Talk:David Lammy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

POV

Would it be NPOV to put in the view amongst commentators that labelling a politician a future PM is a near guaranteed way to write off their chances of reaching that post? Timrollpickering 12:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article format

I think this article should be split up into various sections Background, Politics etcetera. Someone has added he voted for the Iraq War right at the end of the article which is a fact but its placement very much reflects a POV i.e. that it is of negative political consequence. In this case it should be placed under a politics heading. I don't recall seeing HE/SHE VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR at the end of other articles on M.Ps.

I added that comment and am trying to add it to as many MP pages as possible. I think with such a contentious war, it's a valid point that should be made. Whether or not this bestows negative or positive values upon the MP, is up to the reader.

I have replaced it with a more NPOV analysis of his voting patterns and a link to the Aristotle database, which I hope will satisfy both of the (anonymous) posters above. I note also that the original poster of the comment, 195.93.21.72, has a very lengthy history of Wikipedia vandalism. Iridescent 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History of slavery

Could you please add a paragraph regarding Mr. Lammy's Ghanaian Slave Ancestry - for the purposes of highlighting his support for the campaign to award reparations to the decendants of Black slaves in the UK?

Comment : The following para. was added -- "Lammy has commented on Britain's history of slavery, both in his role as Culture Minister to mark the 200th anniversary of the end of the slave trade in Britain[2][3] and because he suspects there were slaves amongst his ancestors."

But isn't that a somewhat absurd paragraph? Lammy 'suspects' his ancestors were slaves? Aren't all West Indians descended from slaves, taken from Africa? Black people were not given a wage when they were shipped there from Africa and made to work on the plantations you know. So why write he 'suspects' his ancestors were slaves? It is like writing of an American that he 'suspects' his ancestors immigrated to USA, or, like writing about a Los Angeles Korean , that he 'suspects' his ancestors came from East Asia.

When asked why there should be reparations for slave ancestors David Lammy said something racist - source Diane Abbott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.143.226 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite anyone?

I can't find any references for him supporting actual reparations, I'm afraid. I'll add something on the subject though. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Political voting

Please stop adding the pointless list which is ripped off from theyworkforyou.com. It adds nothing to the article, its importance is not explained and only serves as trivia with in the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia? He's an MP! A voting record is a voting record! It is so wrong to call it a "theyworkforyou.com summary" and therefore remove the whole thing! All theyworkforyou have done is compile the voting record on 'key issues' - and anyone can do that!! If an editor thinks a particular vote is not 'key' (and thus not worthy of the article) then just say so, or simply remove the extraneous vote. The Wikipedia process of consensus will dictate what is notable and what is not. This is simply not the kind of list that is a 'list too far'!

Other politicians on Wikipedia have their voting records for us to see (eg Margaret Beckett) - as it is nothing less than the most meaningful information about the politician you can find! It is not just spin and dodgy rhetoric - it is how he/she has actually voted!! I don't understand why you have twice-reverted the record saying "it is not for Wikipedia" to give this information. Where does it say that on Wikipedia? The reverts just look like blatant censorship to me - perhaps out of embarrassment on Lammy's behalf (but life is life - he votes how he votes). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Voting record has been up a while - and you are removing it (I didn't include it myself, but am supporting it). I don't want an edit war, or to 3RR (and it would not be fair should I be in that position). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The criteria used for the compilation of the information is not widely explained anywhere in the article. The information provided is potentially POV. It is not meaningful as the person is a minister within the government and will most likely have voted the way a whip has told him too. The information provided does not enhance the article in any way and the information just serves as an add on to the end. If you really want that information add it as an external link to the bottom of the page and you can find it there. The information though does not belong in the article as it is completely meaningless.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lammy doesn't have to follow the whip. Many MP's don't when something is personal to them - which is why the Voting record matters so much - ie. there are often 'diversions' (even for the most steadfast 'whip voters') - which are often very revealing. This is perfect encyclopedic information for Wikipedia - and simply shows (in the most concise way) where he has voted on the major issues, like the Iraq war etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the information is not widespread so there is no real consensus for inclusion as few MPs actually have this information included on their pages. The information is not on Tony Blair's page or Gordon Brown's page or for that matter Ian Duncan Smith's or William Hague's. High profile MP's without this pointless information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

People tend to know where the bigger names stand on the key issues (you have mentioned four Party leaders) - though I would still have the list for them too... Consensus exists within articles, not over articles! I will look at addressing Voting Records that are missing or have been removed on other MP's - political decisions must be shared with the people, and not hidden from them - this is far too important for me to pass by.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this article it is just you and me on the different sides of a small part of the article. I strongly believe the inclusion of the information violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE specifically section 4. If you are determined on its inclusion please give a reason why the information should be included as a dumped list at the bottom of the article and not as an external link. The inclusion of voting records is pointless and meaningless as ordinary users will not understand what is being talked about, reducing the accessibility of the article. if you believe there is strong support for this please initiate an request for comment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You have gone past 3RR now - changing it to your own paragraph very much IS classed as a revert, I'm afraid (see the rules on 3RR). I will have to report you as you have removed the Voting Record from a number of other MP's articles (including Margaret Beckett who I some time ago used as an example in an edit-note to you - you went and removed it from her article!!). This simply cannot go on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you report the actions of myself you will have to report yourself as well as you have gone round and reverted that edits which I made and we have both violated the 3rr in you opinion on this matter. I am afraid your reversion is more blatant than mine as no constructive editing was even attempted. If you are serious about this not continuing can you please address the potential policy violation that the information covers and establish actual consensus for the inclusion of this information, perhaps by starting a request for comment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a list of a few random MPs without the information dumped in the article and the information only available in a link at the bottom. This is list is illustrative only Clive Efford,Peter Bottomley, Tim Loughton, Derek Conway, Daniel Kawczynski, Kenneth Clarke these are just a few I could find very easily. The information dumped at the bottom is not in widespread use.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Political controversy subsection

