Talk:Harriet Harman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Not news

The recent addition regarding the reported running into a car and saying,,you know where to get me adds nothing of value, at the moment it is uncited, I imagine something about it could be cited but as yet it is not worthy of an addition. I doubt if it ever will be. I suggest removal until there are any charges or it becomes a real story. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take it out for now unless there are any objections, as right now it is not much of a story and we can wait and see how the story progresses or/and if there are any charges. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it didn't amount to anything did it? No criminal charges or anything like that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your addtoions to the story about it are imo totally excessive, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill, the size of the section is totally undue' it wasn't as reported a serious crime was it, a hit and run the tory press said, it was a three point extremely minor parking bump, in which no one even reported it to their insurance companies. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it's the first government Minister in living memory to plead guilty to a criminal offence. Additionally there's the controversy of her lenient punishment (3 points is given for using a phone whilst driving, whereas careless driving gets up to nine points - at a minimum she would normally be looking at a 3 points for each offence and thus a ban. Further still she lied about the incident saying she "strongly refuted" all the charges yet she quickly pleaded guilty. Finally, to compound things further she's a serial offender - it's actually not her third driving offence as the article previously suggested, but her fourth. As for going on about the "Tory press", well sorry but they've taken a far more balanced approach to the story, and certainly the verdict than the bbc, who fail to hint at it even being a criminal offence, nevermind the notability such a high ranking minister pleading guilty to a criminal offence.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Memory the citation says, whatever that means, all the rest, many of them there were also, pleaded not guilty, so that is not as big an issue as you claim at all, it is a minor offense call it what you like, make a big thing about it but it is still a 350 pound fine sand three points, a parking bump where no one was injured and no one made a claim on their insurance and it happened while reversing at 5miles an hour, and you have extended the section giving it excessive undue weight. It now has more space that much more important sections in her life, it is a minor driving conviction. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps the section is slightly too lengthy, but everything I've added is extremely important as it concerns the actual verdict itself. Additionally my edits add useful information confirmign exactly why the incident is so notable. If we are to make the section more concise then the focus should be on condensing the earlier sentences which are now rather lengthy and were edited to such an extent they didn't properly summarise the incident anyway.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's more concise now and more focused on the actual outcomes and findings of fact rather than processes and history of the case.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the statement "first serving government minister in memory to plead guilty to a criminal offence" accurate? The source used says "first serving Cabinet minister". The distinction being that there are usually around 20 or so Cabinet ministers but perhaps a couple of hundred government ministers (if you include under secretaries and whips). Road Wizard (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Cabinet minister" as you suggested - thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete material without any substantial debate

I have re-entered "The Report" back into this article as it was obliterated without any mutual agreement. Please do not delete any material without debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.62.110 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps as you are new you haven't heard about the bold revert discuss cycle, WP:BRD you have added this content and been bold, it has been removed and now we are in the discuss part, new content if its value to the article is disputed can be removed during discussion, please don't put it back unless you can find somesupport for the addition.

The fact that someone sends her a letter is nothing of value here, if it is of any value anywhere it might be in the Haig bio, and the not notable insult from a not notable 16 year old thinks she is pathetic is of no value here either. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with Off2riorob in this instance. Although there are numerous other cases of certain people deleting important content from the article, this is not one of them. The main issue in the content appears to be sexism against males the need for a Minister for Men, so such information would belong in the Minister for Women and Equality article (though I can't see it meriting more than half a sentence).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sentence.

Writing in the Daily Mail, she accused the report of being a "staggering attack on men and their role in modern life" as a result of her stating "it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion".

This sentence is confusing to me, but I don't know who wrote what so I'l leave it for someone else to put right.

Grcaldwell (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. The problem is that the passage uses "she" twice. The first time its antecedent is "Pizzey"; the second time, it shouldn't have been used since it is the report and not Harman who states, "it cannot be assumed..." In any event, take a look and let me know whether it is clear now. -Rrius (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not 'acting' Leader

I have deleted the words 'acting' from Leaders of Labour party and Opposition. Harriet Harman may only be a temporary leader of the Labour party, but she is not an 'acting' leader. Unlike some parties, in Labour, when there is a vacancy for Leader, that position is filled by the Deputy Leader who then holds the office in his/her own right. Margaret Beckett was a fully-fledged leader of Labour when John Smith died and Harriet Harman is the same. In theory, there is no need to have an election for leader in this case but one has been called in order to give the leader a full mandate.

As for Leader of the Opposition, this is an official position in the House of Commons and there is nothing 'acting' about it.

'Acting' is where the person doesn't hold the relevant office, but serves the roles and holds the powers and responsibilities that that office holds due to a vacancy or incapacity. In this case, Harman does actually hold those offices and is not 'acting' in an office that someone else actually holds.

Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Parliament.uk lists her as "Acting Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition" or "Acting Leader of the Opposition". Do you have a source to support your statement that acting should not be included? Road Wizard (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the two points separately. Harriet Harman is the acting Leader of the Labour Party. First, it is wrong to say that '"acting" is where the person doesn't hold the relevant office'. That is one possible meaning for 'acting', but not the only one. The Labour Party's rules say that a deputy leader in her position 'automatically becomes leader on a pro-tem basis' (emphasis added). 'Pro tem' (or 'pro tempore') means 'for the time being'. The word 'acting' means 'holding a temporary rank or position: performing services temporarily'. They are the same thing. The rules could just as easily have said 'automatically becomes leader on an acting basis'. The existing version is stronger (both grammatically and in appearances), but there is no technical difference between the two. Far more importantly, her Parliament bio is backed up by countless news reports calling her the 'acting leader'.

As to Leader of the Opposition, I agree with you, but the sources are against us. Not only does the Parliament site call her 'Acting Leader of the Opposition', but the Labour Party's Shadow Cabinet[1] and Front Bench[2] lists also call her that. Unfortunately, we have to bend to what is verifiable despite its being out of tune with what we consider logical. -Rrius (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your points, if the official website of Parliament and the official website of Labour says that she is Acting Leader of the Opposition, then she is exactly that. Conay (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Iraq war

I've removed the section on Controversy over the Iraq War. I think it puts undue weight on a single interview to have an entire section on this issue. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I restored it- it is certainly notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsnight and Today asking politicians awkward questions is not uncommon, is there more to it than that? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This happened before her election as deputy leader and some people may well have been swayed to vote for her based on her agreement that an apology should be made. That was why such a controversy was generated about her seeming denial/about turn on the issue. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Have put this as part of deputy leadership campaign. Not really controversial but worth mentioning as political positioning. 137.73.160.27 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have disappeared now unfortunately.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Deputy leader of the labour party.

