This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Many sources state Harman's children were given her surname, whereas others suggest this is a myth. I've done a search myself and the truth is actually somewhere in between. The electoral role shows two people in the household with the surname "Harman" - Harriet and her daughter Amy. The male family members have the surname "Dromey"--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as ammended) "s3. Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.

"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence."

It's a criminal offence. Parking offences are civil offences - you only end up in court if you fail to pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingboth (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Off2RioRob's statement that "she is not a criminal" is totally false. Probably undue/unnecessary to use both the "British criminals" and the "English criminals" tags though, surely only one is needed? We don't have her categorised as an "English politician" and a "British politician" so I suggest you only use one category for her criminality.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but I can see this being reverted again again despite her being the first serving Cabinet minister to be convicted of any criminal offence, and thus one of the more noticeable British criminals. Lovingboth (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness the category is rather vague. On reflection Category:Politicians_convicted_of_crimes is a far better option.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parking offences on the Queen's Highway are actually criminal matters. You have a legal obligation to pay the fine or you can opt to have your day in court. Parking issues on private land are civil matters—you have no legal obligation whatsoever to pay the fine. I would strongly oppose the use of either English or British criminals as those categories are for people who are notable for their crimes. Someone like Ian Huntley would belong in one of those categories and to categorise Harmon as such would be an egregious BLP violation. Politicians convicted of crimes, however, seems an appropriate category if we really want to make a big deal out of a very trivial offence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the input, I'm pleased we may now have found a compromise here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that crashing into someone while (because of?) illegally using a mobile phone is "very trivial" particularly given some of the other details of the incident, but remember that this is particularly notable because, again, she is the first serving Cabinet minister to be convicted of any criminal offence and not resign. It'll be a textbook example of the state of ministerial conduct for decades. Lovingboth (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be happy for her to be added to that category, 'which I was not previously aware of'. What prompted her original addition was seeing another politician in British/English Criminals and thinking that, in thirty or forty years, her non-resignation from the cabinet despite getting a criminal conviction will be the main feature of the article in the same way that Thomas Dugdale's ministerial resignation is the main feature of the article on him. Lovingboth (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is obviously a significant addition we need to strive for total accuracy. Therefore I've created the category "British_politicians_convicted_of_crimes" in order to avoid any accusations of the category being too vague in geographical terms (other countries have such categories also). I would appreciate other people's views as to whether this would be a further improvement of the above consensus. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest creating a sub-cat Category:British politicians convicted of driving offenses, mirroring the higher level Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses, and putting Harman in that. There are other politicians that would go in this category, such as Chris Huhne who has a using a hand held phone while driving conviction. This seems a more balanced approach to motoring convictions by politicians; if gradually the many motoring issues end up in Category:British politicians convicted of crimes it will reduce the usefullness of that category. We'd note in the category simple speeding/parking offenses are excluded. Rwendland (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about some of your argument here. At present driving whilst using a mobile phone only attracts only a £60 fine and 3 penalty points. Perhaps it should be more, but we're not the ones who make the laws so your argument that it is worse than a speeding offence would appear to be incorrect. Surely any 3 point type offences and/or low fines should be ignored and we should only be adding offences to the category that are more notable? I haven't read up on Hulme but Harman's crime relates not just to using a mobile phone, but also driving without due care an attention as a result of it and a collision with another vehicle. Presumably Huhne could only get 3 points and a £60 fine (or £30 if it was some time ago). Harman on the other hand faced up to 9 points and a possible £5,000 fine. They are very different offences.