Talk:Michael Portillo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||||||
| 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. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Contents |
[edit] Recent revert
Can anyone check the diffs between the old version of this page (edited by an anonymous user) and the version I reverted to? I reverted because the changes seemed POV to me; maybe someone with a better understanding of the subject can verify which parts are accurate and add them in. --Ardonik 19:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Happy to help, Ardonik. The changes are not pov, but factual accounts of the influences in Portillo's life which have helped shape him into the person he is today. They are all accurate and have been discussed at length in books and in newsprint.
- (please note that user:195.92.198.72 also appears to be user:195.92.198.74 and user:195.92.198.75) While your additons may be fact (and if so, would you care to provide verification that Maurice Cowling is gay, or the comments of Porillos boyfriends?), they are also presented in an extreamly POV and biased way (for example, the passage talking about his boyfriend contracting AIDs, even if true, would appear to have little or no relevance to this article). Iainscott 18:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Missing Information?
If memory serves me correctly, Portillo announced that he would not be standing for parliament just before Michael Howard assumed the leadership of the Conservatives. At the time this seemed to me to be extremely peculiar because here was a prominent Tory who had been right wing but was moving leftwards, who was only too happy to leave the party to someone who was known to be right wing. No one was prepared to stand against Micheal Howard who had somehow managed to stifle all dissent within the party before his leadership challenge, thus avoiding the pointlessly difficult and painful leadership contest rules. The remarkable thing about all this is that the leading challenger, who was known to be exceedingly ambitious, suddenly decided to quit politics altogether. This coup d'etat was so fishy the whole thing stank to high heaven, yet none of us will ever know why Portillo really chose to busy himself with - maybe gardening. I know that at best we have only conjecture, but I feel it is extremely misleading not to at least mention that Portillo's resignation coincided with the rise of Michael Howard. The article, in my opinion, should read something like this: When Michael Howard in (can't remember when) assumed the leadership of the Conservative party, Michael Portillo announced that he would not be standing for re-election to parliament in... 83.5.192.222
- From recollection of those days the order was:
- Duncan Smith no confidenced
- Howard launches his candidature
- Howard offers Portillo a place in the Shadow Cabinet
- Portillo declines
- Portillo announces he is leaving the Commons
- What I can't recall is where exactly Portillo's accouncement of his support for Howard on This Week fits into the middle, although it was the day before he announced he was leaving the Commons.
- At the time Portillo attributed his decision to a desire to move to a career in broadcasting and the like. I suspect he may also have seen the writing on the wall about the Conservatives' chances in 2005 and deduced he would end up like many a promising would be Labour minister in the 1980s who was deemed too old in 1997.
- As for the lack of challenge, remember that the main reason Duncan Smith had lasted so long was the desire to avoid another leadership contest. Then the situation got out of control and I think most Conservative MPs realised that they needed a period of order and stabilisation, rather than another round of infighting. Timrollpickering 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC
[edit] More reversion woes
I reverted to here [1] after a page blanking, but think I may have caught some real stuff. If so, sorry, and can someone who knows about the subject please have a check to make sure I've not done anything too dumb. LeeG 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Radio 4
As featured on Radio 4 on 24-Jul-2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/efv21/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamie Kitson (talk • contribs).
- Any chance you could elaborate? Have you perhaps posted to the wrong place? Mark Chovain
- He presented "The Wikipedia Story" today - Tuesday 24 July 2007 11:30-12:00 (Radio 4 FM) - I heard it - including an interview with Jimmy Wales - there's more about it at [2] and a little bit more about it on the Talk:Clive Anderson page. Presumably the Radio 4 site should provide a stream of it, though the media player on the site is currently not working as it should. Georgethe23rd 13:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- As Clive Anderson presented the programme presumably this thread should be on his discussion page. Although Anderson and MP did in fact go to school together, they are as it happens two quite separate people.--Smerus 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: Clive Anderson presented the programme, and in the course of it edited the Michael Portillo page. This edit was made by Anderson, guided by David Gerard. You can hear him making and discussing the edit about 10 minutes into the programme. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The programme will be a podcast on the BBC Radio site from Friday. Philip Cross 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In Romeo and Juliet
-
- The reference to Portillo and Abbott being in a production of Romeo and Juliet, but not in the leads, as mentioned in the Anderson programme, was quickly removed after the broadcast. In addition to my revert, I have tried to indicate in the reference that this addition can be considered valid. Philip Cross 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bisexuality
Hi there. I've just removed the following anon edit (hardly a "minor edit", contrary to its edit summary!) from the article:
(unsubstantiated allegation removed per WP:BLP)
While it is common knowledge the Portillo had homosexual relationships in his youth, it's not clear to me that he is necessarily bisexual, as the edit rather baldly states. This may violate WP:BLP. Given the sources, I reckon that it could be better to say something like:
- "While at the University of Cambridge [is that correct?], Portillo had a number of homosexual relationships[1]. He married ...".
This is a bit of a blunt edit, almost a bit of a non sequitur, but it can be edited/adapted as fits. Anyway, thought I'd raise this here rather than let it sit, dubiously, in the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article already discusses his previous relationships quite appropriately. This anon has been trying to put the bisexuality thing in for weeks, if not months. We should just keep reverting it each time as per WP:BLP. Mark Chovain 10:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, OK. I'm new to this particular article, so wasn't aware this was a long-term problem. I checked out the anon's contributions but, as so often, this edit was their first and last one. I presume that they don't have a fixed IP and are just hopping around. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out in the future. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- In fact Anon's 'narrative' is a crude mixture of unsubstantiated and uninformed gossip and libel. Portillo and his wife Carolyn have known each other since childhood btw. I have removed the offending sentence from Plumbago's original comment since 'republishing' it like this in itself trasngresses WP:BLP and leaves Wikipedia open to obloquy.--Smerus 08:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] North London Collegiate School
OK. I know that any member of the liberal elite of north London would sell their eye teeth to get their children to the North London Collegiate School, but is the fact that Michael Portillo made a speech there worthy of inclusion? Why does this appearance merit a reference as against any of the other engagements he must regularly undertake? Unless a good reason is given, I propose deleting the reference. Informed Owl (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl
I see that "Brownhairedgirl" has taken an executive decision on this and gave effect to it (quite coincidentally) as I was posting my last comment. I would not recommend undoing her edit. Informed Owl (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl
[edit] Offer of shadow cabinet post by Michael Howard
A recent edit states that he was offered a cabinet post by Howard. This rings the faintest of bells, but I think it needs a reference. Does anyone have one? Perhaps the person responsible for the edit? Informed Owl (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl.
