Talk:David TC Davies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which parliament?[edit]

um, in which parliament does Mr. Davies serve? Gentgeen 12:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Welsh Assembly and Westminster.

British or Welsh?[edit]

Why is David Davies referred to as a "Welsh Politician" but his fellow Conservative MP David Davis as a "British Politician". To be consistent, they should either both be referred to as British, or David Davis referred to as English. Ausseagull (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN got it wrong[edit]

Here's a interesting tidbit. During Charles Clarke's Commons speech about the 7 July 2005 London bombings, C-SPAN's titles identified David Davis (the Shadow Home Secretary) as David Davies, (the AM and MP for Monmouth). Take it as you will. - Hoshie.Crat 7 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

Content from[edit]

I've deleted the "voting record" section from this article as it was just content copied and pasted from the external website Content from this and other websites is useful and relevant to wikipedia articles, but copying and pasting isn't necessarily the best way to include it. The voting record section from TheyWorkForYou is subjective - it gives scores calculated using a method TheyWorkForYou have devised, based on issues that TheyWorkForYou has decided are important. Copying and pasting it here leaves out important qualifications and further information (such as links to the votes and speeches in question, and comparisons against other MPs). The "numerology" information from TheyWorkForYou is particularly meaningless without further information, and yet that was included here without further information. The other advantage to people looking up information on the website itself, rather than here, is that they can be sure it's up to date. Alboran (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citation accuracy[edit]

The article claims the NBPA "mistakenly" invited him to speak. However, the linked BBC source says: Some officers at the conference had expected Mr Davies's namesake, the former shadow home secretary David Davis, to be speaking. But the NBPA spokesman said the Monmouth MP had been asked because of his role on the commons home affairs committee. This indicates that they did mean to invite him. Did the original author cite the wrong source or get the source wrong? (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Barbaric views on women"?[edit]

To what does this refer? This should be clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC) In addition, it seems strange to me why this is included in the same sentance as his sceptisicm to CACG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Informative or ad Hominem Attack[edit]

This article does not read like an informative unbiased piece. It sounds more like a partisan attack add. Only listing his "wacko" statements does not give anyone a good overall view of his accomplishments or views. Most of this article is obviously intended only to make him look like an extreamist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Month of birth[edit]

According to David Davies’ office (and confirmed by him), David was born 27 June 1970, not July. We’ve used this information on his profile on YourNextMP. I believe the 1998 BBC source is incorrect. I made this edit, but it was reverted. How can this be resolved? (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Welsh politician"[edit]

I don't believe the current disambiguator is adequate. Is this David Davies really so much more prominent than all the other Welsh politicians listed at David Davies? If not, move him to e.g. David Davies (Monmouth MP), David T.C. Davies, David Davies (politician born 1970). jnestorius(talk) 17:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section keeps being deleted[edit]

The controversies section keeps being deleted despite being well sourced. The sources are sufficient and no reason given for 'vandalism'. Davies has been accused elsewhere of manipulating his wikipedia page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightSaidFred (talkcontribs) 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The references seem ok but can probably be beefed up even more. There are plenty of "positive" facts in the article, "Severn Bridge", etc., and yet the two editors who have made the deletes don't seem worried about them. --Tibloc (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism today from "13:10, 30 January 2017‎". The whole of the Controversies section was deleted with the reason, "(→‎Controversies: BLP violation using Twitter and blogs as reference sources)" In the case of the Twitter source, one of them was a primary source, i.e. from Davies' Twitter account, the other Twitter source was a tweet by a prominent British MP in reaction to Davies' original tweet. Other sources include Independent Television (ITV), The New Statesman, Christian Voice, (who actually appear to support Davies' views), Davies' own website, The Guardian, An article by a prominent professsor of law, a Huffington Post article, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent. The only sources which might give cause for concern are: and These last two are perhaps not up to Wikipedia's standard.

How do I request dispute resolution on this please? --Tibloc (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contact the editor who has made these deletions but there is only an ip address and no username. --Tibloc (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first step would be to not have such a section at all. We don't like Controversies sections, believing that the material - if well sourced per WP:BLPSOURCES etc - should be incorporated into the text of the article as a whole. Dedicated sections are undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I've merged some of the previous text back into the "Political Views" section and I'm wondering whether for the sake of clarity and ease of reading whether the article would be better served by adding sub-sections to the "Political Views" section. I removed the sub-section header for "Severn Bridges" for the time being as it was the only subsection and looked odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibloc (talkcontribs) 21:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Political views" section[edit]

I would like to tidy up this section and consider that subsections might be the way to make this section much clearer and, also, much easier for other editors to make further contributions. Offers of help and advice welcome. --Tibloc (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


On a number of occasions] Speaker Bercow referred to Davies as "Topcat"/"cat" Davies. Worthy of mention? Bogger (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errrmm... why is this article not David T. C. Davies? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum and 'Adult' Migrants[edit]

In 2022, the Refugee Council released a report suggesting that "94 per cent of the 233 migrant children aged under 18 that it supported last year [i.e. 2021] had been wrongly assessed as being adults and housed with older people." (source:, archive, is anybody aware of figures of a similar nature for the years around which his comments were made (2016)? If so, I think that would be important context to the Home Office's figures. Cigarettes and corvids (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]