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the other end of the scale the offences where where jail is an option and which can be tried in a crown court need to stay in other categories also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, she's notable for being the first cabinet minister convicted of any crime to stay in office. This edges on pretending that 'driving offences' are somehow not 'criminal offences'. If the proper category does indeed fill up with criminal driving offences, then you can create another category. And if that fills up, what next: Category: British politicians convicted of driving offenses committed in Peckham? Lovingboth (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a detail, but for non-speeding offences I think Liam Byrne beat Harman in 2007 as a minister getting a using mobile telephone while driving offence. And going by the Mail report,[1] Huhne had accumulated 12 points by 2003, so must have had some earlier motoring tickets. But I wouldn't add Huhne to any category myself, as they are all spent now - I'd feel uncomfortable highlighting any spent conviction in articles. Rwendland (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had got the impression you thought Hulne's offence merited a category. I don't regard convictions being spent as an issue; that would breech polices on recentism. The issue is whether or not an incident is notable and there's no way that a simple 3 point offence carrying a maximum fine of £60 merits the use of a category. I suppose an actual driving ban might deserve the use of a category but certainly not a single 3 point incident.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At that point (Nov 2007) Byrne was not a cabinet minister. There are other examples of people with existing convictions becoming cabinet ministers, but I think no previous examples of cabinet ministers getting a conviction and not resigning. Lovingboth (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is clearly an issue as described above. For example I've already had to restore Lord Ahmed to the "British politicians convicted of crimes" category. He did indeed commit a driving offence though he went to prison for it and someone died in the incident. It's especially inappropriate to only label it as a driving offence rather than a crime in my opinion. Also just to emphasise my point above I suggest we ignore every single simple 3 point offence totally when it comes to categories as they are not notable enough (such as that by Huhne)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a marked difference between a driving offence that involves the death of another and carries a prison term and what Harman did. To use the "Politicians convicted of crimes" category is so misleading as to be a BLP violation as colloquially minor offences such as Harman's are not considered crimes. What's more, "offence" and "crime" are not perfect synonyms (crimes have victims, while offences don't necessarily have them), making the attempt to substitute one for the other a mistake with regard to what the words mean in a more technical sense and in how they are more generally used. Perhaps you lot should try creating "Politicians convicted of petty offences" instead. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's easy enough then: the incident in question had a victim - the owner of the car she crashed into - therefore it's a crime by your definition. Lovingboth (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(And there is also the well-known category of 'victimless crimes' Lovingboth (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The existence of vicitms might be very useful. The courts actually determine whether there was a victim through the "victim surcharge". Therefore this can help us to determine how serious an offence is.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Lovingboth, if you read what I actually wrote instead of what you wish I did, you would have realised that all crimes have victims, but only some offences do. Trying to turn that around to say that because there was a victim it must be a crime shows such a stunning failure to grasp simple logic (or brazen intellectual dishonesty) that you should just lose by default. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personalising things and implying there is a contest going on. Wikipedia is not about winning or losing whatsoever but about building an encyclopaedia through consensus, it is not a battleground. Lovingboth "deserves" nothing in this regard either way and it's inappropriate and unhelpful to use such terminology in this way. Please read up on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. Get over yourself. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks now too?--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put an {{undue}} tag on the article because I feel that the controversies of her time as an MP are given more weight than they should be. For example, a few minor motoring convictions have their own section (with an entire paragraph on two speeding tickets that aren't even convictions). As does the "stab vest controversy" and some minor controversy over statistics and her expenses claims. Of all of those, the only one that's worthy of anywhere near the level of detail it has here is the expenses. I would suggest re-ordering the article to be roughly chronological to avoid issues of undue weight. If there's a rough consensus that I'm barking up the wrong tree or the issue is resolved, then feel free to remove the tag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost completely disagree, Harman is a hugely controversial figure and every single controversy listed is highly notable. I think perhaps the controversies should all be in their own section and therefore the heading given less prominence and but that's the only possible error. You are completely wrong with regards to the term "convictions", the only difference between the offences is that some are civil offences whereas the most recent one is criminal. One still gets "convicted" of a civil offence just the same as one gets convicted of a criminal offence, the use term is not at all problematic here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she is controversial, but lumping them all together into one section or putting them all in their own sections leaves the reader with an unduly negative impression of her, rather like putting everything "nice" about her in one section would leave the reader with an unduly positive impression. The aim should be neutrality throughout the article so that no single part of the article gives that kind of impression.

