Talk:Paul Boateng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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.

	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
???	This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

For the record (post IRC discussion), Re Middle name this is single-sourced and not confirmed by other sources which state he does not have a middle name. --VampWillow 21:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hansard have it. Enough said. [1] Morwen - Talk 21:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See also Brent Council's election results page. The Electoral Commission's offical results (364k PDF - p.20) list him as "Boateng, P. Y.". I conclude from this that "Paul Yaw Boateng" is the name he stood under at the last election, even if he doesn't use it on other occasions. --rbrwrˆ 21:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Charles Clarke's promotion. Anecdota

[edit] the right honourable?

is he still the right honourbale? what is the correct form of address for a high comissioner? Amo 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency, I believe, but he will still be a Privy Councillor. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political bias

This entry appears to be written by someone with a vast amount of bias - see weasel words such as 'prissy' and 'exclusive'...

[edit] Last section

Why is there a section about Boateng's son? Is it relevant?/Nicke L 13:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cut it here at least until it gets formatted properly: Biruitorul 05:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be removed. It does not relate to the man. If the event is notable enough for a page for his son, then it should be put there, with full citations, not the ones currently present. - Francis Tyers · 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. The son isn't independently notable; the case has been dropped; it was a year ago and appears to be a dead story. Shimgray | talk | 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have repasted the beginning section here. Why it should appear twice, I don't know. Whoever is up to this should decide properly what he/she wants to do and do it appropriately. --Natsubee 10:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending text from the article (and note that it is an IP-anon adding it back) as clearly unwarranted and also removed it here too on the grounds that if it is irrelevant there then also irrelevant here. --AlisonW 12:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this need to be sprotected until the anon stops adding this section back? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the four IPs which have added this irrelevant content have only edited this page it would, I believe, be ineffective to block just those four IPs given that the offending (ab)user is clearly on a dynamic IP and isn't guaranteed to come back to one again. Similarly, the rate of vandalism is only once per day, so a tital lockout of IPs and new editors isn't really the right solution presently, however the page is being acticely monitored and, should the situation deteriorate, I will semiprot the page. --AlisonW 12:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoot, I missed the same information being added by another IP shortly after it was reverted and it remained on the article for the best part of a day. Somewhat ironically, another IP removed it... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to agree that this article is currently suffering from this repeated vandalism. it is clearly by the same individual given the nature of the copy & paste having the same markup errors each time, so I've now semi-protected the page for two weeks. Hopefully the individual concerned will cease and desist. --AlisonW 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)