Talk:Philip Davies

Parliamentary Spokesman?

I don't think Philip is officially a 'Parliamentary Spokesman' for the CAPC, a third-party group to Parliamentary Politics. It is true that he is a vocal supporter, who happens to be a relatively high-profile MP. On the CAPC website he is only mentioned as a 'Yorkshire Spokesman'.

I will change this back unless you can show me in writing that he is the CAPC's Parliamentary Spokesman.--Albert 16:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As of 3 November 2006, the entry “English Heritage to rewrite the histories of its properties to include slavery, 29 October 2006” at http://www.capc.co.uk/latest_news.htm on the CAPC website describes Mr Davies as “Parliamentary Spokesman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness.”

FlashSheridan 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Davies and Muslims

I removed the text: 'On 7 October 2006, the Sun quoted Davies as referring to Muslims as "vile thugs" and that "If there’s anybody who should f*** off it’s the Muslims"' referenced to a story in The Sun [1] and an unsourced claim about advocating 'the expulsion of British Muslims'. In the source, Davies is clearly refering to a specific group of Muslim vandals who were alleged to have painted "f*** off" on a house (it turns out the incident never involved Muslims anyway, according to the indepenent [2]). --h2g2bob (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Section heading

I reverted the section heading back to the informative and entirely correct Attitude toward minorities and "political correctness" (look at the content of that section and tell me its about his political views) from the totally uninformative and incorrect Political views. Please discuss any changes here before reverting. Famousdog (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point, but there is a wider issue here -- why is an entire section being given to what is essentially a couple of throwaway remarks? Looks like a case of undue weight. With this in mind I propose that the section be deleted or at least seriously curtailed to form a small section in a proper "political views" section which would more befit a BLP. Jprw (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Reading through the article again I am struck by how negative it is towards the subject, cherry-picking the most controversial aspects of his career to date. As a result I am putting up a neutrality banner until these issues are addressed.Jprw (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you aware of any positive aspects to this man's political career ommitted? He does appear to have a habit of making Richard Littlejohn-eqsue statements.  Francium12  23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are favourable aspects to his career, the point is that editors have only bothered to include controversial aspects, which came across as thinly veiled antipathy towards the subject and which were unacceptable from a BLP standpoint. There was even one awful and completely unjustified connection with the BNP made. Jprw (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restructured the article in what I hope is an acceptable manner, with sections on Davies' contribution to various issues. It had degenerated into a hopeless mess after recent edits. Famousdog (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentencing of women

There are a number of issues with this article, I will start with the sentencing of women paragraph (in the "Views on gender equality and sex education" which is sourced entirely from a primary source and therefore is original research as per WP:OR Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Davies is the foremost world authority on his own views. A WP:RS is needed to show they are notable. JRPG (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a good start. JRPG (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this is a good selection of what he said, rather than a Wikipedia editor selecting a random section from a very long dialogue Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Hansard is a secondary source, not primary as it reports the speech of others impartially. It is the official record of speech in Parliament and thus is of unimpeachable authority on what is said; there can be no question of either its reliability or its authority. There's no sense in which citing it is WP:OR either.

However, it must be used judiciously as it is reporting what is said and not editorialising. For the purpose it has been used in the edit under discussion, it seems a reasonable secondary source although I would be pleased to see an additional (reliable) source added with a summary of Davies' overall position. ClareTheSharer (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning its reliability or authority. I would prefer the BBC source as it decides what is important, rather than a Wikipedia editor selecting text from the Hansard page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Clare. Firstly I left the BBC article in the hope that you would use it, we all want a better article. I've disagreed with someone (possibly Nigel Farage) who selected his EU speeches -predictably choosing ones where he appeared to be correct. Selecting is an wp:editorialing job best left to a wp:RS. Whilst Hansard is usually accurate, MPs are not always. My former MP David Tredinnick has relatively recently solemnly declared that surgeons can't operate under a full moon as blood won't clot. This one suggests he might be aiming to be men's minister. Other articles will be written on this, wp:NORUSH applies, please work with us. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Clare and JPRG would you be happy with replacing that paragraph with:

During a debate in Westminster Hall in October 2012 on the sentencing of women, Davies said there was "unequivocal evidence that women are treated far more favourably than men".

He claimed that 58% of male offenders who entered a guilty plea were given a custodial sentence compared with just 34% of women. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would expect a summary of the comments from the Justice minister to be included. ..However the justice minister said that whilst sentencing was gender neutral it had to take individual circumstances into account. JRPG (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As an expression of his views, I believe that's a fair summary. Given it is intended as an expression of his views rather than a debate of the issue, I see no reason to include the gloss JRPG suggests. ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree, this is not an article on the merit of his views, just on what they are. JRPG could you explain in more detail why you think the response from the Justice Minister should be included? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course! RS newspapers such as the Telegraph are required as part of the their code of conduct to give a right to reply to anyone they write about. Apart from minimising their risk of being sued it almost invariably makes the article appear more balanced to the reader. FWIW I included right of reply for some of the expenses scandal stuff which reduced some of the bitter arguments. The justice minister's stuff is needed to understand why sentencing policy is the way it is at present. JRPG (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes but this is an article about Davies not about sentencing. I have added my proposed changes, if other editors agree with you then feel free to add the justice ministers comments but I personally do not think it should be in there Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood ..but this para is about providing a balanced view on Davies' views on sentencing. The Justice minister comments are required, otherwise the RS only provides notability. Comments can be as simple as the Justice minister said sentences were neutral taking individual circumstances into account. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disabled people working for less than the minimum wage

