Talk:Harriet Harman

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

toc[edit]

toc - Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Shadow Deputy PM", again[edit]

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[edit]

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. -Rrius (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should use the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister title on the infobox, because it has the most sources connect to it and also because it has information from Harriet Harman's own office who cannot "make up" titles without the permission from the leadership. I think an asterix for 'Deputy Leader of the Opposition', could be made. It is clearly her official titile. --195.171.221.67 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) When will you begin to understand that the quantity of sources is irrelevant? 2) Why do you think Harriet Harman is incapable of calling herself "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" without her leader giving it to her? It has been explained more than once here why she might want to summarise her duties by calling herself that even though it is not her official title. She can call herself whatever she wants, but the only things that go in the infobox are official titles, and there is not a single source that claims "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" is one. On the other hand, the only authoritative sources on this matter come from the Leader of the Opposition's office through the Labour and Parliament Shadow Cabinet lists. As has been said umpteen times, the House of Commons Information Office confirms that her title, as given on the Shadow Cabinet list, is Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It would be perfectly appropriate to put neither in the infobox and explain the situation in the prose. Given the weakness of the case for saying she is officially Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, it is baffling that you would oppose that. -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are irrational, Rrius. You CAN'T appoint yourslef to a position, it is almost impossible. If Harriet Harman could do such a thing, she would have probably appointed herself Deputy Prime Minister. The point of the matter is that several first-hand sources clearly state she is SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, and recently Ed Miliband's office. The fact that you contacted the House of Lords Information Office regarding an MP is ridiculous. I think we should use it on the infobox. By the way, "Deputy Leader" refers to "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party", not "Deputy Leader of the Opposition". There is no official title, whereas Shadow Deputy Prime Minister is as confirmed by 16 reliable sources compared to the one unreliable one.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying she appointed herself to anything, and I am not being irrational. So let's address your points in no particular order:

  1. I did not contact the House of Lords Information Office. As I have said over and over now, I contacted the House of Commons Information Office. The reason I mentioned the Lords was because the wider frontbench list maintained by the HCIO did not reflect updates that had been made to the List of Spokespersons in the Lords maintained by the HLIO. This would go much easier if you didn't make silly nonsense up.
  2. None of your sources is "first-hand" or from Ed Miliband. The first hand source we do have is the Shadow Cabinet list at Labour's site, and it most certainly does not call her "Shadow Deputy PM".
  3. Your stubborness about "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" is bizarre. The information comes directly from the House of Commons Information Office. What's more, despite your assertion in an edit summary that it has "always" been "Shadow Deputy PM", I've looked back at all the Leaders of the Opposition since Thatcher and not found a single one appointing a Shadow Deputy PM except Harman. In fact, take a look at this. What was Willie Whitelaw's title?
  4. I have said over and over that Harman is describing her role as "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". There is nothing wrong with that. It is not usurping, it is not "appointing herself" to something; rather, it is self-styling. -Rrius (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Shadow Deputy Prime Minister in the Infobox - I have been randomly asked to give feedback here. I have not read every word of this complicated dispute but the gist of it seems to be that the Leader of the Opposition has given created a position "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" and given that title to Harman. This seems to be established by a number of reliable sources so however silly the title may seem, I can't see any compelling reason not to follow the reliable sources here. Please someone point out if I have misunderstood something. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's suggestions[edit]

