Talk:Harriet Harman

message: toc - Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: toc

message: Miliband today reshuffled the Shadow Cabinet, and this time he gave her the title "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". As a result, I suggest that the infobox be edited to say she was "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" and "Shadow Secretary of State for International Development" from 8 October 2010 to 7 October 2011. Three new posts should be placed above those: "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"; "Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport"; and "Labour Party Chair"—all from 7 October 2011 to present. "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party" should also be moved above DLO and Shadow DfID Secretary as it to continues to the present. -Rrius (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/harriet-harman/25677 It says that she has been, since 2010, Deputy Leader of the Opposition/Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. I don't know how recent the change has been, but this implies, in layman and official speak, that she has been Shadow DPM and Deputy Leader of the Opposition since 2010 (exact date not stated but it generally means 2010 after Miliband was elected). Therefore, IP's case is correct. Rrius your case is also correct but you were wrong to keep insisting that is is Deputy Leader of the Opposition only. if that is so, dozens of media sites and people are wrong--funny that you want to edit it so on Wikipedia but not email newspapers and new organisations of their own mistakes! Unless of course, you show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the biography on her parliament page was different--and you must show proof. As well as all your emails (or so called emails so far) with the Parliamentary office and Labour party.Phd8511 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a first.  It looks like the politicians may have actually solved a problem.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Rrius takes only official websites like the Labour Party website (which has titled her as Shadow DPM in certain occasions--see above by IP) and Parliament, this parliamentary biography says it clear. It may have been change recently, but again as I said, unless you can haul up the Parliamentary webmaster and given in official writing that Harriet Harman was not Shadow DPM in 2010, then the IP's claim is lost. In this case, as I said, IP was right from the start. Rrius was also right to title her Deputy L of O (which media sites have not used often) but wrong unless otherwise proven--he takes parliamentary sources as official; this is a parliamentary biography.Phd8511 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: IP see my comment above. Her parliamentary biography said she was D L of O/Shadow DPM since 2010.Phd8511 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: You were wrong. Her Bio says she was Shadow DPM since 2010 which you objected to. You liked to use only "official" sources but you failed to find this one.Phd8511 (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: You also have no proof otherwise. Unless you send all parties the exact archived parliamentary page and a proof of letter from the parliamentary web master (since you claim you emailed them; I can claim the same too) that the change only occurred after October 2011. As in proper titled emails, minus  your email address. Phd8511 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss [the link? It's right there at the end of my last contribution. [Here it is again, just in case. The date of the archive is right there in the link. Given your snarky dismissal of my assertion that I've e-mailed the House of Commons Information Office (I hope someone glibly dismisses you as a liar soon, too), here's a link to Parliament's own archive of her bio from May 2011. I'm more than a little tired of your demands for proof of what the official sources said, so I hope you read this. You could just as easily have gone back to the rest of the discussion. Not only did my direct quoting from her biography go unchallenged by an IP editor who was willing to throw up every trivial and ridiculous objection he could (making it unlikely such a thing would go unchallenged), but other editors referred to the page as well. So please tell me we are done with this. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Let me summarise. IP--claimed that it is Shadow DPM not Shadow DL of O. first used Harman's own page, then 16 other sources (which included Labour Party website) to back it up. Rrius (henceforth stated as R) stated that the official title was only from E Miliband and that this is backed up by only two official sites: Parliament and Labour Party site. Yet, IP insisted case as well as R. No one gave a firm answer why media sites name her as Shadow DPM and not DL of O and Labour Party website did so--indicating that only Wikipedia can be correct or R is correct: Official sites like Parliament can only be used. Case continued. The reshuffle happened. Yet reshuffled gave no clear answer whether IP or R was fully correct in their claims. Now