Respectfully, it is you who is mistaken on the point about convictions. While I know my RL status counts for nothing on WP, I am studying for a degree in English Law. None of the issues mentioned in that section are civil. Civil matters are cases between two parties and one cannot be convicted of a civil matter (for example a debt, a breach of contract, a tort) whereas criminal matters are between the Crown and the accused. Speeding is a criminal offence, but a speeding ticket (of the £60 and 3 points variety) is not a conviction. The other charges, such as the care and attention, are convictions because she would have been summoned to court and sentenced as opposed to receiving a fixed penalty. My concern, though, is not the terminology, but the weight given to these very minor motoring offences when her notability stems from her politics, not her criminality or her driving. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I guess it depends how you define "conviction" at least some of her other cases do seem to be classed as convictions though I'm afraid, presumably because they went to court Therefore there are certainly two convictions there at the very least, hence the heading. I think there is significant notability because although some are lesser offences, taken as a whole they add up to quite a driving record (also driving at 99mph itself really is really rather more serious than more minor infringements). I understand your concerns about the lesser cases but they very much put the later offences into context and so are required even though some appear of lesser importance in isolation. For example one of the reasons for the concern about her lenient treatment for her latest offence is due to her poor driving record previously. Perhaps most of all, notability stems from her being the only serving cabinet member in memory to get a criminal record whilst in office - this is hugely significant and makes the section more than merited. It's wrong just to consider the offences in isolation and instead we need to consider the wider context here

There aren't actually an rules against having Controversy sections on Wikipedia anyway, I think this is very much a case where such a section is more than justified and the current version has come about after numerous discussions in this talk section so you're going over old ground here. I think if you have concerns about balance the best solution be to add more content to the the article as there certainly do appear to be significant omissions in places, for example there's no mention I can see of anything she did between 1971 and 1977.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

having examined the article again, the biggest issue is quite clearly the amount of unsourced content rather than any bias. There are numerous sentences without any references at all, I think that would be a far more appropriate issue to tag.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us in the UK there is also the thorny problem of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We appear to be at some (maybe small) risk of a defamation action if we publish a spent conviction (after 5 years for a fine I think).[2][3] Newspapers generally avoid mentioning spent convictions because of this. I suspect every edit-change constitutes a fresh publication, putting later editors at possible risk on this point.Rwendland (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that applies if the content is published with malice. Therefore edits will only be problematic if they're perhaps by single purpose accounts or those who like to breach NPOV, I don't see any problem for most editors. If you ignore the malice aspect and then take the law to its logical conclusion than no one can ever mention or report on any police caution ever because they're deemed to be spent as soon as they're issued.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scott MacDonald just removed the section on the "ginger rodent" controversy on the grounds that it was given undue weight. I agree with the move. The event was so minor that it is hard to imagine a reasoned argument for inclusion, but having a whole section is beyond silly. I brought this to the talk page because other controversies are being discussed above. -Rrius (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I probably should have noted it here. In terms of Harman's long and very public career, this was a short storm in a tea-cup. Perhaps, just perhaps (and even then I think not) it might merit a sentence. It certainly did not merit a whole section under the POV heading of "offensive speech". My vote would be to exclude entirely, but I'll not object to one sentence.--Scott Mac 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you for not posting; I almost didn't. I was just aware of the other discussions and the contentious nature of this article, so I figured it was better to do it than not. I said it's hard to imagine a reasonable argument for a brief mention, but if someone can make it, I'm persuadable. As things stand, though, I just don't see what it adds to the article. When George Allen , the United States Senator for Virginia, called someone at one of his rallies a "macaca" (a racial epithet so obscure it had to be explained before most Americans could become properly offended), it cost him the election. It is hard to see how the one-day ginger rodent comment says anything meaningful about Harman. -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section was excessive with the inappropriate heading being the biggest problem but people seem to be misunderstanding the significance and key points here and it certainly isn't true to say it isn't notable. Firstly the comment was regarded as anti-Scottish by some [4][5] and verging on racist according to some sources [6]. Even more significant is the fact that Harman has had various "equalities" roles and is famous for political corectness.[7] Therefore the issue was viewed in the context of Harman's politics and previous roles which enhance the notability. [8]--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. It was a three-day (if that) newspaper story with no lasting significance - a footnote in a log career. In a shot Wikipedia bio, even mentioning it is undue weight.--Scott Mac 18:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... Gingers are now an oppressed minority? Is that really the best argument you've got? -Rrius (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a three day story at all. Alexander has has unfortunately been associated with the offensive tag ever since, [9]. On top of that it's not a newspaper story either, it was the top story on the BBC website also if I remember correctly (this source would suggest that's the case) [10]. To quote the BBC the incident created a "storm" [11] and it made their "year in words" review [12] I certainly agree it shouldn't have an offensive heading or even any heading at all and should be addressed concisely but it needs covering in some way.