How about putting 'also self-styled SDPM', as in User_talk:Martin_Hogbin/sandbox Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that and continue to argue against because she is not "self-styled" she has been appointed to that position otherwise she would not be able to use that title, not oly that but you are then saying that a title that has never been used has more precedence over a title that his been confirmed by her and the Labour Party as well as many leading sources. I would recommend, "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" in the infobox, and then in the article mention that she has also been called the "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", due to her role as deputizing Ed Miliband. That is the compromise I am willing to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.221.67 (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about using a footnote then, like this User_talk:Martin_Hogbin/sandbox? Obviously the footnote text would need to be agreed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the whole idea. We do not put self-styles in the infobox. You are not going to get me to agree to "Shadow Deputy PM" in the infobox. You are also not going to get IP to agree to leave it out. For me, putting "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" in the infobox was a compromise. So too was putting a note after "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", which had the support of WP:botnotbod. So is my proposal to leave both out of the infobox and explain the situation in the prose. In this RfC, User:Cerejota has agreed with me. I have tried again and again to find a workable solution that reflects the official position of the Leader of the Opposition and gained support from the few other editors who care enough to comment, in both of these discussions, a previous one, and in edit summaries. IP, on the other hand, has engaged in a long campaign of edit warring, has (after being dragged here kicking and screaming) refused to engage in anything like a collaborative discussion, and has made false accusations against me here and at my talk page. It is therefore frustrating that your response to the situation is to basically let the IP editor drag your proposal all the way to his position without justifying himself.
At this moment, consensus is that she is not Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. IP seeks to overturn the consensus, and has presented as his reason that several sources, including her own, call her that. The response has been that the authoritative sources, the Shadow Cabinet lists, say she isn't and that all IP has given proof of is that she calls herself Shadow Deputy PM, and others have picked up on it. IP's initial response about the Shadow Cabinet lists was that you can't trust websites, which is absurd in itself and because all of his sources are websites. His second response, which he persists in, is that the Shadow Cabinet lists don't say "Deputy Leader of the Opposition"; it says "Deputy Leader", which actually means "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party". There are two responses to that: First, I asked the House of Commons Information Office about that, and they said it does in fact mean she is Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and they should know. In any event, the second response is that regardless of whether the lists support the title of "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", it absolutely does not support the title of "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". If Ed Miliband had given her that title, it would be there. But it isn't. IP's response about Harman's self-styling herself "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" has been that it is impossible for her to do so. IP has given us no indication of why Ms Harman lacks the ability, which everyone else on the planet has. When challenged on any point, he just regurgitates one or more of his three points and maybe, just maybe, responds disingenuously to one of the points made against his argument. -Rrius (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you produce a reliable source that says that titles of British politicians are definitively and exclusively determined by the Shadow Cabinet lists? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, we have very experienced editors asserting that something is untrue and this matters more than what is in reliable sources? Since when is this supposed to fly? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide 16 sources saying that she is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, if you look above. You will know that they are reliable. The consensus is not that she is Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is because User:Rrius has repetively been reverting my changes which are backed by sources. I will not stop until, I have Shadow Deputy Prime Minister on the infobox because I am not allowing inccorect, inaccurate rubbish to be put on Wikipedia pages. I use Wikipedia as a source of information, not for someone to put inaccuracies on Harriet Harman's page. Show experienced editors my sources, and then come to an agreement but this Deputy Leader of the Opposition nonsense is doing my head in.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How in the hell can you still try to argue that Harman and the media sources that have copied her are more reliable than Miliband? How can you still argue that there is no such title as "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" when I have shown that Parliament says that is her title and that the title has significant historical usage, unlike "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"? The old version is consensus, both by dint of an older discussion of this and by the passage of time. You have, at best, convinced one editor that you have a "good opinion", and have convinced no one that you are right. That is simply not sufficient to overturn the status quo. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two perfectly good opinions here, both based on reliable sources, but no one has produced a source to say that one of the opinions is the definitive one. You therefore both have to compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just confirm, 195.171.221.67 would be happy with SDPM in the info box with an explanatory note, and Rrius would be happy with self-styled SDPM in the info box. Is that right? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I would be happy with one of tow possibilities: the status quo, i.e., "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" in the infobox with a footnote, or neither in the infobox with an explanation at the appropriate spot in the prose. The infobox is an appropriate place to list self-styles and other unofficial titles. "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" has the imprimatur of the Leader of the Opposition, who is the only source for Official Opposition titles. IP has expressed doubt about how official the title "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" is, and you have at least sort of supported that by requiring that I find some official source saying that only the Leader of the Opposition can create Shadow posts even though anyone who actually follows British politics knows that and even though I can show examples of Leaders of the Opposition appointing Deputy Leaders of the Opposition, even when there was a Deputy Prime Minister and even when the Deputy Prime Minister had a substantive department (which Clegg does not, and someone else shadows him on his substantive policy portfolio). Despite that, and despite that others in these discussions have agreed with me, I am willing to compromise and leave both out of the infobox, but explain in the prose that the official lists call her "Deputy Leader", with the HCIO explicitly stating that on their list it means "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", but that Harman calls herself "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" and that some media sources have also called her that. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius, if you want to win this argument you must produce a source which says, '...Leader of the Opposition, who is the only source for Official Opposition titles', otherwise you must compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said again and again I can provide sixteen sources which state that she is the "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", and as SineBot has said it is an appointed title otherwise she could not use it. Miliband's office have confirmed that. I would be prepared to mention the "deputy Leader of the Opposition" in the article as a footnote but I strongly believe that "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" should be in the infobox. Also, Parliament website does not always get it right.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin: That is an outrageous. First of all, it is obvious that the leader of the opposition, the one who names people to opposition posts, is the one with the right to name those posts. Second, why don't you find a source that says a shadow minister has the right to name his or her own post. Even IP acknowledges that Miliband is the source for shadow titles; his argument is that if Harman is using it, then she must have been given it. My counter is that there is no basis in fact for that claim and that we know what titles Miliband gave her because he told us in the published Shadow Cabinet lists, and the HCIO has clarified what theirs means. Finally, and most importantly, I am the one who is willing to compromise. IP's version of compromise is to get everything he wants, i.e., "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" in the infobox. My version is to leave both posts out of the infobox and explain both sides in the text. Giving in to IP's irrational argument that if a person calls herself something, then she must have been officially granted the right, is not compromise, it is giving in.
@IP: Sinebot is a boteditor that adds signatures after names. What you are claiming is an additional editor supporting you is actually just a bot that added your signature where you failed to put it in yourself. So the only person agreeing with you is still... You! What's more, you have still not provided any sort of support for you bizarre claim that somehow Harman is incapable of summarising her duties in respect of Nick Clegg as "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" without having been granted the official title. You keep saying over and over and over that it somehow matters that she has been called "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" in 16 sources. That's nonsense. First, quality matters. The Labour Party Shadow Cabinet list and Harman's bio at parliament's website are far better sources than the ones you quote. But if you are so enamored of numbers, let's look at some. Here are some Google searches all using 8 October 2010 (when the Shadow Cabinet was announced) as a start date:
  1. Harriet Harman: 916,000
  2. Harriet Harman "Deputy Leader of the Opposition": 377
  3. Harriet Harman "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister": 362
What about Google News, then?—
  1. Harriet Harman: 1,240
  2. Harriet Harman "Deputy Leader of the Opposition": 9
  3. Harriet Harman "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister": 2
There is simply no credible argument that her true title is "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". The official sources use "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", and more other sources use it even though it is a more clumsy phrase than SDPM. You said before in edit summaries that there was no such thing as "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" and that it has always been "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", but that was debunked early on. You have said over and over that she can't use a title if she hasn't been given it, but you have failed to provide any support for that. Exactly why can't she summarise her duties as "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", even though it isn't her official title, to summarise what she does if she happens to like the sound of it? There is no reason, of course. That does not mean that the style somehow becomes official or belongs in the infobox. I have repeated expressed willingness to compromise, as I actually did in the editing by putting a ref after her actual title in the infobox or by simply leaving both out of the infobox and putting a note in the prose. Why can't you bring yourself to actually find a compromise position rather than simply trying to get everything your own way? -Rrius (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius, you say, 'it is obvious that the leader of the opposition, the one who names people to opposition posts, is the one with the right to name those posts'. That is not how WP works, neither is it how the British constitution works. There are very few defined facts in the British constitution it is based on practice and custom.
I do not always think that compromise is the best solution, but in this case you both have some degree of logic, sources, and WP policy on your side. There is never going to be a clear win for either side so you must both compromise. What else do you plan to do, wait until the protection expires and edit war? You have asked for outside opinion and you have got it, compromise. I will gladly help if both sides are willing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to compromise, as I have said again and again. IP is not. As for edit warring, that has been IP's m.o. throughout; indeed, he earned a block long after this discussion began. -Rrius (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed several compromises, you haven't. Now we should change it to Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Full stop. She was always Shadow DPM, like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.221.67 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are both going to have to give a bit more so that we can meet in the middle somewhere. Let me know if I can help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harman was never named Deputy Prime Minister, which holds no constitutional significance, no portfolio and no salary. Brown made her Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equalities. He also named Peter Mandelson, Lord President of the Council and First Secretary of State. Usually the First Secretary of State is considered the deputy to the Prime Minister when DPM is not officially used and Mandelson retained seniority after Brown. Harman as Deputy Leader of the Party, did not retain the deputyship of the Government; Mandelson took that. She stood in at PMQs as the public face of the Party but she was never DPM, she never had any right to call herself that or "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister," and that should be the end of it. She did endorse matters on the PM's behalf but as Lord Privy Seal, which is effectively a minister without portfolio. Brown probably did not want her undermining his authority, so he assigned her a sinecure so she felt she had some substantial role. 98.10.179.163 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reshuffle[edit]

