Talk:Mark Harper

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Harper article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiltshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Shendruk, Amanda (July 18, 2014). "Which Wikipedia pages have been edited the most from inside the Houses of Parliament?". The Guardian.

Anon edits, UK Parliament IP address

Having undertaken a clean-up exercise, there have been a number of recent edits by Mr Harper and people associated closely with him. In the latest, there is a specific edit summary which asks that we do not change (actually, not include), certain information - hence my application of the WP:autobiography tag. Having looked further into this, I can understand why there may be some personal concern with regards a person associated with Mr Harper. In summary, I am happy that this request does not presently compromise WP:PILLARS, as the focus of this article is Mr Harper himself. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the name of the editor is Myles Bailey, Mark Harper's parliamentary assistant. Wikipedia should always be very vigilant when allowing the assistants of high-profile subjects to edit our encylopedia. 80.225.179.56 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reversion of my edit about disability hate speech

This is unjustified censorship. The citation was given namely BBC Any Questions same day 10th Sept. I will revert and complain if any more such interference with my contribution.

P.S. this person naming him/herself as Peter Karlsen has since twice more reverted sound appropriate material on patently false grounds. This vandalism must cease else complaint will be made about Peter Karlsen's tampering designed to give a censored flattering account of Mr Harper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.172.129 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: firstly, it wasn't a "speech" it was a comment and expansion on a radio programme. Secondly, the current edit reflects the fact of what was said, not the additional commentary that you have tried to add back on four occasions. The current version seems reflective of the facts as they are at present and can be supported, and as an encyclopedia, we just reflect fact and not WP:OPINION. Unless you can find a political commentator or other reliable source who supports your conclusion, and hence support it with a reference, it can not be included. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

I'd like to propose that this section be renamed Notable issues. Mark Harper deals with many issues, this section clearly doesn't relate to them all - just those of note. Obscurasky (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supported Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Obscurasky (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI - 194.60.38.198

Here we go again! I reapplied the COI tag in light of the edits of anon 194.60.38.198 (traced by Wikipedia to the Houses of Parliament), who removed what could be perceived as "negative" text here, and added a huge amount of "positive" text - none of the later of which had any form of reference. I am not a constituent of Mr Harper, but the amount of negative/positive and highly biased editing seems high for even a political biography article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the last Parliament Mark’s helped over 12,000 people. What does this even mean - helped in what way, and who are the 12,000 people; Constituents? Veterans? Old ladies in the street? Statements like this should not be allowed to exist in the article indefinitely unless proper in-line references are provided. Obscurasky (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we now know that the COI party is timothy.sagar@parliament.uk, who admits in his edit record that he works for Mark Harper. I don't think that these people get the idea of COI, hence the need for semi-protection. I have to say, that in light of dealing with another issue on this article with someone who worked for Mr Harper, in contrast on this occasion timothy.sagar@parliament.uk is doing a great disservice to Mr Harper's personal reputation and public office. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sagar has been in email contact with the Foundation (WP:OTRS Ticket:2010121610015369. He is not concealing who he is, and it is rather unnecessary to start making personal attacks. It would be better to help Mr. Sagar understand how Wikipedia works. I have informed him that Mr. Harper will not ever be given any form of editorial control or veto, and he now understands that, and why we have that policy (remember, not everyone understands what Wikipedia is about, we are basically dealing with newbies here). If any of the parties here chooses to be inflammatory - and I specifically include Mr. Sagar - then I can and will take admin action to control that disruption. Please remember that WP:BLP applies throughout Wikipedia, not just within articles, and by extension it is not acceptable to rail against people identifiable int he real world. I am sure you won't be doing any of that and will be giving him what assistance you can to address whatever substantive points he may raise, including explaining, if necessary, why requested changes will not be made, or helping find acceptable compromise wording. None of this should be controversial, this is after all how we are supposed to work all the time. Thank you for your attention. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, thanks for your input. I understand your comment of "dealing with newbies," but having dealt with an issue on this article which addressed aspects of Mr Harper's personal life (that was dealt with in liaision with Mr Harper's office manager at Westminster), the term "newbies" can not be applied to Mr Harper's political office, for which Mr Sagar works. Secondly, from watching this article since cleaning up some fact tags 6+months ago, this article seems prone to both positive and negative edits - its not a personal attack level, its a political debate level. In summary, its like a mini-editing debating chamber! Let us see what happens. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to assume good faith, and be nice, and be as firm as we need to be without stooping to personalising things. That's because we are going to show some class here. We're going to show some class because we are cool people and because Wikipedia is not evil and incidentally because it's our best defence if the ordure hits the air movement device at any point. We are going to remove WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES and WP:COATRACKS with equal firmness, and you can ask me any time you like to protect the article if there is a problem with see-saw editing. We managed to salvage a half-decent article out of a cat fight on English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a while back so this should be a piece of cake. I hope the subtext is coming across loud and clear here, feel free to email me if not. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edit MPs of both main parties, and believe co-operation can work very well as Parliamentary Assistants with their excellent knowledge of Westminster can make a really valuable contribution. Unfortunately my experience suggests they don't all edit ethically and/or don't understand wp:NPOV, this is a matter of education not malicious intent. A registered SPA repeatedly copied an opponent's wp:attack page expenses blog to Andy Reed before the election, at one time incorrectly citing the local newspaper as the source. Two other registered SPAs deleted properly cited material from a respectable wp:source from Anna Soubry and studiously ignored talk pages. Other cases are reported here, here and here