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC website simply runs "the new story of the day" like any newspaper. As for long-term effects, the "Daily Mail" isn't really a very good source for much.--Scott Mac 01:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you're never going to convince me that the BBC is a newspaper. The fact is that the organisation covered the story extensively as did practically ever single news outlet in the country. I do agree that this article is rather long (though necessarily so) but we still have to cover notable material. There's actually a decent summary of the affair already in Wikipedia in the Red hair article. In the interests of keeping this article concise we could always keep all the detail in that article and have a more concise version here which links to it. We could also do the same with the Danny Alexander article as it would be unfair to have too much focus on the issue in the victim's article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I've now informed the contributor who authored the paragraph of this discussion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever medium you want to say the BBC is, it was a very brief story, barely three days if that. Just because something was brought up again later does not make it a lasting story. Instead of looking about how big a splash the story made, I would appreciate if you would try to defend it on the measure that actually matters: how in the world is its inclusion justified? What does it tell us about Harman that isn't already included? That in speeches she is apt to make extended metaphors that may be insulting to political opponents? I know you have your theory that it is somehow racist, but I think that is silly enough that the rest of us can just set that aside. -Rrius (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my theory just what the sources say. Some say anti-Scottish some say possibly racist. I won't be sharing my own theories about the comments as that's totally irrelevant here and would be original research. Also the reason I have to talk about the splash the story made is due to people adding inaccuracies that it was limited solely to newspapers, I'm simply correcting the mistakes of others. I didn't introduce that particular line of debate thank you and all my original points related exactly to the type of debate you're insisting on. I'd ask that people instead actually address and discuss the points and possible solutions I've raised and stop personalising things--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was limited to newspapers. What was said was that it was a very brief story. If it were truly a racist comment rather than something a few cranks were trying to gin up into something more than it was, it would have been a rather more substantial story. Hell, she was addressing Scottish Labour, so if it they had seen it as anti-Scottish, they wouldn't have laughed. Now, instead of quasi-correcting others' mistakes here, please provide a valid reason how this information conveys anything meaningful about the life of Harriet Harman. Scott MacDonald and I don't see one, and you have yet to provide it. Before you answer, be advised that not every news event involving an article subject, especially a living person, needs to be included. Keeping something like this, even in a single sentence would seem, unless you can provide a deep and meaningful explanation to the contrary, to give undue weight to the event. This was seen, after all, as a minor gaffe, not a racist/nationalistic attack or deeply personal insult. -Rrius (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the comment was as harmless as you suggest then Harman surely wouldn't' have felt the need to apologise, she certainly hasn't been so keen to do so in other incidents. Some have argued that the fact she was in Scotland makes the comment especially ill judged and I don't think the fact that a partisan crowd didn't speak out against a very senior party member says much at all in terms of a defence. As I've stated already I think it's notable due to the two reason's already given and the sources tend to agree that the notability was enhanced by Harman's previous roles and agenda. The main issue I see is exactly where the content might fit, I suppose best to insert in simply at the end of the "return to opposition" section? By the way no sources provided state it is "truly" racist and no one has suggested that, the sources state it is "verging on racist" and "anti-Scottish" (I accept one could easily regard the Scottish as a race and therefore make the leap that way but we should stick strictly to the sources please). Talking of sources the Hearald has some good coverage of the matter including comments from neutral sources[13]--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, you're wrong. If the comment was as harmless as I suggest, then an apology would have ended the matter, which it did. Also, I didn't say a damned thing about a crowd speaking. The fact is, they cheered. If she had made a joke about Scots being cheap, do you think the crowd would have cheered? Of course not. If she had truly insulted Scottish identity, the shared party affiliation would have been irrelevant; at best the crowd would have been silent. Additionally, you keep saying why it is notable. That is not the question. The question is why it is important to the story of Harman's life. That you can't see the difference is at the crux of the problem here. As I am now saying for at least the third time, not every noteworthy event in a person's life is worthy of inclusion in their WP bio. Some of it is trivial crap, and this is one such turd. The fact that you can find someone expressing an opinion that what she said verged on racist and was anti-Scottish is beside the point. I can find someone who thinks Queen Elizabeth is a reptile person, but that doesn't mean the reptile allegation is worthy of inclusion at Elizabeth II. This rodent comment is minor flap during a long career, and is of no import. Harman has been in the papers tens of thousands of times, and not everything she was in it for is covered here. If you can't see why this shouldn't be included, I think you need to go re-read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Queen Elizebeth example is just silly and very misleading. Reliable sources are saying the incident is verging on racist and hypercritical whereas no such sources support the comment regarding the Queen. Also your defence of Harman is that partisan Labour supporters cheered the comment which is about as non-neutral as one can get. We need to also bear in mind that this wasn't some off the cuff remark but a calculated and scripted speech.