Talk:Keith Vaz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLP on talkpages[edit]

Please remember wikipedias policy in regard to living people WP:BLP applies just as much on talkpages as it does in articles. Please take care not to be attacking and opinionated on the talkpage, please present discussions neutrally in compliance with wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you archived previous content?[edit]

Why was so much discussion (some negative, but certainly compliant with all Wiki policies) deleted from this page? Its almost as if some people are editing entries about themselves and removing content they find embarassing.(talk) 00:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's above - saved as 'archive 1'.Span (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New secret police probe into Labour MP's £500,000[edit]

Should this Telegraph article dated 30/09/2012 be added? Article : <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9577876/Secret-police-probe-into-Labour-MPs-500000.html>: caption reads " A police investigation into a high-profile Labour MP discovered that he apparently held hundreds of thousands of pounds in a series of bank accounts, The Daily Telegraph can disclose." 80.42.237.65 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Plebophilus B Wildebeest80.42.237.65 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Anton: A Memoir AKA Salman Rushdie[edit]

Anything to do with wp:blp needs to come from a reliable source or better still from wp:Suggested sources. Rushdie's comments can't be corroborated, aren't republished in a reliable source and Vaz was denied the right to reply he would get if it were published in a reliable source. I don't think we should include it here but feel free to discuss or put it on the Joseph Anton: A Memoir article -not one of whose references mention Vaz -with a full citation and fair summary -avoiding wp:undue. For the record, whilst there is an implication in the removed text that Vaz was being hypocritical, there is nothing inconsistent in condemning both the fatwa and the book. JRPG (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should have added that the way it was written falls foul of original research by synthesis. JRPG (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital mutilation[edit]

Added short section on Vaz chairing an investigation into FGM as per the Evening Standard newspaper.86.163.52.147 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MCFI[edit]

Are we expected to know what MCFI stands for? 86.185.218.76 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A damn good point. I've not been able to track down what it means; I'm sure it's obvious to some, but I suspect 95% of people who read this article won't know. Any of the 5% care to help out? Bromley86 (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From context and some googling, I believe its a masters in commercial/financial law. It appears to be a non-standard/depreciated acronym however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP - breaking story[edit]

Let's be careful about this. The BBC are reporting the breaking story on Broadcasting House (radio programme) but all the online sources are from tabloids for now. Tigerboy1966  08:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • BBC website now reporting on the reports, plus an unnamed party spokeman.[1] Tigerboy1966  08:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now in the Telegraph, including his resignation as chair of the Home Affairs Committee.[2] RolandR (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sky News article has "standing aside". They are the best source on this issue at present, because their source, Naz Shah, has spoken to Keith Vaz. Direct quotes from Vaz are reprints of comments he has given to tabloids. Philip Cross (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent quotes Vaz as saying he intends to stand down on Tuesday (although the headline implies that he's already stood down.) Let's wait until then to discover the outcome of that meeting ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit semi-protected request 4 September 2016[edit]

See [3]

Add "Category:LGBT_politicians_from_England" for Keith Vaz. A man who is reported to have used male prostitutes (and so what if the original reported originated from the Sunday Mirror?! The Sunday Mirror is no more of a "tabloid" these days than the Independent, but the Indy is somehow alright because most Editors somehow "just happen" to agree with what the latter writes, politically!) ... anyway, self-explanatory, really! I mean, he is reported to have used "poppers" (prominent in the British gay [sex] scene) as well! Of course he is either homosexual or bisexual! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two reported instances of Keith Vaz having sex with men is insufficient to add him to the LGBT category. Sorry, but your opinion that the Sunday Mirror is equivalent to The Independent in reliability is not Wikipedia policy. See Identifying reliable sources and Biographies of Living Persons for more information. Philip Cross (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or just systematic, brazen internal Wikiepdia bias formed by some 20-to-35-year-olds, mostly younger men, with a degree or two, and who either support Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith or Tim Farron, masquerading behind the rules! ... Cue Johann Hari! They don't even print at all, these days! Just because they have longer articles with more paragraphs, doesn't mean that they are not really just a Centre-Left tabloid, in terms of content! They are, certainly these days! Oh, well, never mind, and anyway, off-topic! Anyway, the political bias is so brazen that, perversely, that you can't even see it! It just reflects striaght back! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Please see the above response by Philip Cross. st170etalk 16:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the comments above, please see WP:BLPCAT and WP:GRS, both of which state clearly: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. The second link even notes, For example, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, may not be categorized as gay.. Unless and until Vaz publicly identifies himself as LGBT, Wikipedia editors are not permitted to describe him as such. Robofish (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only just removed this category a minute ago. Keep an eye on the situation, because unless he makes a public statement to the contrary, the only fact is that he is married to a woman. Roger from American Dad (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disbarred barrister?[edit]