What a rubbish section this is. He called George Galloway a carpetbagger for changing his consituency. The link to carpetbagger is something about building societies, nothing to do with what Galloway did. The only reference for this is a Youtube clip, which as a copyvio shouldn't be used. Can we do better than this? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Without getting involved in an edit war, can someone explain why Lammy's and Starkey's comments were so different? Both placed some of the blame at gang/gangster culture. Is the problem because Starkey went one step further and mentioned the roots of this gang culture? Heywoodg 09:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lammy did not say that "whites had become black", for example, a clear suggestion that gangs are a product of "black culture", whatever that is, and if whites had not been exposed too "black culture" they would not have joined gangs. Starkey said a lot of other things that Lammy didn't say. In fact, Lammy has repudiated Starkey's remarks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/08/daily_view_david_starkeys_comm.html). If they were "similar, he would hardly have done that. The fact that they both blamed gang violence for part of the problem does not mean that you can imply that all of what both men said is "similar". The issue is not that gang violence was involved (something both did say), it's that Starkey said that gang violence is a product of "black culture" (whatever that is). Thus blacks are responsible. That is what people are objecting to, and it is certainly not what Lammy said. Remember this is a BLP (as is Starkey's article) so extra care is needed. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Harry. I won't comment further on here as the discussion has happened on the David Starkey discussion page. Heywoodg 11:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Appearance on Mastermind Section

Is there any justification for including this section? So he gave stupid answers to a couple of questions, but has it really got anything meaningful to say about him? I propose deleting it, unless anyone can give a good reason for why it should stay. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very embarrassing it may be, but it is notable information. The answers were not stupid, but did indicate a shocking lack of general knowledge for someone who was, and may one day again, be in charge of young people's university education in the UK. Mastermind is a famous TV programme in the UK, and there were articles about this in several national newspapers.Straw Cat (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. For one thing it was 'Celebrity Mastermind' which like all the 'celebrity' versions of programmes is far less serious than the ordinary version - it is entertainment, pure (or nor so pure) and simple. It may be lack of general knowledge, but is sounds to me much more like 'mind gone blank when put on the spot in front of the cameras'. Yes of course it was discussed in the newspapers, but it gives it far too much prominence to have it here in this very short entry on him. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What you may think caused it is your POV, and in fact may strengthen the case for its inclusion; politicians - and lawyers - are expected to think on their feet and in front of cameras. (Lammy was judged to have notably failed when he had to give a major speech to Parliament, introducing leglislation as a government Home Office minister). The Mastermind incident was reported in serious papers like the Guardian. The article is balanced by examples of his more thoughtful speeches, like that on the recent riots. It is not supposed to be hagiography. Straw Cat (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles can't contain everything about someone (even everything reported in the Guardian), so there is inevitable POV in what you choose to include and what you choose not to include. It is your POV that this is relevant enough to include. If Lammy "was judged to have notably failed when he had to give a major speech to Parliament" then why not include that in here, rather than his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind? Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is included in WP articles is not based on anyone's POV, but on verifiability - which is the core principle of the project. The section cites reliable sources. I have restored the section. (Which is incidentally, the only critical item in the article, which is unusual for an article on a politician.)Straw Cat (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But I repeat "Articles can't contain everything [verifiable] about someone". It is ludicrous to argue that just because something is verifiable it should be included. You refer to it being reported in The Guardian. Search for 'David Lammy' on the Guardian website and you get 797 hits. Search for David Lammy + Mastermind and you get 4 hits, so you are arguing this 4/800 = 1/200 of possible facts is one of the few important ones to include. It is your judgement of what is relevant material against mine. There is no reason why I should bow to your judgement on this, but I don't want to go through a loop of me deleting and your restoring it repeatedly. Wikipedia presumably has procedures to deal with this situation. You seem to be more active in Wikipedia than me, so do you know the way forward? Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more been said to justify keeping it, so I'll delete it again. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Lammy. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Lammy. 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) 04:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Oxbridge students

It was on the news tonight (October 20 2017) that information passed on to David Lammmy indicated that relatively few students at Oxford or Cambridge universities come from ethnic minority backgrounds, from the north of England or from deprived areas or households. Could this go in the article, or would this make the article too much like Wikinews? Vorbee (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation tag

I have added additional citations and fixed some of the typos. Is it OK if I remove the citations needed template?Purple flowers by default^t@lk 11:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

My recent edit

Here I explained that I removed a bit about Stephen Pollard's criticism of Lammy, and that I would give my reasoning here. This is because the original source for his criticism was https://www.mynewsinc.com/stephen-pollard-shame-on-you-david-lammy/, which (a) I don't believe is a reliable source (a search for "mynewsinc" returns very little about what this website actually is; (b) it appears to be a dead link, with no archived version at the Internet Archive; and (c) the only other sources I could find for it was a Daily Mail article (which per WP:DAILYMAIL1 shouldn't be used if possible), and a Tweet of his just linking to this Daily Mail article. If anyone disagrees with me removing this, please re-insert it with reliable sources / explain here why you think I'm wrong. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 16:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

We know what he did prior to 1994 and 1997 onwards. It is unclear what he did in between. With what chambers he practised, or indeed if he practised at all in that time. This info should be filled out, if anyone has it. Lord Law Law (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)