Talk:Eweida v United Kingdom

Creation of new page
This article started as an exact copy of the information at British_Airways. It was going into too much detail for a page about British Airways, so I have responded to the mood that a new page should be created by putting the information here. We were discussing the title - I'm not sure this one is the best, but it's all I can think of and someone can always change it. Jsteph 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous Discussion at Talk:British Airways
'''This is a copy of the debate up to 3rd December 2006. I have placed it here to make it easier to discuss this issue, rather than going off-topic at the BA talk page.''' Jsteph 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement


 * Neither was Christian support for Eweida universal.

as the dissenting voice was very much a lone voice, from someone who no longer speaks for his church. If restored it should be qualified, however the section of the article is getting too long anyway and will need consolidating and tidying in due course.

Springnuts 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Also I removed


 * BA suggested that dangling items such as necklaces are prohibited on health and safety grounds.

as it is just not supported by the reference given - nor by BA's public statement about the affair on their web site (now removed as overtaken by the statement announcing the review)

Springnuts 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put the health and safety point back in as it is mentioned twice by the National Secular Society. I have also re-inserted Eweida's public statement about Jesus because it is on the BBC website: Finally, I have removed the claim that Tony Blair supported her because this is very POV - he actually said that BA shouldn't bother fighting these things. Jsteph 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that this debate, or Nadia Eweida herself, merit a page of their own. Jsteph 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst freely admitting this needs to be covered I disagree with the promience that it has been given. I propose a separate article to be created or I will dramatically reduce the article to about 3 lines.Benny45boy 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed a somewhat contentious sentence - I suggest that the Biographies guidelines would not allow it, certainly as currently formulated and without any justifying reference. [] Springnuts 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the quote about Jesus. This is on the BBC website and is presented as a direct quote, so to me it's reliable. I could, however, put in something more oblique. Jsteph 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a separate page be created about this controversy. On reflection it's probably not worth creating one about Eweida herself. Jsteph 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Couple of things -


 * I disagree with Jsteph about Blair not aligning himself with Eweida - he used the words "do the right thing" - but it is I guess arguable that he meant "the right thing is not fight it as it is not worth fighting" as opposed to "the right thing is to let christians wear crosses openly".


 * I concur that a separate page is needed - I mentioned above that this section is getting too long. The BA article should have a short ref with a link to a separate page.  Question - if title is not Ewida, what should it be?


 * Springnuts 22:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * British Airways cross controversy? Jsteph 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Blair's comments
Blair's comments are interesting and I have attempted to be factual and NPOV on my two recent edits. He is a true politician - great sound-bite ... now just what are the parameters of his meaning? There is something for everyone. Springnuts 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

EAT
Somebody has to fill in the gaps. At the moment my latest source is vague about what happened to the Supreme Court (I'm pretty sure they said "we're not touching this with a barge pole" or words to that effect) and we're entirely missing the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) hearing, which she must have lost to be taking a case to the appeal court which was tossed out in February. --TS 05:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Manifest"
In the second paragraph of the Facts section, why is Manifest linked? It looks random; that word in this particular context has no special meaning making it worth being linked. J.J. Bustamante (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)