Talk:Bill English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag Bill English is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in New Zealand may be able to help!

[edit] Deputy leader

Who was English's deputy leader? --Midnighttonight 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Roger Sowry was his deputy. There is also a chronology error on this page, English's charity boxing happened in the run up to the 2002 election not after--NZHack 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] privacy

There is absolutely no reason to post the names of Bill English's children or any relationship his wife might have with various outside groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.22.18.241 (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that posting the names of his children is inappropriate. But surely his moral and religious views on policy issues should be covered; I'll put that back. I think his wife's public activities in related areas are also relevant, and deserve to be included. Look at the Helen Clark article, for instance; we mention her husband's profession, even though this bears no obvious relation to her political positions. I'll hold off restoring the details about Bill English's wife for now, though, to give you a chance to convince me otherwise. -- Avenue (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have included a large number of things about Bill English's positions on a number of moral issues without citing any sources for your contentions at all. This is really a violation of the terms of Wiki's biography standards. Cite them or take them down - as it is, this is all opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.43.2 (talk • contribs)

Some good points, but you should give other editors an opportunity to provide evidence for this information instead of just deleting it straight up. Also, please remember to create a wikipedia account and sign your name after your comments. Use the "{{fact}}" tag to mark the particular points that need citing. If no other editors can provide evidence after a reasonable period of time (say a week) then record why you're taking down the information (unverified) and take it down.
Avenue, take a look at the article Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Strict criteria are given for categorising a person according to religious beliefs, and strictly speaking "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles", so certainly English's views and his wife's involvement in political groups are out unless they can be verified by respected sources.
--NZUlysses (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've begun to add sources. I'll do more this weekend, unless someone beats me to it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine to say his wife is a doctor. I doubt it is reasonable to attribute any of her beliefs to him without objective evidence. If you think Mary English deserves her own page, start one.

I also notice that earlier comments about why the changes were made have been deleted. Did you do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.43.2 (talk • contribs)

You can examine all the previous edits to this page, and see who made them, by clicking the history tab above this page (and any other page in Wikipedia). I don't see anything missing.
Perhaps the part about his wife should be worded more carefully. I agree appropriate citations are needed. I maintain that mentioning her public activities relating to these issues gives the reader relevant background information, so this should be included here. -- Avenue (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I reworded the section to remove the phrase "and upholds his church's opposition to", because it implied to me that he framed his opposition to the listed issues in primarily or exclusively religious terms. Reviewing sources that reported his views, this isn't the case – for instance, he opposed civil unions in part because he believed "people will sign up to a relationship on the Government's terms" and he opposed the decriminalisation of prostitution because he said it made "people who were exploited for commercial gain more vulnerable". --Muchness (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added his feelings about the relevance of his religious views, which seem to reinforce this split. The list of policy positions now seems a bit out of place in the "Personal life" section, though. I'll try reorganising things, somewhat along the lines of the John Key article. Feel free to comment or revert. -- Avenue (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This reorganisation has made it more obvious to me that we also need to cover what he supports, not just what he opposes. -- Avenue (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you may be acting in good faith but the source quoted supports the idea that he completely separates faith and his political role. Specifically: "English doesn't talk easily about his faith. It is personal and the personal and the political are separate, he says." This does not support your edit, which has his faith influencing his positions. Perhaps you should find a different source to support this contention if you insist on having it at all. I'd rather see it gone. It is controversial and not supported - or, at best, weakly supported by some rhetoric used by James in the piece (but not attributable directly to English), which is opinion only. Aweipogf (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I still believe my last edit is supported by the source. To quote: 'Which leads us back, un-noisily, to English's Catholicism. Some of his political ideas trace back to the Catholic tradition, he says. "I personally think that trust and values and character have spiritual roots. Most people instinctively understand there is a common goodness bigger than them."' While "trace back" is not a direct quote from English, when James states 'he says', he is directly attributing this to English. It is not just "some rhetoric used by James", as you put it. We could weaken our wording to "reportedly traces" if you'd prefer, but I don't believe it should be censored. -- Avenue (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you deleted it at the same time I was commenting above. I've reverted the deletion for now. -- Avenue (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It's a charged and contentious allegation and it really is not supported by the article. Saying values have spiritual roots is not the same as saying or suggesting Catholic doctrine informs his political decisions in any way. This is aggravated by use of the allegation that he believes his religious beliefs are "not of public interest" rather than that he keeps them to one side. That really is a distortion. It is enough to say, as James says he did, that he believes "the personal and the political are separate." I encourage you to think about this all in terms of Wiki's guidelines on the biographies of living persons. Aweipogf (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We do seem to have received subtly different impressions of English's views from the same article. I will give mine more thought. I'd also suggest to you that your reading is not the only natural interpretation that can be taken from the piece. You seem quite quick to claim things you disagree with are "distortions" and "rhetoric". Regarding the specific phrase "not of public interest", this was my attempt to summarise this part from James: 'He [Bill English] nevertheless insists his religious beliefs are personal. "They are not relevant to the public."' I don't currently see "not of public interest" as being a distortion of the direct quote "not relevant to the public", but I'll revert my reversion until I've had time to reread the whole piece and reflect on whether I may have taken this out of context. Do you have any suggestions of other coverage I could read that might provide a broader picture? -- Avenue (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Avenue, for what it's worth I thought your wording was an accurate reflection of the referenced article. The disputed wording:
  • Wikipedia article: "and traces some of his political views back to this tradition"; source article: "Some of his political ideas trace back to the Catholic tradition, he says."
  • Wikipedia article: "he sees his religious beliefs as a personal matter and not of public interest"; source article: "He nevertheless insists his religious beliefs are personal. "They are not relevant to the public."
I don't see a distortion of the source text in the disputed wording. Maybe the article could state "he sees his religious beliefs as a personal matter and not relevant to the public"? And perhaps more sources can be found to flesh out how he sees the interrelationship between his faith and his political beliefs? --Muchness (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of implication, for me, more than anything. Cleary, James is telling a story - and it's a good story - but the direct quotes don't fully support his analysis. When it comes to the influence of the Church, for example, there's also this: "I go to mass every week. I don't understand all the theology and any religious faith is a continuous wrestle with doubt..." I certainly don't mind the line that you've suggested, Muchness, if you both/all think there's a need to discuss this aspect of his faith at all at the top. Perhaps my own Catholicism (though long lapsed) is making me overly sensitive, here. Aweipogf (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

English's response to the last question in the first source is interesting, where he notes much greater public interest in his faith over the last two years. Although in some ways I wish that it wasn't something people felt a need to know about their politicians, I think this indicates that people in New Zealand increasingly do. I wouldn't be happy omitting all mention of his faith.
While I now agree that the version I restored a couple of days ago drew too strong a linkage between English's political views and his religious beliefs, I'd still be quite comfortable suggesting some relationship, reflecting James's rephrasings indicated by "he says" (although maybe they need qualification with "reportedly" or something similar). I don't think we need absolute verbatim quotes. But if most of us agree we need more sources, I'm happy to abide by that. -- Avenue (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the problem will come in trying to assess the degree to which any faith's position on issues (eg, evolution) actually informs a politician's decisions, but I agree it could be of considerable interest if it could be strongly demonstrated as a causal factor. Aweipogf (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)