parliamentary bio was picked up. The line as stated, "Deputy Leader of the Opposition/Shadow Deputy Prime Minister 2010-". As I've said, both sides are right and both sides are wrong to claim their case only.Phd8511 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you are stating my case wrongly. My position was that the official sources supported "DLOO", but not "SDPM". That is not the same as saying "SDPM" is not true, merely that the quality of sources for SDPM being official was not good enough. I did offer explanations for why she might use "Shadow Deputy PM" even if it wasn't an official title, so that wasn't true either. I would suggest you go back and read the actual arguments if you care about what the argument used to be. My position now, given the reshuffle, is that her bio says both from 2010, so both should be in the infobox. IP, with absolutely no justification, seeks to exclude DLOO, presumably because he doesn't like it, can't bear to admit any ground, or wants to continue his pattern of disruptive editing. I should think that the bio (and the archived version I linked to) and the sources listed in the sub-section above, which show that DLOO was more common in both news and other sources, is enough to disprove IP's position, such as it is. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Wrong. You said only official sources--Parliament.uk and Labour.org.uk should be used and they said D L of O. So newspaper site said it--saying that you know more about official titles that vetran newspaper site--why did you not correct them and only correct it on wikipedia? IP has show that the Labour party website has mentioned her as Shadow DPM several times--you say she wrote those articles herself. You claim Khan shadows Clegg--but that is not what his wikipedia page or his official page says! You said only parliament.uk or Labour party website should  be used, but you did not give a link to her parliamentary bio which I have done so which shows since 2010!!!! Again, unless you say that beyond reasonable doubt that parliament.uk webmaster edited wrongly/recently and you send emails to all newspapers like the Guardian--which termed her as Shadow DPM!--and copy the original emails to all of us, thne you case was as wrong as the IP who said there's no such thing as Shadow DPM. Or show a real email exchange with Ed Miliband that he did not appoint her as Shadow DPM in 2010 and http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/harriet-harman/25677 WRONGLY typed her as since 2010. You seem to insist it only on Wikipedia but make no attempt to change it on any newspaper or email Harman herself. Are we then should cite only Wikipedia in our essays and not newspapers?Phd8511 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12244589-- Shadow DPM. If you insit it is "more common" why have you not emailed BBC for their error then? Or is BBC right? 
Phd8511 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: "Please tell me when we're done with this"--please tell me why newspapers (which are official sources for academics and students to cite from) are wrong while you alone in Wikipedia are right--when Wikipedia is not classified as a academic source for university citations. Please tell me beyond reasonable doubt that you alone by all things know everything about the UK parliamentary rules and you alone know best. It seems at first that IP was the arrogant one. You seem so now, insisting your edits are truthful.Phd8511 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Or rather, officially declare say that parliament.uk was wrong to keep changing her title.Phd8511 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this issue resolved???Phd8511 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  From M2 Presswire, a new  site available academically (does Rrius have access to this?)
"M2 PressWIRE
September 5, 2011 Monday
The famine in the Horn of Africa is causing suffering for millions of people and is set to get worse - Harman
LENGTH: 553 words
September 5, 2011 
Today the UN is expected to declare the famine in the Horn of Africa has spread to another region of Somalia. Returning from her visit to Dadaab refugee camp and severely drought-stricken areas of the Horn of Africa with Islamic Relief, Harriet Harman Enhanced Coverage LinkingHarriet Harman  -Search using:News, Most Recent 60 DaysBiographies Plus NewsMP, Labour's Shadow International Development Secretary and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister:"
So going by your logic, why is  M2 Presswire calling her SDPM? Are all newsites wrong??
Phd8511 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Are you stupid or something? I gave the links above where Labour and Parliament said she is Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Those links still say it. No one is disputing that she also has the title of Shadow Deputy PM, but until the 2011 reshuffle, no official source used it. I proved that that was true with archived links. That a news source uses one does not disprove the other, so why did you bother inserting this series of barely literate contributions? -Rrius (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reshuffle

