Talk:David Lammy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

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)

[edit] 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)