I have removed this out of this section as it is not about the contest or the deputy, I am open to disscusing if it is worth perhaps reinserting somewhere else.

this....

During the campaign Harman participated in a live debate on Newsnight with the other deputy leadership candidates. Jeremy Paxman asked the candidates whether, if knowing what they knew now, any of the candidates would have voted against the war, Harman responded by saying that "if I'd have known if there weren't weapons of mass destruction I wouldn't have voted for the war. Clearly it was a mistake. It was made in good faith. But I think with a new leadership we have to acknowledge the bitterness and anger that there has been over Iraq and that we were wrong." When asked by Paxman if the Labour Party should say sorry for what happened, Jon Cruddas said that it should; Harman replied that she agreed with his statement. Later Harman appeared to backtrack on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme and asked for evidence to be provided of where she had stated that the party should apologise.

Actually the comment that is relevent to Harman was already duplicated in the Votingsection... so it is not worth reinserting in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this merits being including as "politician being evasive" is hardly news but I put it in the deputy leadershi[p section as it took place during a deputy leadership debate during the deputy leadership contest. It goes beyond what is mentioned in the voting section.

But as I said I am not sure it should be mentioned at all... Thoughts?

Grakirby (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems all mentions of this have now disappeared, the consensus in the 2007 discussion was to keep this information in least in some form or another. I'll add it to the Iraq war section as that's perhaps the best place for it now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Paedophile Information Exchange

Why is there no mention of Harriet Harman's role at P.I.E?

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 Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.Twobells (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Oh I forgot, Harman also voted for reducing the age of sodomy to 16, two years below that of adulthood.Twobells (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to attach this to Harmen's bio, if you feel it is not and you want to insert a comment please open a thread to seek support and consensus at the WP:BLPN , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is BLPN the first place to go? The proper place for the discussion is here first. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

Rob, I have pm'd you on your talk page for advice, thanks for the heads up.Twobells (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly very notable, though please be careful to keep it relevant to Harman herself. For example the Dromey information could be mentioned briefly but most of that content would belong in his article rather than here. Also I don't think your mention of sodomy is notable at all, countless MPs voted for that on equality grounds and there's no evidence most others have links to paedophiles nor sympathies for their cause.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add that there are similar discussions regarding Patricia Hewitt's involvement on this issue - DerbyBob added information to her article and also contributed to the actual article on the Paedophile_Information_Exchange though Off2riorob has reverted all the edits and believes the information on Hewitt is defamatory.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to make a decision on adding the PIE entry into the wiki record, accusations of 'defamation' have no place on wikipedia if the actual evidence is factual which it is plus 'defamation' is only relevant to the spoken word. Libel (written evidence/accusations) is only relevant to false accusations, all the above is on record. Wikipedia if it to be respected as a research tool MUST make the hard choices and not be scared of pseudo legal manipulation to prevent us from shining a light into dark corners.

I noted what DerbyBob wrote about Hewitt yet I could find no entry in her entry/discussions, if it has not been deleted then I would like a link, if it has been deleted I need to know as I follow senior editors wiki behaviour checking for vested interests.

As for the 'sodomy' comment I believe it is notable as it factually reflects her ideological and personal belief system in reference to her previous work with PIE; nothing at all to do with how other politicians voted or that they might be involved in paedophilia and to suggest that is well..odd and slightly suspect.Twobells (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is not going into the article under any circumstances thankyou. It is clearly a coatrack of extremely controversial detail and as such does not belong in this article or any other.Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The most recent write up of Harman and PIE was very well written and balance. Please do not remove it without discussion. Also to suggest such content doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia is beyond belief, the only issue is establishing exactly where such information belongs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

'Controversies'

Does anyone object to me removing most or all of the text about her 'views on families'. This isn't a controversy, it just reads like a neo-conservative rant. If everything printed in the Daily Mail was regarded as a controversy the section would never end.

Leo McKinstry also writing in the Daily Mail, called her "hardline", and accused her of "hating marriage"

It's hard to accept this view being as Ms Harman is married. Its a little but of a moronic and ill-informed point of view. If it was put somewhat more eloquently and backed up a little then it might be pertinent, but as it is it's a little daft and is hardly tantamount to genuine controversy.

In May 2008 an interview she gave to Civitas Harman stated that marriage was irrelevant to government policy and that there was "no ideal type of household in which to bring up children".

Is this really a controversial statement. Whether you agree or disagree with it, it's hardly an outrageous statement.

Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite controversial when you consider that even the research from her own party's think tanks came to an entirely different conclusion (though I think that aspect of the paragraph was deleted so it has lost some of its meaning). Also I completely disagree with your suggestion that Harman being married has much of a baring on things. Just because Harman herself does one thing doesn't mean she can have entirely different beliefs in terms of politics, in fact she's quite well known for hypocrisy. For example she supports non selective schools and all women shortlists, yet sent her son to a grammar school and got her husband a seat when they Labour were supposed to have all women shortlists for safe seats.

On the other hand I do agree that the section was too long and needs to be more concise. I'd suggest restoring the Civitas section but actually explaining how her view contradicts the evidence from Labour think tanks. --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think the latter is at all a controversial statement, only the right-wing radical interfering types would argue that government should legislate in favour of marriage over other living arrangements. When I referred to the fact she was married, I was only responding to the very specific quote 'hating marriage'. By all means genuine controversy can be included (I for one would argue the issue over all women short-lists should be included if it is adequately sourced) however a controversy section is not a soap box for every nutter with a minority viewpoint. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Harman's comments go beyond just the issue of marriage itself. Her statements show she believes single parent families to be just as good as having two parents and that kids do just as well in such relationships when all the evidence suggests that kids who only have contact with one parent generally fare very poorly indeed. I agree that disliking marriage isn't as controversial and perhaps it's a bit of a red herring here as the key aspect is her view on the family unit as a whole. (I do still disagree about your comparisons between her personal life and policy making though - it could easily be a case of one rule for her and one for everyone else).--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is becoming like an activist attack against her by fathers for justice or other such attack groups. Ease off on the rhetoric. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire controversies section should be removed, especially on a biography of a living person, it only invites trouble. Take anything notable and integrate it into the other sections. If her social and political views are notable in and of themselves then start a "Social and political views" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.6.65 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If any of it is removed I'll put it back in. The sources listed clearly show controversy. 174.54.36.247 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's clear that all the content is notable and any deletions are likely to be highly inappropriate, (though there's nothing wrong with integrating them into the main article).--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If any of it is removed I'll put it back in. The sources listed clearly show controversy.. With the greatest of respect you cannot say this, you cannot decide to indefinitely defy consensus (not that it has been established) but to make such a stubborn statement (especially being as you do not have an account) is at odd's with the ethos of the talk page. I would say that someone with opposing views deriding her views in such a fashion is not a controversy. If we cannot reach any consensus then I would suggest we take this to arbitration, disregarding the somewhat impertinent comment of user:71.139.6.65. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record I propose we keep sections regarding expenses, the Peckham stabvest and her use of statistics. The motoring convictions are possibly noteworthy. Refusing to meet with Fathers for Justice is not a controversy, politicians refuse to meet with pressure groups all the time. Furthermore the section on families merely outlines a difference in opinion between her and the right-wing press. This a disagreement and does not constitute any form of controversy and should be removed. In a nutshell that is my stance on the issue, if no agreement can be made I shall take the issue to arbitration.

Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The refusal to meet with Fathers Justice obviously isn't remotely notable but you're misrepresenting the facts here. The controversy arises from her dishonest statements regarding the fact she refused to meet them. Also the protests were notable events in themselves and received a great deal of media coverage so they're going to have to be featured somewhere in the article whatever your views on the situation. The section regarding families is not a difference between her and the right wing press as your wrongly suggest, people across the political spectrum recognise the important of families and fathers and much of the criticism and conflicting evidence comes from totally neutral sources such as Civitas. It may well be inappropriate and unnecessary to have the "view on families " heading and the separate "Father 4 Justice" protest section given that the two issues are so very closely related - I'd certainly wouldn't be against merging them in some way. As for the motoring convictions, as the piece states she was "the first serving Cabinet minister in memory to plead guilty to a criminal offence." How much more notable can you get? I find it slightly troubling that you're uncertain about that content.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The motoring conviction may be notable but it hardly constitutes a controversy per se, it would probably fit better under personal life. As you state, many people disagree with her stance on families, however citicism of this is usually reserved for the right-wing press as indeed is the examples given. The fact that many people disagree with this view does not mae it a controversy. Many people disagreed with the war in Iraq, however Blair's support for it was not in itself a controversy, the controversy was the misleading intelligence he quoted to justify it as well as his shady relations with the American government. You haven't addressed my original point that the fifference in views on families between her and sections of the press and public were only a clash or idealologies. That in itself is not a controversy I would want to take that issue to arbitration as I think it is impertinent in its current context. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not just one conviction in isolation though - it's a whole series of driving offences and the leniency of her punishment is a controversial aspect too. As for the the families issue, it's her attack on fathers which is the key sentence but as I said before I do agree it probably isn't deserving of it's own section especially considering it would fit in perfectly with the Father 4 Justice information. On reflection I think that merging the two would be a significant improvement to the article so I'll go ahead and do this as there haven't been any opposition. I must say I think you've misunderstood the Civitas issue, it has nothing to do with opinions or ideologies, her statement conflicts with the data and evidence, that's why it is of note. However I'll make it more concise by removing the mention of marriage as that is the least notable part and might even detract from the key issues. I'll also add an additional ref with additional information so people can understand the issue more easily. Thanks for your input in helping to improve the article--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wherever they're listed, only four of the subsections are remotely worthy of inclusion: the school choice (though it should probably include more explanation of why it's important than just contradicting Blunkett's statement), the traffic issues (perhaps trimmed down as they seem to be given undue weight), the campaign donation, and the expenses. Most of it seems to be POV-pushing on gender issues, the statistics bit is completely unimportant because politicians often spin stats, and the so-called policy u-turns centers on one her clapping when Ed Miliband said the war was wrong. The latter is especially problematic because she said she supposedly told Dave Miliband she was clapping because she was supporting the leader, which is not the same thing as agreeing with him. That one I'm just going to remove because it implies something about her that may not be true and is in any event not important. If she actually says at some point that she now believes she was wrong, then some sort of inclusion would be warranted, but still not the judgmental "policy u-turns". -Rrius (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the David Milliband / U-turn issue. Seems to be a case of recentism and was mostly just a list of statistics about how many people died in the war. If people do want to mention the incident I'd suggest it would be better of as part of the David Milliband article anyway. I'd also agree that the motoring conviction section is too lengthy, especially in relation to the less serious incidents, I will attempt to make it more concise but it certainly needs to stay. However I'd disagree with your other suggestions. The statistics section is notable but it would be improved by bringing it up to date, I'll try to do this also as I have been meaning to get round to it. I've already made the improvements promised above.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Children's surnames

Many sources state Harman's children were given her surname, whereas others suggest this is a myth. I've done a search myself and the truth is actually somewhere in between. The electoral role shows two people in the household with the surname "Harman" - Harriet and her daughter Amy. The male family members have the surname "Dromey"--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Criminal Offence

From the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as ammended) "s3. Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.

"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence."

It's a criminal offence. Parking offences are civil offences - you only end up in court if you fail to pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingboth (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Off2RioRob's statement that "she is not a criminal" is totally false. Probably undue/unnecessary to use both the "British criminals" and the "English criminals" tags though, surely only one is needed? We don't have her categorised as an "English politician" and a "British politician" so I suggest you only use one category for her criminality.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, but I can see this being reverted again again despite her being the first serving Cabinet minister to be convicted of any criminal offence, and thus one of the more noticeable British criminals. Lovingboth (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness the category is rather vague. On reflection Category:Politicians_convicted_of_crimes is a far better option.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Parking offences on the Queen's Highway are actually criminal matters. You have a legal obligation to pay the fine or you can opt to have your day in court. Parking issues on private land are civil matters—you have no legal obligation whatsoever to pay the fine. I would strongly oppose the use of either English or British criminals as those categories are for people who are notable for their crimes. Someone like Ian Huntley would belong in one of those categories and to categorise Harmon as such would be an egregious BLP violation. Politicians convicted of crimes, however, seems an appropriate category if we really want to make a big deal out of a very trivial offence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for the input, I'm pleased we may now have found a compromise here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute that crashing into someone while (because of?) illegally using a mobile phone is "very trivial" particularly given some of the other details of the incident, but remember that this is particularly notable because, again, she is the first serving Cabinet minister to be convicted of any criminal offence and not resign. It'll be a textbook example of the state of ministerial conduct for decades. Lovingboth (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy for her to be added to that category, 'which I was not previously aware of'. What prompted her original addition was seeing another politician in British/English Criminals and thinking that, in thirty or forty years, her non-resignation from the cabinet despite getting a criminal conviction will be the main feature of the article in the same way that Thomas Dugdale's ministerial resignation is the main feature of the article on him. Lovingboth (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is obviously a significant addition we need to strive for total accuracy. Therefore I've created the category "British_politicians_convicted_of_crimes" in order to avoid any accusations of the category being too vague in geographical terms (other countries have such categories also). I would appreciate other people's views as to whether this would be a further improvement of the above consensus. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest creating a sub-cat Category:British politicians convicted of driving offenses, mirroring the higher level Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses, and putting Harman in that. There are other politicians that would go in this category, such as Chris Huhne who has a using a hand held phone while driving conviction. This seems a more balanced approach to motoring convictions by politicians; if gradually the many motoring issues end up in Category:British politicians convicted of crimes it will reduce the usefullness of that category. We'd note in the category simple speeding/parking offenses are excluded. Rwendland (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about some of your argument here. At present driving whilst using a mobile phone only attracts only a £60 fine and 3 penalty points. Perhaps it should be more, but we're not the ones who make the laws so your argument that it is worse than a speeding offence would appear to be incorrect. Surely any 3 point type offences and/or low fines should be ignored and we should only be adding offences to the category that are more notable? I haven't read up on Hulme but Harman's crime relates not just to using a mobile phone, but also driving without due care an attention as a result of it and a collision with another vehicle. Presumably Huhne could only get 3 points and a £60 fine (or £30 if it was some time ago). Harman on the other hand faced up to 9 points and a possible £5,000 fine. They are very different offences.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