message: Why have large sections of this page been deleted, I have no connection with them.  It is not normal to delete other editors comments even if you disagree with them.  Please explain or restore. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Stale and resolved and antique discussions have been archived not deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Selective archiving just because you disagree is unacceptable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I disagree, I archived stale and resolved discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussions are not normally archived out of sequence.  Who says the discussion is 'stale'? There does not seem to be much sign of agreement to me.  What is the harm in restoring the deleted sections? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has been deleted - as for harm, in one topic that has been archived, there has already been a warning from an administrator - BLP applies just as much on talkpages as in articles - continual attempts to smear a living subject of an article by association of enlarged discussion about distant connections and affiliations to pedophilia when there is not possible chance it has any place in this BLP is a violation of BLP itself. As in - no - there is no chance of inclusion in the article so please move along and cease to discuss it on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware of the BLP restrictions and fully support them but if there has been admin involvement regarding BLP issues and the talk page discussion had been considered unacceptable then the admin would have completely deleted the discussion, as has happened in other places.  This clearly has not happened and it t is not up to you to enforce BPL issues on the talk pages by selectively archiving discussions, which still leaves the allegedly offending material visible to the public.   Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is up to us all to enforce BLP violations as we see them. All content was archived , it wasn't done selectively. The content has been archived for 12 days now. The archive is noindexed so as it won't appear in search results. I suggest if you want them replaced from the archive to the talkpage you ask an administrator to do it for you, telling him which threads you want replacing, I won't object if an administrator will take responsibility for replacing them to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A whole section of discussion was archived in which you were involved was deleted from the current talk page as   this diff shows.  I will ask an admin to look at this. I have not read the relevant section but if it clearly violates BLP policy for talk pages it should be deleted completely, otherwise it should be restored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, if there are issues you'd like to discuss (in relation to editing the article here), the best option at this point is to start a new section.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also echo the concerns about the selective, out of sequence archiving highlighted above. It seems rather inappropriate to me, especially given the fact that the archiving in question was carried out by an involved party and the discussion wasn't stale. Even if we assume such an action was correct and carried out in good faith it really should have been left to an uninvolved party and certainly not someone who had perhaps the strongest views of any editor regarding the issue. Also, I don't believe an editor should have to start a new discussion if a perfectly good one containing a wide range of well argued points already exists and has been archived by mistake. --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Is there BLP trouble with the actual text of the discussion? If so, shouldn't it be deleted from the thread. Rob says archives aren't indexed, but isn't the mere presence of defamatory material sufficient to warrant removal, no matter how hard people have to work to find it? -Rrius (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no BLP problem, in my view.  Have a look at Index #3, linked at the top.  Having said that, I think (having looked a bit more closely) that O2RR's action here was inappropriate: Twobells added a comment to the discussion in question (diff) and then 12 minutes later O2RR decreed that the discussion was finished and then archived it.  Pretty heavy-handed, lacking any justification except his own opinion.  Under the circumstances (i.e., it was not a stale discussion), restoring it here would be fine.  By the way, I will oppose inclusion of the information in question -- undue, coatrack, etc.  But O2RR had no business archiving an active discussion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomoskedasticity the archiving took place on September 12th, not the 25th so Rob did wait a week (though really it should have been left for much longer than that). The edits on the 25th were an attempt by Twobells to restore the material, who I expect was quite rightly very surprised at the premature archiving by an involved party. Rob then removed the discussion saying it had been archived (i.e. on the 12th), also completely removing the very latest contributions by Twobells so his additions on the 25th his not in the archives at all.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Twobells reverting of the page was quite disrupting to the ongoing discussions. He completely removed all the ongoing discussion, including the RFC. He reverted back to a moment in time and then made a comment - if his post is not in the archives I will look and add it, but  in such messy reverting you have to accept the loss of a comment here and there, the wheels will not drop off. The discussion has gon on long enough, the continually posting of blpocks of text under a pedophile header  when there is no chance of addition in this article is imo a BLP violation - let it go - move along to something more constructive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but that's a very upside down way of putting things. You are the one who inappropriately archived the material despite it not being stale and despite your involvement. Twobells isn't the most experienced or prolific editor and I'm sure he tried his best to undo a problem caused by you, therefore any disruption results from the original problem of which you were the cause. I think it would be highly useful to reopen the discussion as I have done further reading and have ideas for a compromise not yet suggested that I think most people would be satisfied with.Shakehandsman (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion I archived was stale enough to not get noticed for twelve days. I won't de-archive it - its not the kind of discussion I will take responsibility for, if you have a desired content addition that you are aware is contentious, I suggest you start a new thread. Personally I think your addition on National Council for Civil Liberties#1975–1989 is plenty and adding it here considering her minimal level of involvement attempting to assert the subject of the article supported pedophilia is undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that content on the NCCL article is a major part of my proposed solution as it covers both Hewitt and Harman and also NCCL as a whole. In addition, rather than having any explicit coverage of child abuse laws and incest legalisation here we simply state "at the NNCL she campaigned to liberalise sex laws". We further improve this BLP by summarising her time at NCCL more effectively through noting her more liberal attitudes/work then and perhaps the way this contrasts to her approach in later years once in power. For example Shami Chakrabarti mentions the issue