Miliband today reshuffled the Shadow Cabinet, and this time he gave her the title "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". As a result, I suggest that the infobox be edited to say she was "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" and "Shadow Secretary of State for International Development" from 8 October 2010 to 7 October 2011. Three new posts should be placed above those: "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"; "Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport"; and "Labour Party Chair"—all from 7 October 2011 to present. "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party" should also be moved above DLO and Shadow DfID Secretary as it to continues to the present. -Rrius (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the reshuffle gives us an opportunity. The old Shadow Cabinet lists names her Deputy Leader of the Opposition; the new names her Shadow Deputy PM. Several sources for the duration of the original Shadow Cabinet use both terms. Also, the terms are roughly equivalent. So how about "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister / Deputy Leader of the Opposition" with Michael Ancram and Jack Straw used as predecessors and a note after the title explaining that the Miliband's 2010 Shadow Cabinet list named her Deputy Leader of the Opposition and numerous sources used that title, but that Harman herself used Shadow Deputy Leader of the Opposition and almost as many sources used that one. The note should further explain that at the 2011 reshuffle, Miliband unequivocally named her Shadow Deputy Prime Minister.

I think this suggestion does as much as possible to reflect both sides. It doesn't attempt to put a timeframe on either title, thereby admitting of the possibility that both titles were valid during first year. The only objection I can see IP mustering is a further insistence that there is no such thing as a Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which flies in the face of the sources and of the obvious historical precedents going back at least as far as Willie Whitelaw in the Thatcher Shadow Cabinet. -Rrius (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. See http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/harriet-harman/25677 It says that she has been, since 2010, Deputy Leader of the Opposition/Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. I don't know how recent the change has been, but this implies, in layman and official speak, that she has been Shadow DPM and Deputy Leader of the Opposition since 2010 (exact date not stated but it generally means 2010 after Miliband was elected). Therefore, IP's case is correct. Rrius your case is also correct but you were wrong to keep insisting that is is Deputy Leader of the Opposition only. if that is so, dozens of media sites and people are wrong--funny that you want to edit it so on Wikipedia but not email newspapers and new organisations of their own mistakes! Unless of course, you show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the biography on her parliament page was different--and you must show proof. As well as all your emails (or so called emails so far) with the Parliamentary office and Labour party.Phd8511 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first. It looks like the politicians may have actually solved a problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rrius takes only official websites like the Labour Party website (which has titled her as Shadow DPM in certain occasions--see above by IP) and Parliament, this parliamentary biography says it clear. It may have been change recently, but again as I said, unless you can haul up the Parliamentary webmaster and given in official writing that Harriet Harman was not Shadow DPM in 2010, then the IP's claim is lost. In this case, as I said, IP was right from the start. Rrius was also right to title her Deputy L of O (which media sites have not used often) but wrong unless otherwise proven--he takes parliamentary sources as official; this is a parliamentary biography.Phd8511 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should put in. I would support Shadow Deputy Prime Minister int he infobox and then Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the article because the infobox will be too long. Anyway, Rrius can make facts up about Google searches the fact is that many of the results actually referred to Deputy Leader of the Oppposition whereas my proposals directly linked Harman to Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Also, since Miliband or Harman have never used "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" we must not put it in the infobox - putting it the article is my generous compromise. That is as far as I will be stretched.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP see my comment above. Her parliamentary biography said she was D L of O/Shadow DPM since 2010.Phd8511 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wasn't wrong. Until the reshuffle, it only said DLOO. She has both titles, so both should be infobox.[6] -Rrius (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong. Her Bio says she was Shadow DPM since 2010 which you objected to. You liked to use only "official" sources but you failed to find this one.Phd8511 (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You also have no proof otherwise. Unless you send all parties the exact archived parliamentary page and a proof of letter from the parliamentary web master (since you claim you emailed them; I can claim the same too) that the change only occurred after October 2011. As in proper titled emails, minus your email address. Phd8511 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss [the link? It's right there at the end of my last contribution. [Here it is again, just in case. The date of the archive is right there in the link. Given your snarky dismissal of my assertion that I've e-mailed the House of Commons Information Office (I hope someone glibly dismisses you as a liar soon, too), here's a link to Parliament's own archive of her bio from May 2011. I'm more than a little tired of your demands for proof of what the official sources said, so I hope you read this. You could just as easily have gone back to the rest of the discussion. Not only did my direct quoting from her biography go unchallenged by an IP editor who was willing to throw up every trivial and ridiculous objection he could (making it unlikely such a thing would go unchallenged), but other editors referred to the page as well. So please tell me we are done with this. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me summarise. IP--claimed that it is Shadow DPM not Shadow DL of O. first used Harman's own page, then 16 other sources (which included Labour Party website) to back it up. Rrius (henceforth stated as R) stated that the official title was only from E Miliband and that this is backed up by only two official sites: Parliament and Labour Party site. Yet, IP insisted case as well as R. No one gave a firm answer why media sites name her as Shadow DPM and not DL of O and Labour Party website did so--indicating that only Wikipedia can be correct or R is correct: Official sites like Parliament can only be used. Case continued. The reshuffle happened. Yet reshuffled gave no clear answer whether IP or R was fully correct in their claims. Now parliamentary bio was picked up. The line as stated, "Deputy Leader of the Opposition/Shadow Deputy Prime Minister 2010-". As I've said, both sides are right and both sides are wrong to claim their case only.Phd8511 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are stating my case wrongly. My position was that the official sources supported "DLOO", but not "SDPM". That is not the same as saying "SDPM" is not true, merely that the quality of sources for SDPM being official was not good enough. I did offer explanations for why she might use "Shadow Deputy PM" even if it wasn't an official title, so that wasn't true either. I would suggest you go back and read the actual arguments if you care about what the argument used to be. My position now, given the reshuffle, is that her bio says both from 2010, so both should be in the infobox. IP, with absolutely no justification, seeks to exclude DLOO, presumably because he doesn't like it, can't bear to admit any ground, or wants to continue his pattern of disruptive editing. I should think that the bio (and the archived version I linked to) and the sources listed in the sub-section above, which show that DLOO was more common in both news and other sources, is enough to disprove IP's position, such as it is. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You said only official sources--Parliament.uk and Labour.org.uk should be used and they said D L of O. So newspaper site said it--saying that you know more about official titles that vetran newspaper site--why did you not correct them and only correct it on wikipedia? IP has show that the Labour party website has mentioned her as Shadow DPM several times--you say she wrote those articles herself. You claim Khan shadows Clegg--but that is not what his wikipedia page or his official page says! You said only parliament.uk or Labour party website should be used, but you did not give a link to her parliamentary bio which I have done so which shows since 2010!!!! Again, unless you say that beyond reasonable doubt that parliament.uk webmaster edited wrongly/recently and you send emails to all newspapers like the Guardian--which termed her as Shadow DPM!--and copy the original emails to all of us, thne you case was as wrong as the IP who said there's no such thing as Shadow DPM. Or show a real email exchange with Ed Miliband that he did not appoint her as Shadow DPM in 2010 and http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/harriet-harman/25677 WRONGLY typed her as since 2010. You seem to insist it only on Wikipedia but make no attempt to change it on any newspaper or email Harman herself. Are we then should cite only Wikipedia in our essays and not newspapers?Phd8511 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12244589-- Shadow DPM. If you insit it is "more common" why have you not emailed BBC for their error then? Or is BBC right?