At the other end of the scale the offences where where jail is an option and which can be tried in a crown court need to stay in other categories also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on, she's notable for being the first cabinet minister convicted of any crime to stay in office. This edges on pretending that 'driving offences' are somehow not 'criminal offences'. If the proper category does indeed fill up with criminal driving offences, then you can create another category. And if that fills up, what next: Category: British politicians convicted of driving offenses committed in Peckham? Lovingboth (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit of a detail, but for non-speeding offences I think Liam Byrne beat Harman in 2007 as a minister getting a using mobile telephone while driving offence. And going by the Mail report,[3] Huhne had accumulated 12 points by 2003, so must have had some earlier motoring tickets. But I wouldn't add Huhne to any category myself, as they are all spent now - I'd feel uncomfortable highlighting any spent conviction in articles. Rwendland (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I had got the impression you thought Hulne's offence merited a category. I don't regard convictions being spent as an issue; that would breech polices on recentism. The issue is whether or not an incident is notable and there's no way that a simple 3 point offence carrying a maximum fine of £60 merits the use of a category. I suppose an actual driving ban might deserve the use of a category but certainly not a single 3 point incident.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

At that point (Nov 2007) Byrne was not a cabinet minister. There are other examples of people with existing convictions becoming cabinet ministers, but I think no previous examples of cabinet ministers getting a conviction and not resigning. Lovingboth (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is clearly an issue as described above. For example I've already had to restore Lord Ahmed to the "British politicians convicted of crimes" category. He did indeed commit a driving offence though he went to prison for it and someone died in the incident. It's especially inappropriate to only label it as a driving offence rather than a crime in my opinion. Also just to emphasise my point above I suggest we ignore every single simple 3 point offence totally when it comes to categories as they are not notable enough (such as that by Huhne)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a marked difference between a driving offence that involves the death of another and carries a prison term and what Harman did. To use the "Politicians convicted of crimes" category is so misleading as to be a BLP violation as colloquially minor offences such as Harman's are not considered crimes. What's more, "offence" and "crime" are not perfect synonyms (crimes have victims, while offences don't necessarily have them), making the attempt to substitute one for the other a mistake with regard to what the words mean in a more technical sense and in how they are more generally used. Perhaps you lot should try creating "Politicians convicted of petty offences" instead. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's easy enough then: the incident in question had a victim - the owner of the car she crashed into - therefore it's a crime by your definition. Lovingboth (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(And there is also the well-known category of 'victimless crimes' Lovingboth (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

The existence of vicitms might be very useful. The courts actually determine whether there was a victim through the "victim surcharge". Therefore this can help us to determine how serious an offence is.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Lovingboth, if you read what I actually wrote instead of what you wish I did, you would have realised that all crimes have victims, but only some offences do. Trying to turn that around to say that because there was a victim it must be a crime shows such a stunning failure to grasp simple logic (or brazen intellectual dishonesty) that you should just lose by default. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop personalising things and implying there is a contest going on. Wikipedia is not about winning or losing whatsoever but about building an encyclopaedia through consensus, it is not a battleground. Lovingboth "deserves" nothing in this regard either way and it's inappropriate and unhelpful to use such terminology in this way. Please read up on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a joke. Get over yourself. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks now too?--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue tag

I've put an {{undue}} tag on the article because I feel that the controversies of her time as an MP are given more weight than they should be. For example, a few minor motoring convictions have their own section (with an entire paragraph on two speeding tickets that aren't even convictions). As does the "stab vest controversy" and some minor controversy over statistics and her expenses claims. Of all of those, the only one that's worthy of anywhere near the level of detail it has here is the expenses. I would suggest re-ordering the article to be roughly chronological to avoid issues of undue weight. If there's a rough consensus that I'm barking up the wrong tree or the issue is resolved, then feel free to remove the tag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost completely disagree, Harman is a hugely controversial figure and every single controversy listed is highly notable. I think perhaps the controversies should all be in their own section and therefore the heading given less prominence and but that's the only possible error. You are completely wrong with regards to the term "convictions", the only difference between the offences is that some are civil offences whereas the most recent one is criminal. One still gets "convicted" of a civil offence just the same as one gets convicted of a criminal offence, the use term is not at all problematic here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that she is controversial, but lumping them all together into one section or putting them all in their own sections leaves the reader with an unduly negative impression of her, rather like putting everything "nice" about her in one section would leave the reader with an unduly positive impression. The aim should be neutrality throughout the article so that no single part of the article gives that kind of impression.

Respectfully, it is you who is mistaken on the point about convictions. While I know my RL status counts for nothing on WP, I am studying for a degree in English Law. None of the issues mentioned in that section are civil. Civil matters are cases between two parties and one cannot be convicted of a civil matter (for example a debt, a breach of contract, a tort) whereas criminal matters are between the Crown and the accused. Speeding is a criminal offence, but a speeding ticket (of the £60 and 3 points variety) is not a conviction. The other charges, such as the care and attention, are convictions because she would have been summoned to court and sentenced as opposed to receiving a fixed penalty. My concern, though, is not the terminology, but the weight given to these very minor motoring offences when her notability stems from her politics, not her criminality or her driving. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm I guess it depends how you define "conviction" at least some of her other cases do seem to be classed as convictions though I'm afraid, presumably because they went to court Therefore there are certainly two convictions there at the very least, hence the heading. I think there is significant notability because although some are lesser offences, taken as a whole they add up to quite a driving record (also driving at 99mph itself really is really rather more serious than more minor infringements). I understand your concerns about the lesser cases but they very much put the later offences into context and so are required even though some appear of lesser importance in isolation. For example one of the reasons for the concern about her lenient treatment for her latest offence is due to her poor driving record previously. Perhaps most of all, notability stems from her being the only serving cabinet member in memory to get a criminal record whilst in office - this is hugely significant and makes the section more than merited. It's wrong just to consider the offences in isolation and instead we need to consider the wider context here

