Talk:Grant Shapps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This page is within the scope of the Hertfordshire WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hertfordshire. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Read Before Removing parts of this biography

  • This change keeps happening and I keep undoing it. The points removed are valid and relevant and seem to belong on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangers (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll undo it again. Please do not remove postings simply because you do not agree with them. Place a comment here as to why they should be removed Bangers (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have put a request in at Biographies Noticeboard to see of these facts should be removed. Please do not remove anything until there is some feed back Bangers (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To whoever is removing text: Please stop. Your fake threats are making you look very silly. You may not like what has been written about Grant Shapps, but it is sourced and appears to be a valid part of his biography. If you disagree, please post why here. If you just keep removing it I will just keep putting it back. Bangers (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Bangers. Your repeated edits are clearly based on a partisan motive which breaches Wikipedia rules; including; "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner...", whereas your approach appears to be from a deliberately partisan Liberal Democrat perspective. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented...in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." I have re-added ikipedia is to remain a reliable reference source. These types of disputes are rarely very productive and our last post was designed to incorporate some of your concerns. We've replaced it once again and suggest that you edit in your comments to the more detailed biography which is now present without contravening any of the guidelines and we can all get on with something more meaningful elsewhere on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The comments being removed were not made by me, which you can verify by looking at the history. I do not have a pro Lbaour/Liberal or anti Conservative agenda, but I do not see why they should be removed, which is why I keep putting them back.
    • I do not see that the information is anything more than mildly embarrassing to Grant Shapps, but it is true and it is relevant.
    • I did remove some of your last post. This was unintentional as I thought I could roll back two revisions. I will try to reinsert your missing text.
    • Please do not remove the text again as this edit war must end. Ask an editor to review this and I will abide by what they say
    • If you think this fails in a NPOV, please reword.
    • Bangers (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I see you have already reverted it again. This is getting silly. I'll leave it like this for noe but will ask an Editor to adjudicate in the morning Bangers (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Have requested editorial review also. Editor: The problem we have with Bangers amends are not specifically related to this individual but that the facts quoted are all disputed, whereas Bangers presents them as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The amendments are not mine, I am reinstating them because I think they belong here. The facts quoted are not in dispute and they have been properly referenced. I will reinsert the missing information latter today, but I will try to ensure that it is insert in a more neutral way (Gaffs is not a good header). If you do not agree with my inserts please modify them if possible, mark 'citation needed' or indicate the facts are disputed by others (giving citations) or discuss it here. Please do not simply remove them. Bangers (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP response

I've cleaned the article up a bit, including removing the material about Hodgkin's Lymphoma and remission, which must be cited before it can be re-added into the article (text can be found in history if citation is found). This still needs some clean-up and if any parts are still under contention for BLP, make sure additions are well cited to reliable sources. If something is even a bit iffy, it should be left out until well verified. --Faith (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ealing Southall by-election

I have re-added the YouTube postings. I have reworded them to be NPOV. If you do not feel this is not yet sufficiently NPOV please edit or expand. Please do not simply remove or we will be sliding back to edit war again. One of us needs to find out if Grant ever denied or admitted making the posting. Bangers (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see we are heading back to an edit war. The changes now mean that the YouTube incident is reported in an unbalanced way and that citations have been removed, making it less well referenced. My last posting stated what happened and how Grant Shapps explained it. I don't see that reporting his explanation as undisputed fact has improved this article. Please update this to be more balanced and better referenced or I will revert it back to my last edit again Bangers (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not considered WP:RS. I can't see how www.order-order.com could possibly be a RS either. --Faith (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The parts removed are not what I entered. What I would like to add included a reference to a blog to give Grant Shapps' denial, but otherwise referenced 'relaiable' sources. I will post the NPOV section to your talk page Bangers (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, please keep related information on this talk page. I have it on my watch list now and I'll see your reply. IIRC, the last blog listed on the section I removed may have qualified for a RS blog. Review WP:RS to see. --Faith (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thinking about the YouTube I think it should be reworked as part of him being Vice Chairman in Charge of Campaigning . I'll try to post it up in the next few days. Bangers (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow housing minister donations

I've added back in the bit about the donations. Again I've tried to make this NPOV and have included the denials that he was influenced. Again, please do not simply remove. Instead work with me and we will make this bio both extensive and neutral. Bangers (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the refs, removed the bad refs, and added the end of the story that they were allowed to take the funds in the first place and were exonerated for their failure to report. This presents a NPOV of the topic. --Faith (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)