here in a Times interview  although this ref is better . Anyway I think this compromise satisfies the positions/concerns of everyone involved and gives a broader view of the issues. I would appreciate any feedback--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Wrong, four editors wanted the PIE inclusion as well as the 2005 attempt to water down legislation to allow adults to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed against you and Rob. Please stop attempting to close down this topic, the reality is that I am more than happy to work with other editors over the issue however any attempt to even enter debate has been heavy-handedly blocked by user Off2riorob. There has not been any mention of him even going to the lengths of changing a neutral section header.Twobells (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief. What the other editors supported was something less than what you initially wanted. In any event, I am not trying to close down a discussion of the underlying topic. Rather, I was trying to get people to stop using this page to pointlessly bicker over whether Rob should or should not have re-archived the discussion. If you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I was perfectly happy for everyone to argue about the content dispute. It was the idiotic fighting about user behaviour that annoyed me. There is a place for that, as I pointed out, and it is not an article's talk page. -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, 4–2 is a majority, not consensus. If any consensus can be drawn from that discussion, it is that some measure of delicacy is required in dealing with this, and you appear to be on the wrong side of that as you seem to continue to insist on not only using charged words, but highlighting them by using them in the section heading. -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Right. This has been tirelessly spammed to the talkpage for over eighteen months now - here is your BLPN request from then - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive81#Harriet_Harman_MP_And_The_Paedophile_Information_Exchange - you have been one of the worst of the three users carrying on the discussion, your insistence in wanting Pedophile in the section header and calling removal of that, whitewashing part of the weight of reason to close it down - also your final warning that you will be blocked if you add your desired addition again - - its added to the parent page I suggest its more than enough. Addition here is undue weight. If you really want to discuss some more start yourself a new thread. I suggest you keep the header less titillating and more un-opinionated.  Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A threat of block by YOU rob when you didn't get your own way, in all the years I have been on Wikipedia you take the biscuit for the most NPOV heavy-handed hostile editor here attempting to abuse our powers when you don't agree with an issue. I will copy and paste the  pertinent facts from history and start a new discussion with the header PIE Inclusion. Twobells (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Scott MacDonald it was I think - If I was an admin I would have blocked you already for your previous BLP violating additions here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was YOU rob I am not getting into a childish tit for tat debate with you just telling you what's going to happen and as for trying to bring up one ever 24 four-hour block that admins actually disagreed with is low but an indicator of your mind set.  Twobells (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This information breaches WP:UNDUE and it also a slur, as it implies Harman had involvement with PIE, when she only had an involvement with an organisation which may have had involvement with PIE. There is just not any chance this will be reasonable to include in a short article. DO NOT REPLACE IT WITHOUT CONSENSUS OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Controversial information on a BLP, once challenged unless consensus rules it safe, neutral, and properly weighted (as I say, no chance here).--Scott Mac 4:35 pm, 12 August 2011, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC+1) - Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All I ever wanted to do was debate PIE inclusion and it seems and for the record we had consensus four to two and the rest has been blocking attempts.  We couldn't even attempt to get consensus due to heated reaction from the two editors who disagreed and have run a 18 month disruption campaign.Twobells (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those disruptive attempts at undue insertion and unduly lengthy continuation of discussion of such undue desires on the talkpage of the BLP have gone on long enough. Pick it up and move along. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Given the BLP concerns, I'd rather it was not - Alison ❤ 3:55 am, Yesterday (UTC+1) -  I deleted discussion that was stale enough to not get noticed for twelve days. I won't de-archive it - its not the kind of discussion I will take responsibility for.if you have some compromise I suggest you start a new thread. -  Off2riorob (talk) 6:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) - Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your choice but it does not, in my opinion, show support for open and honest support discussion.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not even read the details. As stated here just above - this has gone on for a year and a half its more than enough "open and honest discussion." there comes a time when its undue and  a BLP violation in itself to keep discussing such failed desired content additions on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the reason it has gone on so long is your attempts to block debate on inclusion and consensus. Harman's continued efforts to get child sex protection legislation reduced is highly pertinent.  Twobells (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the historic failed attempts at inclusion support my position. Can you support this . continued for what length of time, how has she continued this ?  Harman's continued efforts to get child sex protection legislation reduced ? - Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, here I must ask how is the PIE inclusion any different to this? They are not even fact but allegations, Harmans role at the PIE and more recent moves to water down child protection legislation are factual, Tim Loughton is extremely concerned. Twobells (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: this?  They are not even fact but allegations - thanks for pointing that recent expansion out - I have removed it and requested talkpage discussion... As for this discussion .. you haven't verified your allegations against her at all.."continued for what length of time, how has she continued this ? " your claim is even undue in itself never mind the false parts of it. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah wait, I see what you mean, apologies, I didn't mean that she continued beyond her involvement with the NCCL and PIE beyond 1983. Twobells (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your neutral input, I'll get to it. Twobells (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving this page. 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on the Wikileaks cables that revealed Harman's involvement in the Rendition of two UK citizens to Egypt. Thee should also be something on her involvement with the extradition process for Julian Assange.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.255.64 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikileaks Assange, Extradition and Rendition 