I found an odd mention in an interview article:

He was educated at Latymer Upper School, Hammersmith and Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, where he graduated with a BA in 1979. He went on to qualify as a barrister, later disbarred and became a solicitor.[4]

Given the source, I assume it's accurate. Likewise, I assume it's nothing important, as that's the only mention I can find of it. Anyone know what it refers to? Is it just that he changed the course of his career and so was removed from some list of people eligible to be barristers? Bromley86 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's quite decent. It was previously a requirement if changing from a barrister to a solicitor, but is no longer strictly necessary. Presumably it involved leaving one's Inn of court. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation from committee[edit]

Most of the sources talk about his resignation as the chair, but make no mention of whether or not he remains a member. The Guardian says he's no longer a member, without explicitly saying it. Does resignation as a chairman usually preclude continuation as a normal member on a board/committee? Bromley86 (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances, and Vaz's own high-principled reaction, I think protocol demands he reliquish his membership altogther, as did Dorrell from the Health Committee in June 2014: [5] Has Vaz published an offical letter of resignation? That should make it clear. Circumstances vary I guess. I can't find any definite source. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You would think it would make it clear, but no. "I told the Committee today of my decision to stand aside immediately from Committee business, and my intention to resign." The relevant BBC article is here. Essentially it just confirms he is resigning as chairman and standing aside from committee business, it does not say he is actually leaving the committee entirely. Annoyingly. I suspect the BBC and the Guardian are not saying he has resigned from the committee because he has not actually done so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are just great, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian/Goan[edit]

At the time Vaz was born, Goa was not part of India (the country). I am not sure listing him as of 'Indian Descent' is entirely appropriate given the political and ethnic history of the area. (Also given the varied ethnic heritages that make up the population of 'India' I am not sure 'Indian descent' is really a useful label anyhow) Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate because it is anachronistic. Also, being born in a place does not define descent/ancestry, so even substituting something like "Goan" would need his self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Portuguese themselves called it "India". I am not sure why this is an issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is, which is why I posted here. At one point I lived with 5 guys who all hailed from various parts of India, but would never have described themselves as being of 'Indian' descent - preferring their ethnic grouping as a descriptor. It may not be an issue at all, but I prefer to be conservative in situations like this and at least raise the question. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. The terminology of India as a "subcontinent" is thus quite apt. As far as Vaz is concerned, Indians are happy to claim him as an Indian-origin person,[1] and he seems to vaguely associate himself with the identity too.[2] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tharoor, Shashi (2006), India: From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond, Arcade Publishing, pp. 150–, ISBN 978-1-55970-803-6
  2. ^ Indian-Origin Parliamentarians Launch Anti-Brexit Campaign, NDTV News, 27 April 2016.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Keith Vaz. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former Politician?[edit]

I recently made an edit to describe Keith Vaz as "a former British Labour Party politician" in the lead. This was reverted. It appears that the same conflict has occurred before, so I raise the issue here.


It seems to me that Keith Vaz should be described as a "former" politician, as is common for those who have retired from frontline politics (e.g. David Cameron, David Miliband etc).


In any event, the short description of this article remains "Former British Labour politician" which is inconsistent with the lead. Should the short description or the lead be changed? I welcome any thoughts. GnatByte (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think given this we can conclude he is still actively involved in politics. Whether he is ever again elected to public office is another matter. I've changed the short description to say former MP. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Vaz&oldid=1207713485"