Phd8511 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Please tell me when we're done with this"--please tell me why newspapers (which are official sources for academics and students to cite from) are wrong while you alone in Wikipedia are right--when Wikipedia is not classified as a academic source for university citations. Please tell me beyond reasonable doubt that you alone by all things know everything about the UK parliamentary rules and you alone know best. It seems at first that IP was the arrogant one. You seem so now, insisting your edits are truthful.Phd8511 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, officially declare say that parliament.uk was wrong to keep changing her title.Phd8511 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this issue resolved???Phd8511 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From M2 Presswire, a new site available academically (does Rrius have access to this?)

"M2 PressWIRE

September 5, 2011 Monday

The famine in the Horn of Africa is causing suffering for millions of people and is set to get worse - Harman

LENGTH: 553 words


September 5, 2011

Today the UN is expected to declare the famine in the Horn of Africa has spread to another region of Somalia. Returning from her visit to Dadaab refugee camp and severely drought-stricken areas of the Horn of Africa with Islamic Relief, Harriet Harman Enhanced Coverage LinkingHarriet Harman -Search using:News, Most Recent 60 DaysBiographies Plus NewsMP, Labour's Shadow International Development Secretary and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister:"

So going by your logic, why is M2 Presswire calling her SDPM? Are all newsites wrong??

Phd8511 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stupid or something? I gave the links above where Labour and Parliament said she is Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Those links still say it. No one is disputing that she also has the title of Shadow Deputy PM, but until the 2011 reshuffle, no official source used it. I proved that that was true with archived links. That a news source uses one does not disprove the other, so why did you bother inserting this series of barely literate contributions? -Rrius (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this page.[edit]

