This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Starmer´s writing
There is nothing about his writing, as e.g. The three pillars of liberty: political rights and freedoms in the United Kingdom: by Francesca Klug, Keir Starmer, and Stuart Weir. published 1996. It is said to challange "the notion that the UK and its legal and political systems are unimpeachably virtuous. The authors have identified 44 violations of internationally laid down standards". And from the article about the Birmingham six, under: Freedom of speech: "In December 1987, the Court of Appeal granted an injunction which prevented Channel 4 from re-enacting portions of a hearing in the litigation, as it was "likely to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice" if shown during the appeal, in violation of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In their book The Three Pillars of Liberty (1996) Keir Starmer, Francesca Klug, and Stuart Weir said the decision had had a "chilling effect" on other news and current affairs programmes." - And nothing about his book: European human rights law: The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, published 1999. 2A01:6F02:333:35F1:B420:76B1:BAF3:B36 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The Post Office Scandal
This important aspect of the work of the Crown Prosecution Service which continued under the control of Keir Starmer is not discussed. truthordare (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Only ten cases taken by the CPS in relation to the scandal resulted in a conviction. Of those, just three happened whilst Starmer was DPP. There were over four million cases handled by the CPS during Starmer's tenure. None of those three cases passed over his desk and there is almost zero chance he knew of them at the time: even if he did there is little reason or explanation as to why he would have thought of them as miscarriages of justice. Why would dedicating a bit to the scandal in this biographical article be at all due? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Removal of reliably cited content
Tim O'Doherty, what you stated here is factually incorrect. Neither The National nor Yahoo News are tabloids. There is also zero evidence for your claim that this is "outdated" (it happened in July 2024). Your claims of irrelevancy and that the content is "inconsequential" are purely your own personal opinions. By no means does it give you the right to remove correctly cited content from reliable sources. Your whole disrespectful attitude of "spare us the moral outrage" is clearly going against good faith behaviour. Notability guidelines also do not apply to content within articles. Helper201 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The National engages fully in tabloid journalism: it's a very odd and easily disprovable thing to deny. The source is outdated: he was not prime minister then and the actions of his government carry more weight than something said during an election campaign and to JK Rowling of all people. What is the long-lasting notability and significance of that statement? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- The National is nowhere cited on its page as a tabloid, so your claim is completely original research. Plus, even if it were to be the case that doesn't necessarily in-of-itself mean everything the source says is inaccurate if it’s a tabloid or "engages in tabloid journalism". It was also cited by another source as well as The National, as stated above. There is absolutely no requirement that we only state information post when he became Prime Minister. And again, there is no notability requirement for content within articles. Helper201 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think we're talking past each other. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- The National is nowhere cited on its page as a tabloid, so your claim is completely original research. Plus, even if it were to be the case that doesn't necessarily in-of-itself mean everything the source says is inaccurate if it’s a tabloid or "engages in tabloid journalism". It was also cited by another source as well as The National, as stated above. There is absolutely no requirement that we only state information post when he became Prime Minister. And again, there is no notability requirement for content within articles. Helper201 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
RFC Content restoration
Can this content be restored to the page?
When asked by J. K. Rowling in July 2024 whether transgender women with a gender recognition certificate have the right to use women-only spaces, Starmer replied, "No. They don't have that right. They shouldn't".[1][2] Helper201 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hunter, Ross (2 July 2024). "Keir Starmer: transgender women 'don't have right' to use women-only spaces". The National. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 8 July 2024.
- ^ Tabberer, Jamie. "Keir Starmer says transgender women 'don't have the right' to use women-only spaces, even if they have a GRC". Yahoo! News. Attitude. Archived from the original on 3 July 2024. Retrieved 8 July 2024.
- Please see the section above this one titled "Removal of reliably cited content" for more information. Helper201 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment (bot-summoned) I'd not be inclined to support this for the following reasons: (1) The origin of the statement is not referenced; at the very least, the original interview needs to be available for verification. (2) The Yahoo News links do not work for me, so I cannot verify that source. (3) This BBC piece gives a detailed elaboration of Stamer's (and Labour's) position, which does not exactly accord with the text above. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Goldsztajn Here is the origin of the statement. You can read an achieved copy without being subscribed to the times - here. In Regards to Yahoo News, this link should work. Other sources on the matter can be seen here and here. Helper201 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Starmer's reply speaks of "biological women's spaces", not "women's spaces". Whatever one thinks of the qualifier, he has not answered Rowling's question directly; so I do not support the text. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Times, per the link above, says that Rowling asked Labour on X: "Do biological males with gender recognition certificates have the right to enter women-only spaces? It’s a simple yes/no question." They go on to say that Starmer answered: "No. They don’t have that right. They shouldn’t. That’s why I’ve always said biological women's spaces need to be protected."
