Talk:Frank Walker (Jersey politician)

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

Untitled[edit]

Following a complaint from the subject of this article I have removed a number of unsourced allegations from its text and deleted potentially libellous revisions from the history. I will take the opportunity to remind any contributors that this page must adhere to our policies on biographies of living persons. Accordingly, material should not be readded to this article unless it can be clearly sourced to reliable sources. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes 24th July[edit]

I have expanded this article somewhat, I have moved all criticism to a seperate section, hope all are happy that everything is referenced correctly and is NPOV if not away you go! RichardColgate 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Representative of the People?" is misleading, as what is needed is the percentage he gained of the total number of people who decided to vote, not the total population, which includes children who cannot vote, and others who choose not to vote, as well as those not eligable to vote (some foreign nationals). As it stands, it gives a very biased and inaccurate picture. --TonyinJersey 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Tony, always good to get a second opinon RichardColgate 06:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information[edit]

Our Chief Minister has far less entries than many of Jersey's States Members, but since he doesn't actually bring legislation very often or speak out as say Stuart Syvret would he doesn't get too many matches. The majority of it is crticism I'm afraid.

Year Of Birth[edit]

As per biography project I have categorised him as a year of birth unknown.

Harrison Family[edit]

Whilst much of the information on his parents is on the Jersey Evening Post page per User:Tony theprof's suggestion I have not bought the information in here.

Just to detail my approach: Historical genealogical information (e.g. Ben Shenton is the son of Dick Shenton) is ok because both are Jersey politicians, but for living people biographies, I would avoid references that are not largely public domain (i.e. children, wife, private life, etc) as (a) these are instrusive into privacy and (b) could breach Data Protection Laws.

--TonyinJersey 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Family[edit]

As above no information on his current family is included.

I suggest therefore that you remove the family section that suggests that he has a son called Alex and a daughter, especially as this information is, in fact, incorrect. Alex is the ex-boyfriend of his daughter.

You could always do it yourself, you know. Man vyi 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks have made the adjustment suggested. RichardColgate 06:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elected as Deputy on first attempt?[edit]

Anyone know if he was elected at the first try, would seem strange as it doesn't happen too often.

I believe he was, not so strange when you own the only newspaper.RichardColgate (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

OK, the criticism section got ridiculous. The article is clearly not NPOV considering that the vast majority of it came under that section. Generally the article needs much more positive content and counter-balancing arguments to the negative content. Because I think that the criticism section was way too weighty, and essentially encouraged people to add more criticism, I've broken it up, and placed the sub-sections in neutrally titled parts of the article. Sections such as "mishandling of Jersey Child Abuse Scandal" were clearly highly POV, even just from the title, and the suggestion that Esther Rantzen had Frank Walker "squirming" was just totally inappropriate on Wikipedia. This is clearly not NPOV and could not be defended as such. Also, I have had to remove (and I don't think for the first time) the allegations regarding domestic violence. Such allegations cannot be added to an article without serious references to back them up, and the supposed reference link for this claim did not work. Hopefully my re-organisation has gone some way towards redressing the balance, but it's essentially the same content reorganised. What we need is more content about his achievements and more counterbalance to the criticism. If anyone could supply some, that would be excellent. TomPhil 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be objective about this, and I'm not sure at this stage that it is possible to be completely so. I think the following need to be included somehow:

"Senator Walker has stated that his Council of Ministers will ensure that there is no cover-up and anyone who has been guilty of child abuse in the case of Haut de la Garenne will be brought to justice. However, Senator Walker came into considerable criticism and loss of credibility from world media for use of the phrase "shafted Jersey internationally" as an accusation made against Senator Stuart Syvret, which was seen on BBC1 Newsnight in relation to an interview about the investigation; the long-term repercussions of which are difficult to determine, but in the short-term has been damaging to his reputation internationally and locally."

I would say world media, because it involves both TV, radio and press, and the phrase has unfortunately appeared on TV and press throughout the world - Australia, India, America etc.

I think that is sufficiently neutral, as it is not commenting on *what* he said, but *how* it has been seen worldwide, which is an objective POV. Also I have made it clear we don't know long-term whether it is a storm-in-a-tea-cup incident, or one more damaging like the gaff by Gerald Ratner.