This content appears in both the "Views on disability" section and the "Economic Views" section. Clearly it does not need to be duplicated, I would advocate keeping it in the "Views on disability" section as it is not really an economic view. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disabled car parking charges

Someone added content on this to the "Views on disability" section - I sourced this content and reworded it before realising that it already appears in the Parliamentary career section. Where do other editors think it should go? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

My neutrality concerns are about the opening; if I compare it to that of any other serving MP I have never read such an anti the person opening. The opening will need to be drastically changed to remove this tag, this is a WP:BLP article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please could you point to anything which is inaccurate in the opening summary, or elsewhere in this article. Anything which is "potentially libellous" is the basis for concerns about biographies of living persons. Philip Cross (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this use of the Neutrality tag is not actionable without specific concerns about citations or POV and I'd suggest it be removed unless they are listed here. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the opening is inaccurate, it just focuses almost entirely on negative aspects of Davies. While those might be the things he is best known for, it still is somewhat dubious to focus on criticism of Davies. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing here is inaccurate or unsourced. Davies is primarily known for his negative and unhelpful attitudes on various issues. Occasional visitors to this page have objected to the negative tone, but they have never bothered to try and balance it (and I think they would have a hard time finding many RSs showing the subject in a favourable light). The neutrality tag should be removed unless specific instances of POV can be identified. Or should we start including random positive stuff to balance the POV on Heinrich Himmler? Famous_dog (c) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with both Richard and Absolutelypuremilk 100% (and Jprw above too), a blatantly obvious attack piece. All sorts of minor controversies and smears in the lead in particular when similar issues are absent from any other politician's lead section (and rightly so). For example anyone would have thought the failure to disclose betting hospitality benefits was some sort of defining issue for his career, yet if you read what really happened its merely a failure to record just £870 and he has been fully cleared on all other issues. To put things into context, there's as much focus on that tiny issue in Davies' lead as there is on the expenses scandal in the lead of articles on some of the biggest offenders! To compound matters further still, almost all positives and achievements are absent - e.g. his historic and very high profile achievement in securing an International Men's Day debate despite facing significant opposition from those opposed to equality. Even on relatively neutral issues, things are spun to be as negative a possible e.g. highlighting his reduced majority in 2017 in the lead yet ignoring the fact that it was also his record vote total/vote share and looking at the gambling industry links it doesn't even clearly state that he was cleared of all wrongdoing relating to the favourable terms allegation. A lesser but still significant issue is the compete lack of balance in some sections - while his view/defence is sometimes given, more often than not it is absent/incomplete. From the lead you'd think he was some sort of sexist, yet I'm still to see the slightest bit of evidence of an anti-women comments or action he has ever made and all the evidence points to him being pro-gender equality (e.g. he opposed the Istambul Convention becasue of its sexism in excluding men for no reason)..--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of the filibuster - definition

Does an attempt to filibuster have to be successful in order to be called 'filibustering'?

Major news sources such as Sky, the Independent and the Guardian all used the term to talk about Philip Davies' obstructive and long speech at the IC bill vote. However, the event was removed from the list on this page in the section 'Use of the filibuster' on the grounds that it hadn't been successful. I can understand why, but can also see an argument for including Davies' noteworthy attempts – whether or not he succeeded.

Having looked at Filibuster and other definitions, I'm still unsure and welcome discussion.

In the meantime, I am going to change the section title from 'Use of the filibuster' to 'Attempts to filibuster', add a short descriptive paragraph including referencing what Davies himself says about why he does it, and move the example back to the section. If you think there is a better solution please change it :-)

Possiblymaybeme (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I was the editor who moved a passage from the Filibuster section on the basis that yesterday's attempt was unsuccessful. We now have two passages detailing his attempt to derail the Bill on the Istanbul Convention. Far better to move the list of incidents to the relevant sections, and give a very brief outline of a selection of these incidents in the Filibuster section. It is the topics which are most important, not Davies' method of dealing with them. Incidentally, the Filibuster section is currently structured as a bulleted list, while it is standard Wikipedia practice to use straightforward prose except when a list's items are short. Philip Cross (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer; I have removed the bullet points. Looks like the whole page could benefit from a structural rethink (though I don't think I'm experienced enough to do it) but his tactics seem noteworthy/unique enough to pull out in their own section. Possiblymaybeme (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Philip Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/politics/person/5844/philip-davies
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GgjU3phD?url=http://www.tfa.net/about-us/council-and-supporters/ to http://www.tfa.net/about-us/council-and-supporters/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807124815/http://www.philip-davies.org.uk/newsshow.aspx?id=12&ref=4 to http://www.philip-davies.org.uk/newsshow.aspx?id=12&ref=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924073732/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=41835 to http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=41835

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/archive/2011/01/18/8795839.Gauntlet_laid_down_to_Shipley_MP/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151122220715/http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/listen-jess-phillips-vs-philip-davies-on-ridiculous-international-mens-day-debate/ to http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/listen-jess-phillips-vs-philip-davies-on-ridiculous-international-mens-day-debate/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Can we please avoid saying blah, blah, blah in edit summaries, it looks like you are taking the mickey; and remember BLP applies to edit summaries. It is very hard to take an editor seriously when they are making such childish edit summaries. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)