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]
The discussion I archived was stale enough to not get noticed for twelve days. I won't de-archive it - its not the kind of discussion I will take responsibility for, if you have a desired content addition that you are aware is contentious, I suggest you start a new thread. Personally I think your addition on National Council for Civil Liberties#1975–1989 is plenty and adding it here considering her minimal level of involvement attempting to assert the subject of the article supported pedophilia is undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that content on the NCCL article is a major part of my proposed solution as it covers both Hewitt and Harman and also NCCL as a whole. In addition, rather than having any explicit coverage of child abuse laws and incest legalisation here we simply state "at the NNCL she campaigned to liberalise sex laws". We further improve this BLP by summarising her time at NCCL more effectively through noting her more liberal attitudes/work then and perhaps the way this contrasts to her approach in later years once in power. For example Shami Chakrabarti mentions the issue here in a Times interview [7] although this ref is better [8]. Anyway I think this compromise satisfies the positions/concerns of everyone involved and gives a broader view of the issues. I would appreciate any feedback--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Shakehandsman's digression into the content dispute itself, this has become a pointless discussion. If it was so bloody horrible to archive the discussion, then resurrect it and quit bitching about it, people. Implying that Rob intentionally left out a comment by another editor when he tried to fix the mess that editor made fails to assume good faith. Anyway, you aren't going to convince Rob that he shouldn't have archived it, and frankly I'm not sure he was wrong. It is clear from the discussion that over the course of weeks, Twobells failed to convince a single editor that his preferred version should stand. After a week without a contribution being added, Rob archived it. Almost two weeks later, Twobells came back and resurrected the thread to say that the other editors supported him 4–2, which is laughable in itself, but also in giving rise to his conclusion that he had consensus. He then added a comment saying that there was sufficient media treatment for inclusion, which does not seem to have been the objection. Rob then re-archived the discussion. Again, you can question all you want whether Rob was right to do it, but what is the point of doing it here? This talk page is meant discuss improvements to the article, not to gripe about whether a person should or should not have re-archived something. After the first editor agreed with Twobells, it became clear the discussion could be resurrected. If someone wants to take issue with Rob, they can always to go AN/I. Otherwise, I hope we can just drop this. Again, if someone feels the need to re-add a discussion of whether the article should include Twobells's preferred text, which everyone but he seems to think gives undue weight, go ahead, but it probably shouldn't be done without an intention to add more than the pointless comments Twobells tried to add before. -Rrius (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, four editors wanted the PIE inclusion as well as the 2005 attempt to water down legislation to allow adults to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed against you and Rob. Please stop attempting to close down this topic, the reality is that I am more than happy to work with other editors over the issue however any attempt to even enter debate has been heavy-handedly blocked by user Off2riorob. There has not been any mention of him even going to the lengths of changing a neutral section header.Twobells (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. What the other editors supported was something less than what you initially wanted. In any event, I am not trying to close down a discussion of the underlying topic. Rather, I was trying to get people to stop using this page to pointlessly bicker over whether Rob should or should not have re-archived the discussion. If you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I was perfectly happy for everyone to argue about the content dispute. It was the idiotic fighting about user behaviour that annoyed me. There is a place for that, as I pointed out, and it is not an article's talk page. -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 4–2 is a majority, not consensus. If any consensus can be drawn from that discussion, it is that some measure of delicacy is required in dealing with this, and you appear to be on the wrong side of that as you seem to continue to insist on not only using charged words, but highlighting them by using them in the section heading. -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This has been tirelessly spammed to the talkpage for over eighteen months now - here is your BLPN request from then - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive81#Harriet_Harman_MP_And_The_Paedophile_Information_Exchange - you have been one of the worst of the three users carrying on the discussion, your insistence in wanting Pedophile in the section header and calling removal of that, whitewashing part of the weight of reason to close it down - also your final warning that you will be blocked if you add your desired addition again - - its added to the parent page I suggest its more than enough. Addition here is undue weight. If you really want to discuss some more start yourself a new thread. I suggest you keep the header less titillating and more un-opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A threat of block by YOU rob when you didn't get your own way, in all the years I have been on Wikipedia you take the biscuit for the most NPOV heavy-handed hostile editor here attempting to abuse our powers when you don't agree with an issue. I will copy and paste the pertinent facts from history and start a new discussion with the header PIE Inclusion. Twobells (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scott MacDonald it was I think - If I was an admin I would have blocked you already for your previous BLP violating additions here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was YOU rob I am not getting into a childish tit for tat debate with you just telling you what's going to happen and as for trying to bring up one ever 24 four-hour block that admins actually disagreed with is low but an indicator of your mind set. Twobells (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This information breaches WP:UNDUE and it also a slur, as it implies Harman had involvement with PIE, when she only had an involvement with an organisation which may have had involvement with PIE. There is just not any chance this will be reasonable to include in a short article. DO NOT REPLACE IT WITHOUT CONSENSUS OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Controversial information on a BLP, once challenged unless consensus rules it safe, neutral, and properly weighted (as I say, no chance here).--Scott Mac 4:35 pm, 12 August 2011, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC+1) - Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I ever wanted to do was debate PIE inclusion and it seems and for the record we had consensus four to two and the rest has been blocking attempts. We couldn't even attempt to get consensus due to heated reaction from the two editors who disagreed and have run a 18 month disruption campaign.Twobells (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those disruptive attempts at undue insertion and unduly lengthy continuation of discussion of such undue desires on the talkpage of the BLP have gone on long enough. Pick it up and move along. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, Alison has confirmed that we do not need to delete the material that you removed. It clearly is a delicate subject, with which I do not intend to become involved, but I do not think it is right to try to stifle discussion by removing text from this talk page. I therefore ask you to show good faith and support for open and honest discussion by restoring the material you removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the BLP concerns, I'd rather it was not - Alison ❤ 3:55 am, Yesterday (UTC+1) - I deleted discussion that was stale enough to not get noticed for twelve days. I won't de-archive it - its not the kind of discussion I will take responsibility for.if you have some compromise I suggest you start a new thread. - Off2riorob (talk) 6:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) - Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is your choice but it does not, in my opinion, show support for open and honest support discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not even read the details. As stated here just above - this has gone on for a year and a half its more than enough "open and honest discussion." there comes a time when its undue and a BLP violation in itself to keep discussing such failed desired content additions on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason it has gone on so long is your attempts to block debate on inclusion and consensus. Harman's continued efforts to get child sex protection legislation reduced is highly pertinent. Twobells (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the historic failed attempts at inclusion support my position. Can you support this . continued for what length of time, how has she continued this ? Harman's continued efforts to get child sex protection legislation reduced ? - Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, here I must ask how is the PIE inclusion any different to this? They are not even fact but allegations, Harmans role at the PIE and more recent moves to water down child protection legislation are factual, Tim Loughton is extremely concerned. Twobells (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this? They are not even fact but allegations - thanks for pointing that recent expansion out - I have removed it and requested talkpage discussion... As for this discussion .. you haven't verified your allegations against her at all.."continued for what length of time, how has she continued this ? " your claim is even undue in itself never mind the false parts of it. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wait, I see what you mean, apologies, I didn't mean that she continued beyond her involvement with the NCCL and PIE beyond 1983. Twobells (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that we need a new thread is a good one. Twobells should start a new thread stating exactly what text he wants included and what reliable sources verify his text. Rob should then state his precise objections. The rest of us can then respond, and hopefully get us to a resolution. The current discussion has devolved into a "yes you did, no I didn't" spat that serves no useful purpose. -Rrius (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your neutral input, I'll get to it. Twobells (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PIE Inclusion: a measured debate.[edit]

Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham. Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles David Joy Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Nicolas Walters and Trevor Locke were on the Executive.[1] My interest is to work this into the main body of the article using neutral language, I am not on some moral crusade but fervently believe that it belongs in the article. Twobells (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I do not see that any persuasive case has been made here for including this information. I doubt such a case can be made. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That information is very interesting to put things into context for people but it's all too broad and vague. It's her actions which are of note or anything that is directly linked to Harman herself and that's what the Telegraph quite rightly focuses on and you haven't even mentioned these in the above (I know you did before but unfortunately we've been forced to start form scratch). Most of the background information should be placed in the NCCL/Liberty article. Also, the Sun is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia so adds nothing to this discussion really (nor is the Mirror, Star etc). You must always use reliable sources such as the Telegraph and you should be proposing the exact phrases you wish to have inserted into the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the gist is that She was the legal officer for a civil liberties that was "affiliated" with a group that apparently advocated paedophilia. What does "affiliated" even mean? Has anyone contacted Liberty, as NCCL is now known, to find out exactly what an "affiliated" organisation was with respect to them in the early '80s? Guilt by association is problematic enough, but adding this vague crap about the PIE that gives no real inkling of what that association even is just a smear. I don't know whether that is the intent, but it would surely be the result. The only thing she seems to have been involved with that had anything to do with paedophilia was to sign an official submission to Parliament (keep in mind here that she was a legal officer) arguing against text of a bill drafted by the Government. Its proposed alternative said,
[Something is not indecent] by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder.
So, the submission said a nude or semi-nude film or photo shouldn't be considered indecent unless the prosecutors could prove harm or the film or photo itself gives rise to a reasonable inference that there was, or even might have been, harm. In other words, if Mum takes a snap of her child in the bath, it shouldn't necessarily be considered indecent. It is hardly damning for a lawyer to have submitted something like that, especially a civil liberties lawyer. It would be wrong to use even that incident in the article unless we had information about context, both as to why that language was advocated and what Harman's level of involvement was. She may have drafted the whole thing, or she may have signed it because the person who was supposed to do it was out of the office and someone needed to sign. Context is key, and we don't have it. -Rrius (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not completely irrelevant, but more appropriate in the PIE, NCCL or GLF articles. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Telegraph, Daily. "Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 30 September 2011.