There aren't actually an rules against having Controversy sections on Wikipedia anyway, I think this is very much a case where such a section is more than justified and the current version has come about after numerous discussions in this talk section so you're going over old ground here. I think if you have concerns about balance the best solution be to add more content to the the article as there certainly do appear to be significant omissions in places, for example there's no mention I can see of anything she did between 1971 and 1977.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

having examined the article again, the biggest issue is quite clearly the amount of unsourced content rather than any bias. There are numerous sentences without any references at all, I think that would be a far more appropriate issue to tag.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For those of us in the UK there is also the thorny problem of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We appear to be at some (maybe small) risk of a defamation action if we publish a spent conviction (after 5 years for a fine I think).[4][5] Newspapers generally avoid mentioning spent convictions because of this. I suspect every edit-change constitutes a fresh publication, putting later editors at possible risk on this point.Rwendland (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that applies if the content is published with malice. Therefore edits will only be problematic if they're perhaps by single purpose accounts or those who like to breach NPOV, I don't see any problem for most editors. If you ignore the malice aspect and then take the law to its logical conclusion than no one can ever mention or report on any police caution ever because they're deemed to be spent as soon as they're issued.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ginger rodent

User:Scott MacDonald just removed the section on the "ginger rodent" controversy on the grounds that it was given undue weight. I agree with the move. The event was so minor that it is hard to imagine a reasoned argument for inclusion, but having a whole section is beyond silly. I brought this to the talk page because other controversies are being discussed above. -Rrius (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have noted it here. In terms of Harman's long and very public career, this was a short storm in a tea-cup. Perhaps, just perhaps (and even then I think not) it might merit a sentence. It certainly did not merit a whole section under the POV heading of "offensive speech". My vote would be to exclude entirely, but I'll not object to one sentence.--Scott Mac 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not posting; I almost didn't. I was just aware of the other discussions and the contentious nature of this article, so I figured it was better to do it than not. I said it's hard to imagine a reasonable argument for a brief mention, but if someone can make it, I'm persuadable. As things stand, though, I just don't see what it adds to the article. When George Allen , the United States Senator for Virginia, called someone at one of his rallies a "macaca" (a racial epithet so obscure it had to be explained before most Americans could become properly offended), it cost him the election. It is hard to see how the one-day ginger rodent comment says anything meaningful about Harman. -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The section was excessive with the inappropriate heading being the biggest problem but people seem to be misunderstanding the significance and key points here and it certainly isn't true to say it isn't notable. Firstly the comment was regarded as anti-Scottish by some [6][7] and verging on racist according to some sources [8]. Even more significant is the fact that Harman has had various "equalities" roles and is famous for political corectness.[9] Therefore the issue was viewed in the context of Harman's politics and previous roles which enhance the notability. [10]--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. It was a three-day (if that) newspaper story with no lasting significance - a footnote in a log career. In a shot Wikipedia bio, even mentioning it is undue weight.--Scott Mac 18:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So... Gingers are now an oppressed minority? Is that really the best argument you've got? -Rrius (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a three day story at all. Alexander has has unfortunately been associated with the offensive tag ever since, [11]. On top of that it's not a newspaper story either, it was the top story on the BBC website also if I remember correctly (this source would suggest that's the case) [12]. To quote the BBC the incident created a "storm" [13] and it made their "year in words" review [14] I certainly agree it shouldn't have an offensive heading or even any heading at all and should be addressed concisely but it needs covering in some way.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The BBC website simply runs "the new story of the day" like any newspaper. As for long-term effects, the "Daily Mail" isn't really a very good source for much.--Scott Mac 01:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you're never going to convince me that the BBC is a newspaper. The fact is that the organisation covered the story extensively as did practically ever single news outlet in the country. I do agree that this article is rather long (though necessarily so) but we still have to cover notable material. There's actually a decent summary of the affair already in Wikipedia in the Red hair article. In the interests of keeping this article concise we could always keep all the detail in that article and have a more concise version here which links to it. We could also do the same with the Danny Alexander article as it would be unfair to have too much focus on the issue in the victim's article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to note I've now informed the contributor who authored the paragraph of this discussion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever medium you want to say the BBC is, it was a very brief story, barely three days if that. Just because something was brought up again later does not make it a lasting story. Instead of looking about how big a splash the story made, I would appreciate if you would try to defend it on the measure that actually matters: how in the world is its inclusion justified? What does it tell us about Harman that isn't already included? That in speeches she is apt to make extended metaphors that may be insulting to political opponents? I know you have your theory that it is somehow racist, but I think that is silly enough that the rest of us can just set that aside. -Rrius (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not my theory just what the sources say. Some say anti-Scottish some say possibly racist. I won't be sharing my own theories about the comments as that's totally irrelevant here and would be original research. Also the reason I have to talk about the splash the story made is due to people adding inaccuracies that it was limited solely to newspapers, I'm simply correcting the mistakes of others. I didn't introduce that particular line of debate thank you and all my original points related exactly to the type of debate you're insisting on. I'd ask that people instead actually address and discuss the points and possible solutions I've raised and stop personalising things--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No one said it was limited to newspapers. What was said was that it was a very brief story. If it were truly a racist comment rather than something a few cranks were trying to gin up into something more than it was, it would have been a rather more substantial story. Hell, she was addressing Scottish Labour, so if it they had seen it as anti-Scottish, they wouldn't have laughed. Now, instead of quasi-correcting others' mistakes here, please provide a valid reason how this information conveys anything meaningful about the life of Harriet Harman. Scott MacDonald and I don't see one, and you have yet to provide it. Before you answer, be advised that not every news event involving an article subject, especially a living person, needs to be included. Keeping something like this, even in a single sentence would seem, unless you can provide a deep and meaningful explanation to the contrary, to give undue weight to the event. This was seen, after all, as a minor gaffe, not a racist/nationalistic attack or deeply personal insult. -Rrius (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If the comment was as harmless as you suggest then Harman surely wouldn't' have felt the need to apologise, she certainly hasn't been so keen to do so in other incidents. Some have argued that the fact she was in Scotland makes the comment especially ill judged and I don't think the fact that a partisan crowd didn't speak out against a very senior party member says much at all in terms of a defence. As I've stated already I think it's notable due to the two reason's already given and the sources tend to agree that the notability was enhanced by Harman's previous roles and agenda. The main issue I see is exactly where the content might fit, I suppose best to insert in simply at the end of the "return to opposition" section? By the way no sources provided state it is "truly" racist and no one has suggested that, the sources state it is "verging on racist" and "anti-Scottish" (I accept one could easily regard the Scottish as a race and therefore make the leap that way but we should stick strictly to the sources please). Talking of sources the Hearald has some good coverage of the matter including comments from neutral sources[15]--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, you're wrong. If the comment was as harmless as I suggest, then an apology would have ended the matter, which it did. Also, I didn't say a damned thing about a crowd speaking. The fact is, they cheered. If she had made a joke about Scots being cheap, do you think the crowd would have cheered? Of course not. If she had truly insulted Scottish identity, the shared party affiliation would have been irrelevant; at best the crowd would have been silent. Additionally, you keep saying why it is notable. That is not the question. The question is why it is important to the story of Harman's life. That you can't see the difference is at the crux of the problem here. As I am now saying for at least the third time, not every noteworthy event in a person's life is worthy of inclusion in their WP bio. Some of it is trivial crap, and this is one such turd. The fact that you can find someone expressing an opinion that what she said verged on racist and was anti-Scottish is beside the point. I can find someone who thinks Queen Elizabeth is a reptile person, but that doesn't mean the reptile allegation is worthy of inclusion at Elizabeth II. This rodent comment is minor flap during a long career, and is of no import. Harman has been in the papers tens of thousands of times, and not everything she was in it for is covered here. If you can't see why this shouldn't be included, I think you need to go re-read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Queen Elizebeth example is just silly and very misleading. Reliable sources are saying the incident is verging on racist and hypercritical whereas no such sources support the comment regarding the Queen. Also your defence of Harman is that partisan Labour supporters cheered the comment which is about as non-neutral as one can get. We need to also bear in mind that this wasn't some off the cuff remark but a calculated and scripted speech.