Talk:Elizabeth Symons, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

Untitled

Herschel, would you mind providing a citation for the $500 Halliburton contract. I believe it was published in Private Eye, though I can't remember when, but don't know whether it's been published elsewhere. Private Eye is not very reliable, which is why I'm mentioning it. Slim 02:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The source does appear to be Private Eye. I will attribute it, and you are welcome to post information questioning its credibility. In the course of looking for this, I found some other info on the Baroness, which I will add to the article with a footnote. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I have deleted the Lobster claim, because the "trans-Atlantic network" claim is LaRouche original work. I am doing this in compliance with the Arbitration Committee's ruling.

Also, please add some information about some of the other contracts Symons gave out, or anything else she has done while a minister, or else delete the Halliburton contract. By leaving it as the only thing she has done of note, you are promoting LaRouche's views. Slim 00:33, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, Lobster Magazine has nothing to do with LaRouche, nor does LaRouche own the rights to the expression "trans-Atlantic network." You might check the chronology -- I suspect that the term appeared in Lobster before it showed up in EIR. Beyond that, you may not delete the reference to Halliburton unless you can demonstrate that it is false. If you want to offset it with reportage of the Baroness' less unsavory activities, that is your prerogative, but I am under no obligation to do it for you. You have already inserted rebuttal material on Private Eye, and last time that I checked, Private Eye was not a front for LaRouche, either. You are, IMHO, hurting your credibility by grasping at straws. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have not inserted rebuttal material regarding Private Eye. I will delete the Lobster claim unless you can find a more credible source. It is/was the most scurrilous rag in Britain -- written, edited and published entirely by one man who once admitted that he didn't care whether what he wrote was true or not. It almost certainly took whatever views it had from LaRouche or a LaRouche-related source. You are damaging YOUR credibility by referring to publications you know nothing about. If your claims are true (regarding this article and all the others you edit), you will be able to find citations from more mainstream or responsible publications or websites. I will delete the reference to Halliburton because you have not demonstrated either its truth or that it is relevant to a Symons article, unless you want to list a number of her achievements, in which case please list them. But as a stand-alone, it is LaRouche propaganda. You know this. That is why you inserted it, after all. In fact, the only reason you know about it is because you got it from a LaRouche-related publication. You didn't seem to know where else it had been published. Slim 18:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I found a Guardian article on the British American Project, so I substituted that for the Lobster reference. Bizarrely, I typed up British AmericaM by mistake and, despite correcting this to N three times, and it showing correctly on "preview," the article still reads AmericaM. Must have something to do with my browser. Slim 20:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, why do you object to the Guardian article over Lobster? Slim 21:52, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Lobster is not a reliable source of information. It frequently steps over the line into rampant conspiracism. I found similar information on the Pew funding on the John Pilger website. He can be sensationalist, but he is a much better source than a Lobster article posted on an Indymedia website.--Cberlet 16:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of the Halliburton mention?

Symons' supposed approval of a contract with Halliburton makes it sound sinister but there is no allegation of wrongdoing. As written, it basically says she approved the contract. What's the point? I'd assume that she would approve all kinds of contracts in her job. Either the article should make it clear that there is some reason for devoting a paragraph to the subject (malfeasance? political controversy?), or a full review of her contracting career should be included, or the paragraph should go. -Willmcw 08:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've searched around looking for anything interesting connecting "symons" and "halliburton" but I come up empty-handed. There has not been any majoraccusation of malfeasance or significant political controversy. It looks like it's just there to provide support for a LaRouche theory of connections between Anglo and American interests. No, Lynn Cheney is not in charge, and neither is Baroness Symons. Unless anyone can show some relevence, I'm deleting it. -Willmcw 09:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FDA not First Division Association

I don't understand the change from Baroness Symons being identified as a British Trade Union leader to naming the trade union, particularly when the name is wrong. She was the General Secretary of the trade union which then was called the Association of First Division Civil Servants, and which is now called the FDA. This is detailed in a later paragraph on the page. The first paragraph no longer reads well, and I think it looks better to describe her as a former trade union leader, which is what she was, before becoming a peer. Guineveretoo (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As you say, Symons was General Secretary of the Association of First Division Civil Servants, now called the FDA, which the later paragraph details with a piped link. I've standardised the lead with that. Haldraper (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Trade union leader

It seems to me that Haldraper has specifically and deliberately removed any reference to Liz Symons having been a trade unionist. This probably ties in with the previous dispute, where s/he was arguing that the FDA is not a trade union. It is clearly accurate and appropriate to indicate that she was a trade union leader, and there is no logical reason for it being removed. I am, therefore, reinstating it. Guineveretoo (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether you think the FDA is a bona fide trade union is neither here nor there. "is a former British trade union leader, having been General Secretary of the Association of First Division Civil Servants" is as clumsy and repetitive as "the Pope is head of a Chritian church, being leader of the Catholic Church". Why not just say, as the body of the page does, "is a former General Secretary of the Association of First Division Civil Servants"? Haldraper (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say "was a former leader of a trade union", which is what was there before. The FDA is mentioned later in the article. You also removed the words "trade union" from later in the article, so that, if your edits are allowed, there is no mention of trade unions. It is apparent that this relates to your previous argument on here that the FDA is not a trade union. Guineveretoo (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)