If no one disagrees, I would be inclined to add this under "criticism" in a day or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony theprof (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable enough, but "damaging to his reputation" would need a source, I'd think. Man vyi (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it slightly to show that the damage is to his reputation in the media; that is I think, properly POV as one can cite at least a dozen reports ranging from the Economist, The Times, The Telegraph, The Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Mail, Reuters etc which have is many cases been quite savage in their vilification of Senator Walker, and I have yet to see one international news report which commends him for his comment. I've put in a couple of references to a few articles, but a google can reveal many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony theprof (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently various adults in Jersey have been 'shafting' children internally for about half a century - is this the ironic pun Mr Walker was trying to make? If so, I feel it was in rather poor taste.--feline1 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having just watched, incredulously, a clip of Newsnight from 25th Feb 2008, where Walker is shown footage of himself telling Syvert that he is "just out to shaft Jersey internationally", then bizarrely denying that he said it, I have made a few edits to this section, to try and keep it closer to the facts.--feline1 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I have to amend your comments Feline1, as if you look into this, Frank Walker was misquoted by Paxman who then took his statement out of context. The BBC have received numerous complaints over this matter already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.112.105 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the quotation as without it, the remarks about potential damage to his reputation in the media do not make any sense; it has also been correctly quoted by pretty well every other newspaper apart from Paxman! There has been no criticism about that, and Senator Walker has publically said - in the Jersey Hansard reports - that (a) he did use these words (b) he would stand by them and not apologise for them. What he compained about was the misquotation in Newsnight; he has not complained about the other newspapers and TV reporting which quote this wording accurately. As it has been reported in Australian press, CNN News (USA), Guernsey Press, Irish newspapers, and almost every UK daily and sunday newspaper, as well as Reuters, I think it is significant enough to be mentioned, albeit with the caveat that long term it may be completely forgotten.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear, the usual vandalism of Jersey articles by anonymous users. Always just an IP address, always concealing the edit with some innocuous sounding phrase that upon inspection appears to be complete rubbish. Paxman did not "misquote" Walker: the BBC *broadcast Walker saying the bloody thing himself!* Did Walker thus misquote himself? lol I have reinstated the correct material.--feline1 (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed the last edit, because having checked on YouTube again, it is clear Paxman does not directly quote Walker back, but paraphrases the quotation, saying Walker has just said he is more concerned about Jersey's international reputation. Paxman uses the word "reputation" repeatedly, whereas Walker has not used it once saying "You're trying to shaft Jersey, internationally". At the end of the interview, Paxman does admit he has misquoted the exact words; however, his paraphrase certainly seems to capture the gist of what the original phrase seems to imply - which is why the newspapers picked up the correct phrase when they criticised Walker.

So in terms of accuracy, I think we have to stick with the previous edit. However, the JEP used the phrase "shamelessly misquoted" of Paxman, and I cannot see how they have any knowledge of his intent, which is why a simple "misquoted" is better.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your edit just strikes me as weasling. The point of the paragraph is that there is a big investigation into paedophilia on Jersey, and that Walker has faced criticism for he and the institutions he represents trying to cover it up. And the most infamous example was him captured on film saying that a whistleblower was "out to shaft Jersey internationally". Whether or not Paxman paraphrased it with precisely the correct wording is not the issue. Your edit makes it sound like the criticism of Walker is all based around a misquote of what he said. It is not. It is based around what he said.--feline1 (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Walker may be an idiot, but he didn't use the words Paxman quoted. So his denial of using those words is actually explicable. The article cannot therefore contain any statement at variance with the verifiable facts (of course, my opinion that Frank's an idiot is no more than original research!) Man vyi (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh all right then, I've made a compromise edit: the whole Paxman misquote is a red herring, so I've just removed reference to that. Newsnight is only mentioned in as much as that it was the medium by which the "shafted internationally" comment was given the widest public airing. People reacting to Newsnight were reacting to what Walker said himself in the footage, not because of anything Paxman said or didn't say.--feline1 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the sentence at the end to show that it is the continual media reporting of the quotation that may be damaging (and has been in the short term), not the Paxman interview as such. Every news story giving a potted history - like the recent Panorama - always seems to show the phrase being said. That is why I think it is significant for a Wikipedia article, and non-POV, because of the widespread coverage after Paxman.

--- I think that it should be stated on this page that the clips shown by Newsnight were edited before they were shown and that Paxman mis-quoted Walker in his questioning. AGS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.112.105 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyinJersey (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the Haut de La Garenne section, as it relates to the coverage of Frank Walker's response in the international media rather than the history of the historic abuse, and the media's perception of his concerns with Jersey's reputation. I think that, at present, it is significant historically.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Has anyone a better pix of Frank in which he faces the camera, rather than a rear view?

--TonyinJersey (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a full-frontal from Liberation Day 2008, but it's a bit blurry. Worth uploading? Man vyi (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the JEP as a 'reliable source' with regard to Walker[edit]

I have to say that it seems unlikely that the JEP can be regarded as a reliable source of information with regard to its owner Frank Walker...

I would suggest contributors avoid using references from this source and the article be edited to remove all existing references.

I'll wait a while to see if there are any comments which you wish to add to this but otherwise I will edit as described above.

RichardColgate (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any description of Frank Walker as the "owner" of the JEP doesn't stand up to strict scrutiny. As minority shareholder (I believe) and managing director of the company, he's clearly been involved with the newspaper, but his involvement is stated in the article - and short of any demonstration from a reliable source that he interfered with editorial policy, I can't see that the JEP should be excluded on that basis. And besides, why should reference to critical reporting against him in the JEP be excised? Man vyi (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current article reads like a PR piece[edit]

With the possible exception of a recent edit I made, the current article reads like a PR piece on Walker, presenting only positive information and only, at best, obliquely referencing any negative information.

I believe this article in current form is not fit for the Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdf987654 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Frank Walker (Jersey politician). 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 10:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake News[edit]

Frank Walker's role in the cover-up of child abuse on Jersey is portrayed highly misleading according to more recent investigations. There is a documentary of the bbc, arte and zdf on youtube: (german) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAfz28Q844o 2003:DD:1713:C522:407E:36DB:950D:87B4 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Walker_(Jersey_politician)&oldid=1206578579"