Talk:City Remembrancer

Criticism[edit]

This page looks like a direct copy of City of London's page about the Remembrancer. Perhaps the page would be aided by adding a Criticism section, quoting eg Monbiot: "The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:PaulMison - 02:06, 18 November 2011

Referring to the above comment, I did this (using a different IP) but then someone put it back. I am reverting it manually back to what I put. There was no discussion regarding removing my edit. In fairness though, no consensus was made before I edited, I concede that was hasty of me. Maybe this issue needs referring it to some moderators. I certainly will if it gets put back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.154.90 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again (sorry, not quite familiar with how to set up an account/ sign my comments).

Here is a backup source for the theme of discussion above, should anyone wish to contest the view, published by several media outlets *objectively*- http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city

Why thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.154.90 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed part of the Monbiot quote since it is about the City and not the Remembrancer. .... Anyhow Monbiot has cut the Clem Attlee quote to suit his own purposes ... Full quote is "Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the Government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people."(ref:Clement Attlee The Labour Party in Perspective, p179) Therefore Attlee was not attacking the Remembrancer, nor even the City Corporation, but using the 'City' as a metonym for 'banking and investment interests'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Argovian (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the Criticism section as it relies on an opinion piece that contains false statements. For example:

"The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority"

is simply untrue and is contradicted by:

"The City in general, and the Remembrancer in particular, have no power to overrule Parliament, which has the right to make legislation affecting the City if it wishes. For example, the City needed to request a private Act of Parliament in 2002 to modernise its system of local elections; an Act which inter alia notes that "The objects of this Act cannot be attained without the authority of Parliament"

Which is a statement, not a criticism.

The Caroline Lucas statement is merely promoting party politics.

Falsehoods and promoting political or ideological views have no place in Wikipedia.

87.112.14.26 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section needs to be cleaned up, to make it clearer who has claimed what and what the truth is. But simply deleting the section is unhelpful as the criticisms are out there in the public, and commonly repeated. How do you think we can make the section better? Emma May Smith (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not asserting the TRUTH of the Monbiot statement, merely the truth of his writing it, I agree that the piece is written very polemically, there is a history to the inclusion/exclusion of this material. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete - the statements "The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority" and "The City in general, and the Remembrancer in particular, have no power to overrule Parliament, which has the right to make legislation affecting the City if it wishes." are contradictory. Because the article is short, we've ended up with undue weight given to the criticism section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.14.26 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried to clear up the two contradictory statements but I still think that undue weight is given to the criticism section. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.14.26 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't try to clear up two contradictory statements. You took out a whole paragraph about Lucas asking the Remembrancer to be excluded. Why should that part be removed? It is factual and relevant. An MP making this request is noteworthy. Emma May Smith (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only source of the Lucas statement is the Green Party website. The inclusion is promoting party politics - we don't document every demand from every politician and besides, this makes the criticism section the largest part of the article. Undue weight yet again. Having the Monbiot claim and then the counter-claim was a reasonable balance. 20:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.14.26 (talk)

The Green Party website is a reputable source of information for the doings and sayings of Caroline Lucas. Maybe we could find an even better source, but it is not reason alone to delete it. The inclusion is not party politics, and yes, the actions of an MP are noteworthy. If the Criticism section is the biggest section, then maybe you can add to the other parts?

Furthermore, do not again try to misrepresent your edits in the summary. That is not in good faith. Pretending that you were simply clearing up contradictory statements while deleting a whole other paragraph is really bad form. Emma May Smith (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the personal attack Emma? I'm very sad that you think this of someone who's just trying to improve an article. 87.112.14.26 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were trying to improve this article, you would sit down, discuss your problems, and help us find a solution. Instead you made your edits without warning, continued to make them without waiting for others to have their say, and finally misrepresented your edits in the summary. Right now, I don't feel that you're working to improve this article, but rather hellbent on deleting something you don't like. I'm sorry if you disagree with Shaxson or Monbiot, but you need to approach this problem differently if you want to have a positive outcome here.Emma May Smith (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I needed your permission before changing something in the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I actually took your feedback on board and tried to balance out the Monbiot opinion with something factual rather than just delete it. My problems with the article are:

1. That the Monbiot assertion, although he definitely wrote it, is nonsense and is contradicted by the following paragraph.

2. The Lucas statement gives undue weight to the criticism section and was never there previously. And where was the consensus for adding this? (it cuts both ways you see)

So what will you allow me to change? 87.112.14.26 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Monbiot statement is rather bold, I agree, but he is making the point that the Remembrancer acts in a way which disrupts Parliament's authority over the City of London Corporation. It's not that Parliament doesn't make law which applies to the Corporation, but rather that the Remembrancer--or so Monbiot claims--affects that law before it is made. Maybe this should be made clearer, and I certainly don't think it is the only way of seeing the Remembrancer's role, but I believe it belongs as a sincere and reasonable criticism. A good reply would be to find an article or book which counters Monbiot's claim about how the Remembrancer works and help the reader come to a more balanced view.