I think biographies should only be editable by registered users who should be obliged to declare any COI, that they have read wp:blp and confirm that they genuinely want to improve Wikipedia. Newbies should be advised to ensure their contributions are accurate, cited from a respectable source and include a summary of any right of reply. JRPG (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags and refs

OK, well tonight I have added some more refs, edited in/out stuff that I can't find/can find suitable refs for, and added some cite tags where there is a clear lack of refs. Resultantly, I have removed the autobiography tag. Still needs more referencing would be a fair summary. Rgds - Trident13 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disability comments

In light of more Anon/COI editting by HoP IP address 194.60.38.198, and in light of the discussion facilitated above by Guy (Help!) this is the first of two sections I have added re parts of the current bio. As this was part of the stabalised biography post Mr. Sagar's complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation, I am disapointed that someone else now finds the need to remove this. Its significant as it was both well referenced, well commented on (particularly I feel in light of Harper's previous shadow role as disability spokeperson), and the neutral chair immediately suggested Harper's comment were "outrageous." It should presently be kept. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I had removed this section because it didn't seem like a noteworthy event to me based solely on the cited reference, and therefore not appropriate per WP:BLP. But I'll defer to others that know more about UK politics. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Edgar. I reverted your edit removal, and can understand why you may think that its could breach WP:BLP, as Any Questions? (which I have now linked in the article itself), is a UK nationally acclaimed and respected political talkshow. If the comment had been made almost anywhere else, then I think it could breach WP:BLP. But when the respect neutral chair of such a show calls the comment outrageous, I'll bow to his authority. Hence why I think its worth keeping, and hence reverted. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forest

This is the second of two new sections after more Anon/COI editting by HoP IP address 194.60.38.198 - see section "Disability comments." As an outsider, I can't see a bigger issue in the forest than this one. Further, Harper seems to be coming in for a lot of wider critic on his personal position with regards the issue. We don't need duplicate text between this article and the one on Hands off our Forest, and this article section only needs to cover comments made about Harper with regards the issue. Yes, I added the Porrit comment in this context, and editted that down to keep it encyclopedic: his critic of Harper goes further, but readers can access the whole article from reading the accompanying reference. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atos exit

I've expanded this section a bit to include Atos' comments to the select committee. This is a crucial point: is it the provider or the dept that is responsible for what happens, especially when things go wrong? It's clear to me that most people who look at it dispassionately see that merely getting a new company to do basically the same thing is not going to change all that much.

NB The select committee heard from several witnesses - they didn't just form a view based on their own analysis.

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've 'streamlined' the whole article; I think it's tidier now and reads better.

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

The article's quite long now, so I'm giving it a trim today.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Harper. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Harper. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608221852/http://www.fodconservatives.com/ to http://www.fodconservatives.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting figures to two significant figures

Updated to 2019 election, and have given figures to two significant figures - but I imagine there is policy somewhere, so if in the light of policy any editor wishes to add more accuracy (at the cost of clarity of course, but there you go) then feel free :) Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]