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not silly; it's exactly the same thing, just in a more absurdist packaging: Just as David Icke's whacked out notions don't make Queen Elizabeth a lizard person, so do Shirley-Anne Somerville's politically motivated opinoins fail to make Harman and her comments anti-Scottish or racist. Just because something is written in a newspaper doesn't make it reliable—you have to be more particular than that. If a newspaper says, "X happened", it can be relied on for the proposition that X indeed happened. If the paper quotes S as saying A did X, it is a reliable source for what S said, not what A allegedly did. Here, your sources support the claim that Shirley-Anne Somerville, an SNP MSP and political opponent, says she thinks the comments were anti-Scottish and verged on racism. It does not support the contention that the comments actually were racist. Your response to the crowd defense is frankly surprising and shows you don't know anything about partisan crowds. If a fellow partisan makes a comment the crowd finds offensive, it won't get a positive reaction. Finally, no, we don't need to bear in mind that it was part of a scripted speech. That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether this issue is even remotely important. Two of us have argued that it is not, and you have utterly failed, despite three direct requests, to provide an explanation as to how it could possibly be said to be an important part of the story of her life. I have to think that is because it is not possible. -Rrius (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For the tenth time no one is saying the comments were definitely racist and the key aspect is not so much the attack but that combined with the hypocrisy, that's why it belongs here. Sources note the timing of the comments coincides with the passing of Harman's equality bill and how embarrassing it was for Labour.[[16]] Anti-Scottish, possibly racist, or just plain personal attacks about someone's genetic traits would all breach such legislation so how we or anyone interprets the comments matters very little. It's not just some random gaffe, it's blatant hypocrisy. Thinking about it again perhaps given the link this would fit in well under the section about the equality bill. Also it doesn't' matter that two people are arguing against inclusion, it's a discussion not a vote and it's the strength or arguments that count not the number of people involved--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, exactly one person is saying it is racist: Ms Somerville. Her opinion, whether juxtaposed with Harman's job or not, does not warrant inclusion. Your assertion that her calling Alexander a ginger rat is hypocritical defies credulity. I mean, do you really believe this, or are you just making any argument you can think of to attempt to justify nonsense? "Fit well" under the Equality Bill section? Are you serious? Do you really think that making a crack about a redhead is the same as discriminating against a woman or real minority? I agree it is about the strength of argument, and yours are getting progressively weaker. -Rrius (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources make the link with equality bill therefore it's a valid proposal and the timing strengthens the case. I haven't given any thought to any exact placement in that section, just highlighting the links to it. I don't mind where it goes, it's just a suggestion based on sources. We can just have it as part of the "return to opposition" section if people view that as more appropriate, I'm open minded either way. I totally disagree with your suggestion any case is weaker. I think we're coming up with good ideas and establishing exactly which aspects of the incident are notable and appropriate for this article and why exactly the case is so worthy of inclusion here.-Shakehandsman (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. You keep acting as though these are articles about how racist her comment was. Instead, two of them mention that an SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament said her comment was racist and anti-Scottish. Ms Somerville is entitled to her opinion, but it is just hers. Where the information would fit is not the point. It doesn't fit anywhere because it is not an important part of the story of Harman's life. Frankly, your continuing insistence that the story is notable just shows that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. For at least the fourth time it does not matter whether the story is notable. What matters is how important it is to the story. Adding any reference to the story would give it undue weight, and because it is a biography of a living person, we need to be even more assiduous in seeing that the rules are followed. Before uselessly saying the story is notable again, please go away and read Wikipedia policies and guidelines before coming back to continue this. With any luck, you will then recognise that notability is not the point and come back and answer the simple question I have put, what, four times already: how is this brief story important to telling the story of Harman's life? Why is it vital to include an insult? If the best you can come up with is that some news articles quoted an opportunistic politician from another party, then you really needn't bother. -Rrius (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not reading my points. The debate on borderline racism, anti-Scottishness or simple offensive personal attack based on genetic characteristics is not important in the wider scheme of things. Either one of these is in stark contrast to Harman's proclaimed politics so people's view as to which occurred doesn't really matter too much, it's undeniable that one or more has and that's enough. From the very beginning I made the point we needed to view the remarks in the context of Harman's career, work and politics and how this is key given the contrast yet you still keep going on about these minor points which would not be included in any concise summary of events and were not in the original text either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I originally inserted the item, I think. I maintain my view that it is relevant to an assessment of Harman's character and competence. Given that she espouses equality in the way in which she does, a pre-prepared 'joke' about another politician's physical appearance struck an interesting note, which some readers might view as smacking of hypocrisy, or at least of conspicuously poor judgment. If the remark had been made as a throw-away line, its significance would be slight. But it was not. Try watching the speech. Incidentally, I regard the suggestion that it was 'racist' as bordering on the fatuous. In any event, why should it be suppressed, given the publicity it generated? BTW I would not disagree with the item being downgraded into a section entitled Controversies, or whatever; I agree that the original Ginger Rodent title now seems to give it undue prominence. Ironman1104 (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Ironman, an excellent summary and I'm pleased you see why the heading was undue. I've added the issue to the Danny Alexander article per the talk page there, though in his case I've not repeated the actual insult as I didn't think that was fair on Mr Alexander.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is that this is not a major event in her life. Calling him a ginger rodent was certainly impolite, but saying it is hypocritical for a former equalities minister to do is a gross overstatement, and in any event, does not justify inclusion. As I said earlier, she has made news at various times in her life, and not every one-day story is included here. The conclusion that making a cheap crack at an opposing politician was vaguely hypocritical is not enough in itself to justify inclusion. The suggestion of putting it in the controversies section isn't a great one because there is no such section and such sections are disfavoured. In fact, a lot of work was put in at this article to weave the controversies section into the article. The reason why controversies sections shouldn't exist, and the reason the ginger-rodent thing shouldn't be here, is because if a fact doesn't make sense as part of some aspect of the biography or isn't sufficiently important to stand on its own, it doesn't belong in the article. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rrius doth protest too much. More significantly, Rrius fails to engage with Shakehandsman's excellent point that "Ginger Rodent" should be seen in the context of Harman's career, persona and behaviour. Someone as publicly wedded as she appears to be to appropriately neutral language (when used by others), but who nonetheless publicly delivers the ginger rodent quip, is capable as being seen as hypocritical, or as having poor judgment. There is other material in the article which might be regarded as evidence for either of these conclusions, and "Ginger Rodent" fits in with it. That it might be less significant for another politician is hardly the point. Ironman1104 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ironman1104 doth not understand the quotation he references nor read my contributions. I have responded over and over to the point, and if you don't understand it, that is your problem. "Ginger" is not an ethnically charged term, and I have never heard "rodent" as a general insult toward Scots. Trying to trump up "ginger rodent" into some huge hypocritical comment is wholly out of proportion to what it actually was. It may not be your and Shakehandman's intent to use this comment as an attack, but that is how it reads. Frankly, instead of making it look like she is somehow a hypocrite, it looks as though we are calling her a strident, petty, insulting bitch. It does that by taking the comment out of the context of its original metaphor and placing it on the level with other matters, including the negative ones, in this article that are of far more significant import. We do not include similar events in quality biographies of other politicians, and we should not do so here. -Rrius (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A more careful reading of my last post than Rrius appears to have given it will disclose that I am making no point about ethnically charged terms, nor about the term 'rodent' referring to Scots. It seems unnecessary to repeat what I said, which is clear enough to anyone who bothers to read it. Answering it by attempting to refute an allegation of racism which I have never made is rather pointless. Ironman1104 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to proposed "solutions"