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not silly; it's exactly the same thing, just in a more absurdist packaging: Just as David Icke's whacked out notions don't make Queen Elizabeth a lizard person, so do Shirley-Anne Somerville's politically motivated opinoins fail to make Harman and her comments anti-Scottish or racist. Just because something is written in a newspaper doesn't make it reliable—you have to be more particular than that. If a newspaper says, "X happened", it can be relied on for the proposition that X indeed happened. If the paper quotes S as saying A did X, it is a reliable source for what S said, not what A allegedly did. Here, your sources support the claim that Shirley-Anne Somerville, an SNP MSP and political opponent, says she thinks the comments were anti-Scottish and verged on racism. It does not support the contention that the comments actually were racist. Your response to the crowd defense is frankly surprising and shows you don't know anything about partisan crowds. If a fellow partisan makes a comment the crowd finds offensive, it won't get a positive reaction. Finally, no, we don't need to bear in mind that it was part of a scripted speech. That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether this issue is even remotely important. Two of us have argued that it is not, and you have utterly failed, despite three direct requests, to provide an explanation as to how it could possibly be said to be an important part of the story of her life. I have to think that is because it is not possible. -Rrius (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the tenth time no one is saying the comments were definitely racist and the key aspect is not so much the attack but that combined with the hypocrisy, that's why it belongs here. Sources note the timing of the comments coincides with the passing of Harman's equality bill and how embarrassing it was for Labour.[[14]] Anti-Scottish, possibly racist, or just plain personal attacks about someone's genetic traits would all breach such legislation so how we or anyone interprets the comments matters very little. It's not just some random gaffe, it's blatant hypocrisy. Thinking about it again perhaps given the link this would fit in well under the section about the equality bill. Also it doesn't' matter that two people are arguing against inclusion, it's a discussion not a vote and it's the strength or arguments that count not the number of people involved--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, exactly one person is saying it is racist: Ms Somerville. Her opinion, whether juxtaposed with Harman's job or not, does not warrant inclusion. Your assertion that her calling Alexander a ginger rat is hypocritical defies credulity. I mean, do you really believe this, or are you just making any argument you can think of to attempt to justify nonsense? "Fit well" under the Equality Bill section? Are you serious? Do you really think that making a crack about a redhead is the same as discriminating against a woman or real minority? I agree it is about the strength of argument, and yours are getting progressively weaker. -Rrius (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources make the link with equality bill therefore it's a valid proposal and the timing strengthens the case. I haven't given any thought to any exact placement in that section, just highlighting the links to it. I don't mind where it goes, it's just a suggestion based on sources. We can just have it as part of the "return to opposition" section if people view that as more appropriate, I'm open minded either way. I totally disagree with your suggestion any case is weaker. I think we're coming up with good ideas and establishing exactly which aspects of the incident are notable and appropriate for this article and why exactly the case is so worthy of inclusion here.-Shakehandsman (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. You keep acting as though these are articles about how racist her comment was. Instead, two of them mention that an SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament said her comment was racist and anti-Scottish. Ms Somerville is entitled to her opinion, but it is just hers. Where the information would fit is not the point. It doesn't fit anywhere because it is not an important part of the story of Harman's life. Frankly, your continuing insistence that the story is notable just shows that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. For at least the fourth time it does not matter whether the story is notable. What matters is how important it is to the story. Adding any reference to the story would give it undue weight, and because it is a biography of a living person, we need to be even more assiduous in seeing that the rules are followed. Before uselessly saying the story is notable again, please go away and read Wikipedia policies and guidelines before coming back to continue this. With any luck, you will then recognise that notability is not the point and come back and answer the simple question I have put, what, four times already: how is this brief story important to telling the story of Harman's life? Why is it vital to include an insult? If the best you can come up with is that some news articles quoted an opportunistic politician from another party, then you really needn't bother. -Rrius (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not reading my points. The debate on borderline racism, anti-Scottishness or simple offensive personal attack based on genetic characteristics is not important in the wider scheme of things. Either one of these is in stark contrast to Harman's proclaimed politics so people's view as to which occurred doesn't really matter too much, it's undeniable that one or more has and that's enough. From the very beginning I made the point we needed to view the remarks in the context of Harman's career, work and politics and how this is key given the contrast yet you still keep going on about these minor points which would not be included in any concise summary of events and were not in the original text either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally inserted the item, I think. I maintain my view that it is relevant to an assessment of Harman's character and competence. Given that she espouses equality in the way in which she does, a pre-prepared 'joke' about another politician's physical appearance struck an interesting note, which some readers might view as smacking of hypocrisy, or at least of conspicuously poor judgment. If the remark had been made as a throw-away line, its significance would be slight. But it was not. Try watching the speech. (Incidentally, I regard the suggestion that it was 'racist' as bordering on the fatuous.) But in any event, why should it be suppressed, given the publicity it generated? Ironman1104 (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A response to your "solutions"?—mine is no. The topic is fine for red hair, but is not appropriate here. The fact that Harman said it does not make it necessary to include here. -Rrius (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response. What about Alexander though?, editors also wish to add it to that article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]