Talk:Frank Walker (Jersey politician)

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Following a complaint from the subject of this article I have removed a number of unsourced allegations from its text and deleted potentially libellous revisions from the history. I will take the opportunity to remind any contributors that this page must adhere to our policies on biographies of living persons. Accordingly, material should not be readded to this article unless it can be clearly sourced to reliable sources. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded this article somewhat, I have moved all criticism to a seperate section, hope all are happy that everything is referenced correctly and is NPOV if not away you go! RichardColgate 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Representative of the People?" is misleading, as what is needed is the percentage he gained of the total number of people who decided to vote, not the total population, which includes children who cannot vote, and others who choose not to vote, as well as those not eligable to vote (some foreign nationals). As it stands, it gives a very biased and inaccurate picture. --TonyinJersey 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, always good to get a second opinon RichardColgate 06:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chief Minister has far less entries than many of Jersey's States Members, but since he doesn't actually bring legislation very often or speak out as say Stuart Syvret would he doesn't get too many matches. The majority of it is crticism I'm afraid.

As per biography project I have categorised him as a year of birth unknown.

Whilst much of the information on his parents is on the Jersey Evening Post page per User:Tony theprof's suggestion I have not bought the information in here.

Just to detail my approach: Historical genealogical information (e.g. Ben Shenton is the son of Dick Shenton) is ok because both are Jersey politicians, but for living people biographies, I would avoid references that are not largely public domain (i.e. children, wife, private life, etc) as (a) these are instrusive into privacy and (b) could breach Data Protection Laws.

--TonyinJersey 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above no information on his current family is included.

I suggest therefore that you remove the family section that suggests that he has a son called Alex and a daughter, especially as this information is, in fact, incorrect. Alex is the ex-boyfriend of his daughter.

You could always do it yourself, you know. Man vyi 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have made the adjustment suggested. RichardColgate 06:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know if he was elected at the first try, would seem strange as it doesn't happen too often.

OK, the criticism section got ridiculous. The article is clearly not NPOV considering that the vast majority of it came under that section. Generally the article needs much more positive content and counter-balancing arguments to the negative content. Because I think that the criticism section was way too weighty, and essentially encouraged people to add more criticism, I've broken it up, and placed the sub-sections in neutrally titled parts of the article. Sections such as "mishandling of Jersey Child Abuse Scandal" were clearly highly POV, even just from the title, and the suggestion that Esther Rantzen had Frank Walker "squirming" was just totally inappropriate on Wikipedia. This is clearly not NPOV and could not be defended as such. Also, I have had to remove (and I don't think for the first time) the allegations regarding domestic violence. Such allegations cannot be added to an article without serious references to back them up, and the supposed reference link for this claim did not work. Hopefully my re-organisation has gone some way towards redressing the balance, but it's essentially the same content reorganised. What we need is more content about his achievements and more counterbalance to the criticism. If anyone could supply some, that would be excellent. ^Tom_Phil 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be objective about this, and I'm not sure at this stage that it is possible to be completely so. I think the following need to be included somehow:

"Senator Walker has stated that his Council of Ministers will ensure that there is no cover-up and anyone who has been guilty of child abuse in the case of Haut de la Garenne will be brought to justice. However, Senator Walker came into considerable criticism and loss of credibility from world media for use of the phrase "shafted Jersey internationally" as an accusation made against Senator Stuart Syvret, which was seen on BBC1 Newsnight in relation to an interview about the investigation; the long-term repercussions of which are difficult to determine, but in the short-term has been damaging to his reputation internationally and locally."

I would say world media, because it involves both TV, radio and press, and the phrase has unfortunately appeared on TV and press throughout the world - Australia, India, America etc.

I think that is sufficiently neutral, as it is not commenting on *what* he said, but *how* it has been seen worldwide, which is an objective POV. Also I have made it clear we don't know long-term whether it is a storm-in-a-tea-cup incident, or one more damaging like the gaff by Gerald Ratner.