A response to your "solutions"?—mine is no. The topic is fine for red hair, but is not appropriate here. The fact that Harman said it does not make it necessary to include here. -Rrius (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a response. What about Alexander though?, editors also wish to add it to that article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe there's a argument over her positions

People have deleted and others have reverted her title as Shadow DPM. Personally I feel that that is a role she plays--if not why is she asking questions to Nick Clegg during DPMQs? Can someone settle this matter?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Shadow Deputy PM

An IP editor insists that Harriet Harman is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and cites Harman's personal website and a BBC report. If that were the sum total of the sources available, that would be enough to go on, but it is not. The Labour Party provides a list of its Shadow Cabinet members; therein she is listed as "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development".[17] The House of Commons also provides a list of the entire Opposition front bench. On that list, she is listed on the Shadow Cabinet list as "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development".[18] Lower on the page, she is listed as "Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Deputy Leader". The fact here is that we have two essentially perfect sources confirming that she is not in fact Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Logic also supports this. Harman does in fact shadow Clegg with respect to his role as deputy leader of the coalition Government. But, Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Justice Secretary, shadows him in his ministerial portfolio of minister for political and constitutional reform. Khan is listed on the two pages I linked to as "Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform)". -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Clegg is not deputy leader in the coalition government; he is Deputy Prime Minister. So if Harman shadows him but is not Shadow DPM, then what do we call her?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically Harriet Harman doesn't shadow Nick Clegg she simply does Prime Minister's Questions when Ed Miliband doesn't attend (when the Prime Minister isn't available to do PMQs the Deputy Prime Minister or Leader of the House of Commons or Deputy Leader of the Party in Government takes the session [Nick Clegg in this instance as Deputy PM] and then by convention the Leader of the Opposition doesn't attend and the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons or Deputy Leader of the Party in Opposition stands in [Harriet Harman in this instance as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party]), so Harman is simply Deputy Leader of the Opposition/Labour Party and Shadow International Development Secretary.talk14:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Clegg has his own DPMQs. Harman is the main shadow figure there. So what do you call her in that capacity?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would still refer to her as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as any subject can be asked during DPMQs Harman can question Clegg on Government policy in her position as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, also as Clegg mainly deals with political and constitutional reform he is also questioned by the Shadow Justice Secretary (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform) Sadiq Khan and the Shadow Minister for Constitutional and Political Reform Chris Bryant. talk 83.244.130.166 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