message: The following sentence (and consequently the entire following paragraph) is ambiguous: "As part of a proposed Equality Bill, Harman announced a consultation on changing the existing discrimination laws, which included options for Reverse discrimination in employment." On first reading, it seemed to me that "which" refers to "the existing discrimination laws", implying that Ms Harman's aim was to remove options for reverse discrimination. However, another possibility (perhaps more in line with the remainder of the paragraph) is that "which" refers to the consultation announced by Ms Harman, implying that she wanted to introduce options for reverse discrimination. After carefully reading this entire paragraph several times, I am not sure which is the correct interpretation. Is it just me, or does this need to be rephrased to remove this ambiguity?
:My humble opinion is that removing the ambiguity certainly wouldn't harm the article. Rulatir (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous wording on reverse discrimination proposals 

message: More news on the Paedophile Information Exchange front:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2221078/Jimmy-Savile-liberal-left-encouraged-sexualisation-children.html  Twobells (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the word 'notorious' from the current section. If you, or whoever else is editing this section, can find a series of contemporaneous condemnations of it in the Daily Mail and Telegraph, you can have it back. Otherwise, NPOV. Lovingboth (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More PIE news  

message: It contains a speech made to her husband by a political rival, surely this has a better home on his article than Harman's? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: PIE section

message: This is the second time I've made the change and I suspect it'll come up again, so perhaps best to resolve this on the talk page so it is easy to refer to.  The issue is the infobox has been adjusted a couple of times to denote that Harman is an 'acting' Leader of the Opposition.  To clear this up, there is no provision for an acting Leader of the Opposition.  You're either the Leader, full stop, or you're not.  She is, however, acting leader of the Labour Party, and that's because there is a provision for an acting leader.  So, as far as I believe, she's the Leader of the Opposition (not an acting one) and the acting leader of the party.  Is this something we're all happy with or does anyone want to show where my logic has gone wrong? Redverton (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting Leader? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Harriet Harman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070715215802/http://www.burkespeerage.com:80/ to http://www.burkespeerage.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was not Harriet Harman the first solicitor to be appointed as Solicitor-General for England and Wales? As the Solicitor-General  page says, a barrister is usually appointed. If she was, then this should be noted.Ntmr (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Solicitor to be Solicitor-General?

message: Harriet Harman's infobox was absurdly long, with 16 sets of information being included. Her brief opposition leaderships alone took up four sets. I have enacted measures to bring the infobox down to a more manageable size, grouping most of her titles into three collapsed sections to separate her shadow roles before and after government from the ministerial positions during. I have also merged "Leader of the Labour Party" and "Leader of the Opposition" into a single item as they had near-identical information (the lone difference being her 2010 predecessor). Her mandate as a member of the House of Commons, being of a different nature to ministerial jobs, has remained standalone. Thankfully she has always represented the same constituency.
Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox compression 

message: In the lead it says she worked at Brent Law Centre from 78-82
In the body it says she work at Brent Law Centre and then moves to National Cuncil for Civil Liberties from 78-82.
I suspect the latter is correct and the former due to poor editing = but do not have time to check.
80.3.80.20 (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brent Law centre 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Harriet Harman. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090518081436/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42836 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42836
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605062434/http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/798356/harriet-harman-unleashes-positive-discrimination.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/798356/harriet-harman-unleashes-positive-discrimination.thtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912044929/http://hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2007/10/01/Women-at-the-Top-2005.aspx to http://hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2007/10/01/Women-at-the-Top-2005.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.oldsuffragette.mcpherson.org.uk/General%20Election%202010.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.labour.org.uk/shadow-cabinet
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/harriet-harman/25677
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If she stays on long enough to have seniority over all other MPs of both sexes, as opposed to just those of her own, then she will have the duties and privileges which Fathers of the House have long enjoyed, and it will be appropriate to put the title on her infobox. Until then it should be kept off. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I just removed all the nonsense about Mother of the House from the info-box, although the informal usage in the text is still there. That's probably okay. 31.52.164.75 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Unfortunately, we seem to have a determined edit warrior paying no regard to other editors' views.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother of the House 

message: Over at Talk:Jack Dromey#Selective schools the 1996 row about Harman sending her son to a grammar school has come up which isn't covered in this article despite being a huge political controversy at the time. One of the problems is that it just predates online news media and so there aren't many easily accessible sources about it online. Is anyone able to dig out much that can be used to expand coverage? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar school row