Talk:Ed Davey

Davey's personal views, versus views expressed as a member of the government under collective responsibility

The views expressed as a minister must be clear due to the principle of collective responsibility. This makes expressing a personal view a sackable offence from government. Personal views expressed outside of government are not bound by any rules and are just opinion. These need to be separated. at the moment the article is POV pushing at the moment, as it is slanting towards trying to make out that Davey is holding different views or is flip-flopping, or being a hypocrite. This is not acceptable in the article, and must not give off that impression. This section needs re-working to address this POV issue. Sport and politics (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Views on nuclear power and shale gas fracking

Why are Davey's views on nuclear power and shale gas fracking, together with the fact that these have changed over the years, not relevant? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

.... blimey, I could have sworn I started this thread.

I think changes of views are entirely valid and notable, whether made inside or outside government. That's often the way of politics. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Simply stating that it is " entirely valid and notable, whether made inside or outside government" does not mean the information is encyclopedia, notable, or valid. Reasons as to why need to be provided. these reasons are not currently provided. Reasons as to why the information should not be included have been provided and are founded in Wikiepdia policy. Please address the concerns as per Wikiepida policy. Sport and politics (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This one sentence was here by consensus. I think it's you who should justify it's removal. But I have no desire to battle with you over one sentence, thanks. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is consensus please show where such consensus was discussed. There are legitimate issues not being addressed and they are as follows:

1. Which are the views expressed as a minister must be clear due to the principle of collective responsibility?
2. Which of the view are a personal view?
3. Is the information presented in a neutral way as per WP:NPOV?
4. Is the information encyclopedic?
5. Is the information notable as per WP:Notable?

There is no problem with including the information as long as it meets the inclusion criteria for being on Wikiepidia. It must be shown how and why these specific views are included, and not others. Context is key regarding this information. Sport and politics (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"Which are the views expressed as a minister must be clear due to the principle of collective responsibility?" Eh?? Is that some new Wiki policy for UK MPs? MPs are not permitted to have personal views any more? What's the point of making up such hogwash? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is merit in mentioning that Ed Davey has argued in favour of nuclear power, then there is equal merit in mentioning that he has also argued/cautioned/warned against nuclear power. Editorial balance is key here. I would propose that the most sensible way forward is that the amendment is added or/ the mention of his argument in favour of nuclear power is removed. MRMRMM (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair comment. I'd support including both. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Business appointments

Why has this entire section been removed here, wthout any discussion whatsoever? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is not the place to make out that he is profiting from formerly being a government minister, as it is not a soapbox. Why is it only business appointments which are listed? Why is it only on this article? Why is not on every single MP's article?

Only including this information on this article is selective and is cherry-picking. This article is for notable information and not lists of information giving a slanted POV that Davey is a profiteer from his former government post. This is not set out in the sources or the article.

This is another issue with the neutrality of this article. If the information can be shown in a context as being notable and neutral, then the information passes the threshold for inclusion. At its current incarnation it is just information in the article for the sake of it. It is not justified, and it is leading a POV in the article. Neither of which improve the article, and both are detractors of the article. Sport and politics (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I would guess most editors would see business appointments as being the most notable reported by reliable sources, such as the Government's own website, The Guardian and the Independent etc., etc. Why do think these appointments imply "he is profiting from formerly being a government minister" in any way? It's perfectly normal for MPs to have business interests, both within and outside of government. It seems perfectly fair to report them. You have a serious POV problem here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Making claims of the information being fine without providing reasons, does not give carte blanche for its inclusion. It must be reasoned as to why the information should be in the article. None of the issues with the information have been answered they have simply been ignored. This does not mean the problems are going to just go away. Please address the issues raised with the information.

No context for the information is given. The text stated "since leaving his role". This implies the roles flow from the government post. This is synthesis, and falls afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS.

Guessing what other editors view as notable is not enough for inclusion of information. What must must be addressed are the following:

1. Is the information notable as per WP:NOTABLE?
2. Is the information presented neutrally as per WP:NPOV?
3. Is the information presented of benefit to the article as per WP:SOAPBOX?

Sport and politics (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "since leaving his role" is just a fect. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is cherry-picked and presents the information with a slant that the roles flowed directly from being a minister, which is synthesis. Synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia. The sources do not state that there is flow. It is being implied there is.

The following questions arise regarding the information, and are not being addressed:

1. Is the information notable as per WP:NOTABLE?
2. Is the information presented neutrally as per WP:NPOV?
3. Is the information presented of benefit to the article as per WP:SOAPBOX?

Sport and politics (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There's really no need to repeat yourself over and over. I just don't accept your slant on things. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinions that information should be included do not pass the threshold for inclusion on Wikipeidia. Not engaging on the issues will not resolve the issues. Sport and politics (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There weren't any "issues" until you invented them. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The issues and concerns raised refer to legitimate policy based concerns. Please remember to assume good faith

The issues at hand again

1. Is the information notable as per WP:NOTABLE?
2. Is the information presented neutrally as per WP:NPOV?
3. Is the information presented of benefit to the article as per WP:SOAPBOX?
4. Finally, No context for the information is given. The text stated "since leaving his role". This implies the roles flow from the government post. This is synthesis, and falls afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS.