- Isn't that a direct "no" in answer to Rowling's question? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is equivocal, ambiguous. Is he affirming... "existing government guidance [that] allows for single-sex spaces, such as restrooms and changing rooms, to be restricted based on sex when deemed necessary."? ("Who is Britain’s new prime minister Keir Starmer and what's his LGBTQ+ rights record?" The Advocate) I think the sourcing indicates his position has shifted (ie more equivocal) over the years on the issue of trans rights in general (The Advocate, BBC, Pink News) but on the basis of current sourcing I do not think Wikipedia voice should be used to state Stamer uneqivocally believes "transwomen do not have the right to access women-only spaces". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not our job to analyse the answer, but we can allow readers to form their own interpretations by giving the question and answer in the voices of the questioner and the answerer. These get weight from the secondary sources that support them, and are clearly verifiable from the primary sources.
- The only valid question I can see is whether it is relevant to the subject of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- But the removed text was an analysis of the answer in Wikipedia voice and elided Starmer's qualified, full response. I don't in principle have any problem in including text on Starmer's changed position regarding trans rights, the sources clearly indicate he has moved from one of broad support to equivocal support. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it needs to be worded appropriately with respect to the sources and to the Wiki policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- But the removed text was an analysis of the answer in Wikipedia voice and elided Starmer's qualified, full response. I don't in principle have any problem in including text on Starmer's changed position regarding trans rights, the sources clearly indicate he has moved from one of broad support to equivocal support. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn It doesnt say he "uneqivocally believes transwomen do not have the right to access women-only spaces". It said that he responded "No. They don't have that right. They shouldn't" in july 2024 when asked by jk rowling. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, but I'm not sure I can add anything that I've not already said. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is equivocal, ambiguous. Is he affirming... "existing government guidance [that] allows for single-sex spaces, such as restrooms and changing rooms, to be restricted based on sex when deemed necessary."? ("Who is Britain’s new prime minister Keir Starmer and what's his LGBTQ+ rights record?" The Advocate) I think the sourcing indicates his position has shifted (ie more equivocal) over the years on the issue of trans rights in general (The Advocate, BBC, Pink News) but on the basis of current sourcing I do not think Wikipedia voice should be used to state Stamer uneqivocally believes "transwomen do not have the right to access women-only spaces". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Starmer's reply speaks of "biological women's spaces", not "women's spaces". Whatever one thinks of the qualifier, he has not answered Rowling's question directly; so I do not support the text. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Goldsztajn Here is the origin of the statement. You can read an achieved copy without being subscribed to the times - here. In Regards to Yahoo News, this link should work. Other sources on the matter can be seen here and here. Helper201 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. A reliable source for it (the times) has been provided; so why not?
- A Socialist Trans Girl 10:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do not restore Per Balancing aspects, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject." Based on the sources used, this story lacks weight for inclusion, considering the coverage Starmer has received on numerous stories, of which only the most significant belong.
- Due to the scant coverage of Starmer's comment and the lack of context, we don't know what he actually meant. One editor suggested we add his quote and allow the reader to decide, but the reader requires context and preferrably the opinions of informed observers in order to make this call.
- It may be that the story becomes significant, Starmer is asked to clarify his comments and political supporters and opponent weigh in. In that case it may be due for inclusion.
- For background, the extreme right has recently become obsessed with what bathrooms transexuals are allowed to use and have little interest in getting their facts right. But the mainstream has mostly ignored the issue.
- TFD (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that this is a well-sourced comment. I disagree that the topic is a minor aspect of the views of the Prime Minister of a nation, particularly a western-democracy where discussions about transgender topic are increasingly common, and yes, even in "mainstream" sources. In the past year, BBC has reported on issues regarding transgender individuals and bathrooms no less than seventy-six times. 151 times for The Guardian. Increased reports of anti-trans hate crimes (rose by 11% in 2023, pushing level to the highest they've been since 2012) have also brought the issue into increased political relevance.
- All to say, this factual, and well-cited, short sentence on a world leader's position on a modern and pressing political issue is appropriate for this article. Jcgaylor (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Quote magnets add a lot of clutter in some political pages and in principle we should not cover every quote or opinion on an issue unless it has been picked up by enough sources. I am honestly asking if this quote has been picked up by more than two sources because that would help us understand if it is right for this page. If it is included we do not need like a dozen sources on the actual article page but I am asking for the sake of this talk page. Jorahm (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)