Forbear
|
David Cameron edit
Thanks for your contributions to the article on David Cameron. I'm still a bit concerned that the intro is a little too heavy on the specifics by mentioning too many names, and contains too little by way of analytical writing.
I'm using Wikipedia:Lead section, the guideline which is part of the Manual of Style, as guidance and that says that "The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar"; while most readers familiar with British politics will have at least a vague idea of who Norman Lamont and Michael Howard are, few will say the same of Vernon Bogdanor or recall Tim Rathbone, and poor Michael Green of Carlton does not even have an article about him at all. Sam Blacketer 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The idea about the last sentence is to give an overview of how the Conservative Party is performing under Cameron's leadership, in summary of what appears later in the article. There is a section on opinion polls later which should probably be expanded but does generally confirm that the summary is accurate. Likewise the other aspects are referred to in other parts of the article. Sam Blacketer 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can I ask you to explain your edit more fully? David Cameron worked for three months only for Tim Rathbone; Rathbone was entirely different in his approach to politics, eventually being expelled from the Conservative Party for his pro-European approach, and he seems to have had little impact on Cameron's political positions. I have placed him in the article text in his appropriate place, but to mention it in the lead seems quite excessive. In fact, it seems to me to break WP:NPOV by giving "undue prominence" to something which is actually insignificant.
- I hope you will be willing to engage in debate over this. Sam Blacketer 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is already in the article. Why does it have to be in the lead section as well? Sam Blacketer 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced there is any need to mention Tim Rathbone in the lead as he simply wasn't that significant in terms of David Cameron's life. Even if it is necessary to mention him, the term "Member of Parliament" should not be abbreviated as "M.P." with full stops as this looks antiquated and awkward; there is no need to mention Rathbone's party as it is obvious from the context; and my version flows much better. For that reason I am reverting back; please do not take it from that that I agree there should be a mention, but equally please do not revert to your version. Can you show me where Cameron has spoken of how Tim Rathbone influenced him or said he was important in his political experience? Sam Blacketer 10:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- My preference is for Sam Blacketer's version, although I think that the mention of "gap year" should be retained. Viewfinder 11:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you put some more information on the category page about how it was intended to be used? I have some reservations about having this as a category, and I'm confused and a little worried about the way it is being applied. By categorizing an article like, say, Section 28 under "homophobia", we're making a statement about the motivation behind the act that, if it's going to be made at all, should be made in the article text with scrupulous referencing. Including homosexual agenda in the category doesn't make any sense... I know it's a roundabout attempt to say that people who use the phrase "homosexual agenda" are homophobes, but a) we have no business saying that by categorization, and b) the actual effect is that it looks like we're saying that the "homosexual agenda" is one of homophobia, which is just bizarre. Heterosexism is by definition not homophobia, as the first paragraph of the article clearly states. Categorizing all LGBT rights opposition as "homophobia" is POV in the extreme. All in all, I really think "homophobia" is a dangerous category idea because it makes a statement about people's (often subconscious) motivations, rather than about the subject matter of the article. Can you please clear this up for me? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)