The Lucas statement is important because she is an MP calling for the (effective) abolition of the Remembrancer. I can't see how this is not relevant to the article, and is a clear statement of fact concerning what Lucas said and did. Again, if the Criticism section is too much of the article, then I suggest you add to the rest in order to balance it out.

Lastly, I'm not stopping you from changing the article, but rather from deleting parts without discussion. It should have been clear from the first time I reverted your edit that I wanted to discuss it. Please slow down, listen to others, and wait until we come to some sort of agreement over the direction the article should take. I've already made some small changes to this (and the other article), if we keep talking we will hopefully come to an article we're both happy with. Emma May Smith (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, unbelievably, this article cites no sources from the City of London Corporation. The remembrancer FAQs contradict the Monbiot stuff - http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/what-we-do/media-centre/Pages/recent-faqs.aspx#. Either you or I can add something from here, probably tomorrow if you want me to do it. Please play nice with the newbies by the way. Cheers. 87.112.14.26 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, please do add a counter from that source, as that will add to the article and help to balance the criticism. I'm sorry if you feel like your first experiences with Wikipedia have not been positive. Hopefully this is the start of a constructive relationship, and we can all learn to cooperate with one another to make the best articles. Emma May Smith (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User 87 etc. the statements are NOT contradictory anyhow, If you read the WHOLE of the Monbiot sentence, he goes on to give an example (the remembrancer is not chosen by Parliament, nor the people) … … You/I/EmmaMS may find that power unimportant, but we are not here to put OUR point of view. I am responsible - in the past - for toning down and qualifying much of the Monbiot content, but it does represent a legitimate point of view about the City's governance and powers. Your other comments about not recording that a particular MP (whether Green, red, blue, orange or Monster Raving Loony), raised a question in Parliament, seem bizarre, how is that endorsing anyone? Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving undue weight to the criticism section by adding the Lucas statement. The article is then not really about the City remembrancer but criticism of the City remembrancer. 87.112.14.26 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made some additions. I still have concerns with the size of the criticism section and with the lead-in with the Monbiot quote. Everything he says is countered by references to Hansard and the CoLC website as are the assertions by Lucas that the remembrancer has access to the floor of the house and can view draft legislation. What wasn't really there before I tried to change the article was any counter to the criticisms and the article was presenting Monbiot's opinion as fact, which it demonstrably isn't. 87.112.14.26 (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that looking through the history of the article, it and the City of London Corporation one appear to have been "occupied" to promote a particular point of view... 87.112.14.26 (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User 87 etc. I will do some tidying up later, but at the moment you are creating work for other editors with a better understanding of WP policy and norms. YES of course this section is mainly criticism, that's why its called 'criticism'! ps you are not checking your facts, I believe that one of the main duties of the Remembrancer is to DRAFT certain kinds of 'Acts', you and I MAY think that unimportant, but we are not here to put OUR pov nor to tell others what to think. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User 87 etc., We are not here to tell people whether the CofLondon or Monbiot are RIGHT. I happen to think that Monbiot's claims are exaggerated, Emma MS seems to share my opinion, but reader's can read both sets of arguments and decide for themselves. Pincrete (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In September 2016 there was an edit from 2.31.166.164 which removed the Criticism section with the comment "Not sure how the criticism section is helpful given that it isn't either criticism or based in fact, and is contradicted by the section above. Looks to be non-NPOV.".

(1) It is criticism. It's also something more. Perhaps the section heading should be changed to "Criticism and calls for abolition". (2) Contradicted by the section above? Well as several folks have said in the discussion here, we should present the criticism anyway. To have no mention of the criticism would make this article incomplete and unbalanced (and anyone removing this criticism would appear to me to be pushing their point of view). As such I will reinstate the section now.

But actually I also think it is strange that the criticism is in such stark contradiction with the text above, and the solution to that would be bring a little more balance in the text above. I have some rewording ideas, but perhaps that's a separate discussion.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate 'criticism' sections are discouraged, and are particularly problematic when they relate to only one aspect of an article's subject (in this case parliamentary activities). The views mentioned have a certain circulation, and it is certainly part of this subject and they deserve acknowledgement, but they should be placed in the context of the relevant part of the article to allow the reader to parse them against other sources, and where they are clearly factually mistaken, it would be wrong to introduce false balance. It is unfortunate that Caroline Lucas appears to have not chosen to publish the response of Speaker Bercow to her letter, which may have helped add some further clarity. Mauls (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that now the city website seems to have deleted the page that even mentions who the remembrancer is. I've added archive links. Newystats (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]