Sport and politics (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted you as this is your POV and if you have a problem with it, you should discuss it. I see that attempt is being made here, although repeating yourself is not helping the discussion. It's coming across as pedantic and bludgeon-like. IMO, we should not be censored and if the text is not a breach of BLP, is correctly sourced, and is pertinent, it should be included. Cassianto^Talk 22:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

:Not a single answer to a single point raised. Both contributors are intent on shutting down the discussion for reasons unrelated to the article. Detailed issues with the content have been raised. The issues have been obfuscated around, with personal opinion and drivel, such as guessing. Censoring claims are an emotive attempt to stifle removal of unencyclopedic information on a biography of a living person, in ignorance of the WP:BLP policy. Threats of reporting the contributor in an edit summary, and wild claims of bludgeoning, are both attacks on the contributor, and not an intention to participate in the discussion, This is part of a concerted attempt to have a chilling effect on the contributor to cease and desist. Claims of invented issues, are a serious assumption of bad faith, and a total avoidance of engaging in a discussion, or even a veneer of wanting engagement. The standard be bold, revert, discussion cycle is going on. Except the other two contributors are more interested in shutting down the contributor, than engaging in the concerns raised. Sport and politics (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(Ellwat could you possibly please move your recent comment (6 years after the existing exchanges) to the bottom of this thread? Otherwise the threading just doesn't really make sense. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC))

Completely understand that business appointments are useful information to know of about a politician. However, this doesn't really seem to be provided on any other high-profile British politicians. For me this means that Ed Davey's page unfairly has additional information which, for someone wanting to find out more information about him, could give the impression that he's a "corrupt" or "sell-out" politician. This is why I think we should either a) remove this information from his page, in line with other politicians, or b) add similar sections for many other politicians.

PS: These business appointments are already available on websites like theyworkforyou.com and I believe Ed Davey's website/page on the UK Parliament website. Does it really need to be here too? Ellwat (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks from moving your comment here. (The other danger of that placement was getting confused with an editor now "blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts" in 2018?) You seem to be arguing that the more information we give about a politician, the more likely they might be viewed as "corrupt" or "sell-out"? I'm not sure about that. Additionally, all information, in every Wikipedia article, should be available elsewhere? (and not necessarily on any website). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my main point is that it's unfair for the leader of the Liberal Democrats to have this long list of business appointments and for people like Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer to not have this. It hints at unconscious bias, and I think for fairness this should as I said either be removed or lots of editors have to go through and create similar sections for other politicians. Ellwat (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure those two would be a good place to start. Another option might be a separate article. But I'm sure that would also involve quite a lot of discussion. The spotlight has fallen on Davey now mainly because of the ongoing British Post Office scandal? Ideally, I think all the business appointments of all politicians should be as easily as possible to view. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence. Yes, Davey is in the news at the moment, but if you'll allow me to give my own opinion, I think it's highly unfair to be focusing on him particularly. Ellwat (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is how Wikipedia "works". Yes, it is unfair. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Place of birth

This Nottingham Post source says Mansfield Woodhouse; this Lib Dems source says Nottingham; this The Guardian source says Annesley Woodhouse (well actually "Annersley-Woodhouse"). Any others? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

His own official website here says Mansfield, as does The Guardian here. So I've gone with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Broken footnote

(I am so sorry. I somehow blanked the page while thinking I was only adding a new section. That was obviously not my intention. Anyway...)

Can someone repair the footnote at the end of the first sentence of the lead? It doesn't currently lead anywhere when clicked. The footnote is defined in the infobox. Lennart97 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries. The footnote is visible as expected. But no idea why a click is not navigating to it. Perhaps it's a bug? Perhaps it's because it's first defined in the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I figured it out: the footnote is defined with {{efn}} but the lead used {{Ref label}} instead. Fixed :) Lennart97 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Orange Book?

In the main introduction to the article it describes Davey as an 'Orange Book liberal'. However in this recent article [1] he seems to disavow the label (... 'though he mildly disputes his reputation as an “Orange Book” liberal (so called after the Lib Dems’ pro-free market 2004 treatise, which he co-authored). “I wish people would actually read my chapter in the Orange Book! It’s about local government.”').

What do people think of removing/changing it? SalisburySyndrome (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Views on Women

He has said on national radio and TV that “Women can have a penis.”

should this not be included? Rustygecko (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Post Office/Horizon Scandal

If we are going to include something along the lines of "Davey did not investigate the details of the Horizon Post Office Scandal," then this needs to be added to the pages of the around 15 other Post Office ministers who failed to do so. Also, it is categorically incorrect to say he "refused to meet affected sub-postmasters," because he was the first (and only) minister to meet Alan Bates, in October 2010. Of course there has been criticism of Davey, this has to be included, but so it must be for other Post Office ministers. Ellwat (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have now made an edit including this. Ellwat (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)