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.