i disagree. So is she lying to parliament on her webiste by stating she is "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" [19]? And please get an account.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I will continue to go from the Labour Party Website [20] which has her position as 'Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development' and from the UK Parliament Website [21] which states the same. (talk) 83.244.130.166 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As to your "get an account" comment, please see WP:HUMAN. Proteus (Talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to respond to three points: First, when I say she shadows Clegg in his capacity as deputy leader of the government, I am referring to the fact that Clegg has cross-governmental responsibilities in addition to reform. The second point is where Foxhound66 (calling himself "Other dictionaries are better") says Harman has primary responsibility for DPMQs. That's not quite correct. She gets in a question, but the Shadow Justice team (Khan's team), who are responsible for shadowing him on political and constitutional reform, also get questions in the same way that departmental questions are handled for all other departments; indeed, Khan himself has asked questions at DPMQs. Finally, in answer to the question (as already stated), when she questions him on cross-governmental issues, it is as Deputy Leader of the Opposition (as Labour and Parliament tell us). Is she lying when she calls herself "Shadow Deputy PM"? I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but she is stretching the truth (not surprising since she was reportedly upset Brown didn't make her DPM; this may just be a way to put out a marker that if they do win the next election, she thinks she should be DPM). In any event, Harriet Harman is not the one who assigns responsibilities to the Shadow Cabinet; Ed Milliband does that, and the evidence of how he exercised that power is on the Labour and Parliament websites. -Rrius (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again there's no deputy leader of the government; it's just Deputy PM. In fact if you want to count seniority after the Prime Minister, it goes to William Hague, who is the First Secretary of State. Watching the DPMQs, Harman gets one question, and it is related to Clegg's work as a DPM, not his parliamentary work nor his judicial reform. In that sense, what is Hamran doing there if she is not a Shadow of Clegg which is a DPM?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Note the use of lowercase. David Cameron, as Prime Minister, is responsible for all of government. Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, also has cross governmental responsibilities. In that way, he can be seen as a deputy leader of the government. I'm not using that as a title, but as a descriptor of those cross-governmental responsibilities. Harman, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, questions him on those cross-governmental responsibilities. Sadiq Khan, or a member of his shadow team, also question Clegg at DPMQs on his responsibilities for political and constitutional reform. Thus, both Harman and Khan shadow the Deputy Prime Minister. Your logic seems to be that since Harman shadows the DPM, she should be called "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". But since Khan also does that, by your logic, he should also be called "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". What matters is not your logic, but what the leader has chosen to do. When Harman was leader, she appointed Jack Straw, who as Shadow Justice Secretary already had responsibility for political and constitutional reform, to shadow Nick Clegg in both capacities, therefore it made sense when she gave him the additional title of "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". By contrast, Ed Milliband chose to give responsibility to his deputy leader part of the responsibility and Sadiq Khan another part, dividing the role. As such, it would have been unnatural for him to call either one "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". Instead, she shadows the Deputy Prime Minister as Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition, and he does as Shadow Justice Secretary. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Khan shadows Clegg? Khan primarily shadows the Cabinet Office Ministers/Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. Khan in fact shadows Ken Clarke first. Khan's apperance at DPMQs is to bloster Harman's position not the other way round. There's only one shadow of another government Minister. Back to Nick Clegg: despite his position as a coalition member , he is not the deputy at all; remember he stated that even if Cameron is out of the country (as it was in the early stages of the Libyan crisis), Cameron is still in charge. Cameron placed control under Hague, the Fist Secretary of State.PS: I'm not the one reverting the position of Shadow DPM; it's that IP address. I've already placed a message on his/her talk page,perhaps you can follow suit.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Khan shadows Clegg. Look at who responds to him when he makes announcements about political and constitutional reform: is it Harman?—no, it's Khan. The reason is the that the Justice Secretary (and it's predecessor offices) is generally responsible for political and constitutional reform. As such, the Shadow Justice Secretary continues to fill that role despite the moving of the responsibilities to Clegg. Khan or a member of his team also questions Clegg at DPMQs. His team's participation at DPMQs is not to bolster Harman at all; she questions on her topic, and they question on theirs. Departmental questions, including DPMQs, do not work like PMQs, and you have to stop believing otherwise. Your bit about Hague is irrelevant. Nick Clegg has cross-governmental responsibility for policy, just as Cameron does, though subject to it. That is the portfolio on which Harman questions him. She does not question him on his substantive portfolio of political and constitutional reform because that is the job of the Sadiq Khan and the Shadow Justice team. If you don't believe Khan has responsibility for shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister, look at a Cabinet list side-by-side with a Shadow Cabinet list. Frankly, if you want the answer to the question "Is Harriet Harman the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", just look at the Shadow Cabinet list. Ultimately, the lack of inclusion of any such list is what is all important. What I am trying to explain to you with Sadiq Khan is that it makes perfect sense that Ed Miliband hasn't named a Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, but what really matters is that we can prove he didn't by looking at his Shadow Cabinet list. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We need a British politics expert moderator here. It seems like its only the 2 of us; the IPs are the the ones reverting and re-reverting without giving a argument here.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The last stable version was without the title, and it should stay that way until such time as consensus develops in favour of inclusion. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As asinine as it is to suggest that she is Shadow Deputy Prime Minister when she already has the title "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" and has to share the duty of shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister, it is even more asinine to put that made up role in with Shadow Development Secretary in the infobox. If people insist on asininity, at least make a separate office instead of mindlessly reverting. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that is what the IPs did. And colloquially, she is called Shadow Development Secretary, as Andrew Mitchell is also called Development Seceretary.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So Wikipedia knows better of Harman's actual positions then herself and others?

• Harman's own website--[22] "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"

• BBC (one of he most read websites)--[23] "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Harriet Harman"

• Labour Party Webiste(!!!)--[24]--"Harriet Harman MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"

• Guardian UK (also another most read ebsite)--[25]--"Deputy leader of the Labour party, shadow deputy prime minister and the first female solicitor general"

• Hackney Gazzette--[26]--"Harriet Harman, who is deputy leader of the Labour party, Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Under Secretary [sic] of State for International Development"

• Wikiquote (another Wiki site)--[27]--"She is currently the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Minister for International Development."

• LSE (renown University)--[28]--"She is also Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, a post she was elected to in 2007, and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister."

• Fresh Ideas (A Labour Party Website)--[29]--"Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister".

• Daily Mail (another most read news site)--[30]--"Hrriet Harman has quietly added the grand but ludicrous title of Shadow Deputy Prime Minister to her existing ones of Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party."

and many more. Perhaps then does Wikipedia know more than newssite and Labour Party Websites? Should these outlets be informed fo the wrong title?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of those have as their source, one way or other, Harman herself. Even the Labour Party one is clearly put out by Harman. The most interesting is the Daily Mail, for which you emphasised the wrong part of the quotation. The part of not is actually: "Harman has quietly added the grand but ludicrous title of Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". So much of that is worthy of comment, but perhaps most notable are the first four words I quoted. I will grant you that Harman likes to style herself "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", but she was not given that title by Ed Miliband, so she doesn't have it. I'm happy for you that you have managed to find some sources that have picked up on her self-styling, but the only important ones are the ones Ed Miliband has put out, both of which list her as Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and nothing more. We don't put offices in the infoboxes that are simply made up by article subjects unless they are actually in a position to create offices. Miliband is in such a position; Harman is not. -Rrius (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying Wikipedia (I didn't say you although you are the only one opposing) knows more about her atual roles than credible news sites? Why not trhen you inform thme to make corrections? You pick out the Daily Mail,which many wikipedians have said is untrustworth; how about the Guardian and the BBC? And once gain, i'm not the one puting stuff in info boxes.And personally, i would like to see a primarly source by Miliband himself that says he did not give her that appointment. As you yourself mentioned or guessed, the Labour party link that i found was written by Harman herself? Do you really believe she writes the sutff on the Laobur party site? Or someone on her behalf? So where is the official statement by Ed Miliband that he did not give her that role?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)