Wikileaks Assange, Extradition and Rendition[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section on the Wikileaks cables that revealed Harman's involvement in the Rendition of two UK citizens to Egypt. Thee should also be something on her involvement with the extradition process for Julian Assange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.255.64 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous wording on reverse discrimination proposals[edit]

The following sentence (and consequently the entire following paragraph) is ambiguous: "As part of a proposed Equality Bill, Harman announced a consultation on changing the existing discrimination laws, which included options for Reverse discrimination in employment." On first reading, it seemed to me that "which" refers to "the existing discrimination laws", implying that Ms Harman's aim was to remove options for reverse discrimination. However, another possibility (perhaps more in line with the remainder of the paragraph) is that "which" refers to the consultation announced by Ms Harman, implying that she wanted to introduce options for reverse discrimination. After carefully reading this entire paragraph several times, I am not sure which is the correct interpretation. Is it just me, or does this need to be rephrased to remove this ambiguity?

My humble opinion is that removing the ambiguity certainly wouldn't harm the article. Rulatir (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More PIE news[edit]

More news on the Paedophile Information Exchange front:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2221078/Jimmy-Savile-liberal-left-encouraged-sexualisation-children.html Twobells (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the word 'notorious' from the current section. If you, or whoever else is editing this section, can find a series of contemporaneous condemnations of it in the Daily Mail and Telegraph, you can have it back. Otherwise, NPOV. Lovingboth (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PIE section[edit]

It contains a speech made to her husband by a political rival, surely this has a better home on his article than Harman's? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Leader?[edit]

This is the second time I've made the change and I suspect it'll come up again, so perhaps best to resolve this on the talk page so it is easy to refer to. The issue is the infobox has been adjusted a couple of times to denote that Harman is an 'acting' Leader of the Opposition. To clear this up, there is no provision for an acting Leader of the Opposition. You're either the Leader, full stop, or you're not. She is, however, acting leader of the Labour Party, and that's because there is a provision for an acting leader. So, as far as I believe, she's the Leader of the Opposition (not an acting one) and the acting leader of the party. Is this something we're all happy with or does anyone want to show where my logic has gone wrong? Redverton (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Would someone change this? It's been over a year and this issue has not been resolved. Redverton is entirely correct. There is no provision for an "acting" Opposition leader. The leader of the 2nd largest party in the Commons is the Leader of the Opposition. Actually there's technically no provision in the Labour constitution either for an "Acting" Leader; the leader between elections is Leader on an interim basis but is fully considered the Leader of the Party as it's explained in her article. There is always a Government Leader and always an Opposition Leader. Whether it's only for the interim is not relevant. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harriet Harman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Solicitor to be Solicitor-General?[edit]

Was not Harriet Harman the first solicitor to be appointed as Solicitor-General for England and Wales? As the Solicitor-General page says, a barrister is usually appointed. If she was, then this should be noted.Ntmr (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox compression[edit]

Harriet Harman's infobox was absurdly long, with 16 sets of information being included. Her brief opposition leaderships alone took up four sets. I have enacted measures to bring the infobox down to a more manageable size, grouping most of her titles into three collapsed sections to separate her shadow roles before and after government from the ministerial positions during. I have also merged "Leader of the Labour Party" and "Leader of the Opposition" into a single item as they had near-identical information (the lone difference being her 2010 predecessor). Her mandate as a member of the House of Commons, being of a different nature to ministerial jobs, has remained standalone. Thankfully she has always represented the same constituency.

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Law centre[edit]

In the lead it says she worked at Brent Law Centre from 78-82 In the body it says she work at Brent Law Centre and then moves to National Cuncil for Civil Liberties from 78-82. I suspect the latter is correct and the former due to poor editing = but do not have time to check.

80.3.80.20 (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harriet Harman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of the House[edit]

If she stays on long enough to have seniority over all other MPs of both sexes, as opposed to just those of her own, then she will have the duties and privileges which Fathers of the House have long enjoyed, and it will be appropriate to put the title on her infobox. Until then it should be kept off. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I just removed all the nonsense about Mother of the House from the info-box, although the informal usage in the text is still there. That's probably okay. 31.52.164.75 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unfortunately, we seem to have a determined edit warrior paying no regard to other editors' views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar school row[edit]

Over at Talk:Jack Dromey#Selective schools the 1996 row about Harman sending her son to a grammar school has come up which isn't covered in this article despite being a huge political controversy at the time. One of the problems is that it just predates online news media and so there aren't many easily accessible sources about it online. Is anyone able to dig out much that can be used to expand coverage? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harriet_Harman&oldid=1207552636"