If no one disagrees, I would be inclined to add this under "criticism" in a day or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony theprof (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable enough, but "damaging to his reputation" would need a source, I'd think. Man vyi (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it slightly to show that the damage is to his reputation in the media; that is I think, properly POV as one can cite at least a dozen reports ranging from the Economist, The Times, The Telegraph, The Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Mail, Reuters etc which have is many cases been quite savage in their vilification of Senator Walker, and I have yet to see one international news report which commends him for his comment. I've put in a couple of references to a few articles, but a google can reveal many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony theprof (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently various adults in Jersey have been 'shafting' children internally for about half a century - is this the ironic pun Mr Walker was trying to make? If so, I feel it was in rather poor taste.--feline1 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having just watched, incredulously, a clip of Newsnight from 25th Feb 2008, where Walker is shown footage of himself telling Syvert that he is "just out to shaft Jersey internationally", then bizarrely denying that he said it, I have made a few edits to this section, to try and keep it closer to the facts.--feline1 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I have to amend your comments Feline1, as if you look into this, Frank Walker was misquoted by Paxman who then took his statement out of context. The BBC have received numerous complaints over this matter already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.112.105 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the quotation as without it, the remarks about potential damage to his reputation in the media do not make any sense; it has also been correctly quoted by pretty well every other newspaper apart from Paxman! There has been no criticism about that, and Senator Walker has publically said - in the Jersey Hansard reports - that (a) he did use these words (b) he would stand by them and not apologise for them. What he compained about was the misquotation in Newsnight; he has not complained about the other newspapers and TV reporting which quote this wording accurately. As it has been reported in Australian press, CNN News (USA), Guernsey Press, Irish newspapers, and almost every UK daily and sunday newspaper, as well as Reuters, I think it is significant enough to be mentioned, albeit with the caveat that long term it may be completely forgotten.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear, the usual vandalism of Jersey articles by anonymous users. Always just an IP address, always concealing the edit with some innocuous sounding phrase that upon inspection appears to be complete rubbish. Paxman did not "misquote" Walker: the BBC *broadcast Walker saying the bloody thing himself!* Did Walker thus misquote himself? lol I have reinstated the correct material.--feline1 (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed the last edit, because having checked on YouTube again, it is clear Paxman does not directly quote Walker back, but paraphrases the quotation, saying Walker has just said he is more concerned about Jersey's international reputation. Paxman uses the word "reputation" repeatedly, whereas Walker has not used it once saying "You're trying to shaft Jersey, internationally". At the end of the interview, Paxman does admit he has misquoted the exact words; however, his paraphrase certainly seems to capture the gist of what the original phrase seems to imply - which is why the newspapers picked up the correct phrase when they criticised Walker.

So in terms of accuracy, I think we have to stick with the previous edit. However, the JEP used the phrase "shamelessly misquoted" of Paxman, and I cannot see how they have any knowledge of his intent, which is why a simple "misquoted" is better.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your edit just strikes me as weasling. The point of the paragraph is that there is a big investigation into paedophilia on Jersey, and that Walker has faced criticism for he and the institutions he represents trying to cover it up. And the most infamous example was him captured on film saying that a whistleblower was "out to shaft Jersey internationally". Whether or not Paxman paraphrased it with precisely the correct wording is not the issue. Your edit makes it sound like the criticism of Walker is all based around a misquote of what he said. It is not. It is based around what he said.--feline1 (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walker may be an idiot, but he didn't use the words Paxman quoted. So his denial of using those words is actually explicable. The article cannot therefore contain any statement at variance with the verifiable facts (of course, my opinion that Frank's an idiot is no more than original research!) Man vyi (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh all right then, I've made a compromise edit: the whole Paxman misquote is a red herring, so I've just removed reference to that. Newsnight is only mentioned in as much as that it was the medium by which the "shafted internationally" comment was given the widest public airing. People reacting to Newsnight were reacting to what Walker said himself in the footage, not because of anything Paxman said or didn't say.--feline1 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the sentence at the end to show that it is the continual media reporting of the quotation that may be damaging (and has been in the short term), not the Paxman interview as such. Every news story giving a potted history - like the recent Panorama - always seems to show the phrase being said. That is why I think it is significant for a Wikipedia article, and non-POV, because of the widespread coverage after Paxman.

--- I think that it should be stated on this page that the clips shown by Newsnight were edited before they were shown and that Paxman mis-quoted Walker in his questioning. AGS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.112.105 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyinJersey (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the Haut de La Garenne section, as it relates to the coverage of Frank Walker's response in the international media rather than the history of the historic abuse, and the media's perception of his concerns with Jersey's reputation. I think that, at present, it is significant historically.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone a better pix of Frank in which he faces the camera, rather than a rear view?

--TonyinJersey (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a full-frontal from Liberation Day 2008, but it's a bit blurry. Worth uploading? Man vyi (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that it seems unlikely that the JEP can be regarded as a reliable source of information with regard to its owner Frank Walker...

I would suggest contributors avoid using references from this source and the article be edited to remove all existing references.

I'll wait a while to see if there are any comments which you wish to add to this but otherwise I will edit as described above.

RichardColgate (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]