 130,000 children who sleep rough every night. This was also cited in the Wikipedia article, but anyone familiar with the subject (Shapps included) would have spotted this 'fact' is obviously wrong. The likeliest explanation is that the Telegraph conflated two separate facts: (1) that Shapps produced a report which criticized the official estimates for the numbers of rough sleepers, concluding that there are roughly 1,300 people sleeping rough in the country; and (2) that official data says there are 130,000 homeless children in England. Being homeless is, of course, not the same as sleeping rough. See [Shapps on Conservativehome] as an indication of both the data and Shapps' familiarity with it. Surely there are no objections to correcting the Telegraph's error, even though this means the reference to their report is now of limited worth? Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Business Interests

Please tell me which part of the BOLD text below was factually incorrect and/or why you chose to remove this?

In 1990, aged 21, Grant Shapps founded PrintHouse Corporation, a design, print, website creation and marketing business sited in London. He stepped down as a Director in 2009 in the same week when MP's expenses were made public and it became clear that he had utilised PrintHouse for numerous transactions.

The reference is valid, the text should not have been removed. I've reinstated it, and added to it another business interest. Widefox (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was removed again. Please login before you remove this, and explain your edit here. Removing referenced material is vandalism and will be immediately reverted. Widefox (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was removed again by the same IP address User talk:83.170.117.88 . I have now given two warnings to this editor. Further warnings will be given unless this vandalism/censorship of referenced content stops. Widefox (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed again - this time by User talk:206.225.81.156 . This is an NPOV problem with the article, I'm guessing from a COI issue, so have tagged article as such. Widefox (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed again, by User talk:72.13.91.132. Vandalism reverted. Widefox (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference removed, and reverted now...this time by User talk:209.44.123.5 Widefox (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Widefox appears to have a politically motivated reason for adding poorly referenced material to this wiki entry which is not written from a neutral point of view. For example, the vandalism Widefox refers to (and has now been removed once again) is a link to a weakly referenced forum post somewhere. This is not a credible reference source, such as a daily newspaper. Even though this section now also contains politically driven information, everything else has been left in place pending review.

Firstly, I am glad you are now engaging in dialogue here as I have requested. I have asked you multiple times, so now...please could you create an account, login, sign your comments (e.g. above), and discuss any controversial edits here before making any further edits to this article. Secondly, at that point, we can discuss about, for the record, if you have any connection with Grant Shapps? Please see WP:COI. Your edits here, from different IP addresses, without discussion breaks WP:NPOV and your comment above breaks WP:AGF, and are not welcome. I notice blanking this referenced material has been going on for two years, without dialog with me and other editors. This reflects very badly on the article, and I would reccomend that you refrain editing from this article if you have a WP:COI. I agree that the reference is not perfect, but this single fact is double referenced and your constant removal of this fact is a controversial edit that must be discussed here first in future. I will now revert your removal of this reference. Widefox (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the problem parts - there was a problem due to synergy, thanks Off2riorob for pointing that out. Also, I've found no 3rd party reference to the printhouse expenses, so I've removed that and place here: "PrintHouse is listed in his claims. " Widefox (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

YES, nice. The content is reading a lot more reflective of the reports now. Tonight I was thinking to further improve the article by formating the citations as they are a bit messy and it is a benefit to the content to be easily be able to see when and where and who the citations come from. I am going to start at the top, if anyone wants to help that is great. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Widefox, 1. Please note that I can find no reference to this individual at this reference site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8417868.stm and have therefore removed it. Please don't add it back again without checking. 2. According to Companies House the How 2 directorship was resigned in July 08. My edit reflects this, whereas yours did not and is therefore less inaccurate. 3. You've relied on a diary gossip column reference. This is clearly not a reliable source. The wiki guidelines state that "All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source". Questionable sources include those "which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion" which a diary column clearly represents. Lastly wikipedia rules state that " If you find unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person, whether in an article or on a talk page, remove it immediately!" So please stop simply adding back things without discussing here Hackneymarsh (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)