Talk:Eric Joyce

message: This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One was recently added. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: This article is pretty much a hatchet-job. Lots of criticisms, not much balance. He may be a nasty charecter, but this article makes me suspect that it has been written or heavily edited by his oponents. I have taken a few bits out while copyediting, but do not know enough about him to rectify this article. Anyone else? Ground Zero | t 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no political opinions either way, but this article is thoroughly POV in tone. It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article to "highlight" the perceived "feelings" of constituents. --YFB ¿ 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just commented out several mentions of Joyce's expenses claims (one will do), and several unsourced critical paragraphs: see diff].  Whilst those criticisms may be accurate, they don't belong here unless sourced, and even if sourced they shoud be included only as part of a balanced assessment.  Stashing up referenced criticisms without attempting to provide a balanced assessment of his career is just a hatchet job, as others have said. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: According to the history of this article, .Susanco has deleted spouse information at least twice from this article. I'm not a contributor on this article, but I noticed the removal on the recent changes page, and I'm curious as to whether protecting the names of an MP's family is some sort of traditional activity. Here in the U.S. names of elected officials' family members are generally not kept confidential, so it seems pretty odd to me. I think we need an explanation. I've reverted the changes because a cursory look at other MP articles suggest it IS NOT a trend in obscuring their spousal connections. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize that the privacy laws in the UK are different, and I agree that the children's names should be omitted, and normally nothing beyond the spouse's names would be merited. However, the spouse's place of employment has a Wikipedia article mentioning her, so removing that information seems pointless unless that article is modified. Since they are separated it is a moot point, it can stay out. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also note that while I'm not sure that it is relevant now that they are separated, the spouse's occupation and place of work is noted in at least one newspaper source of reasonable publication. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also note, since the material has once again been removed, that spousal names are normally included, and are retained in articles about politicians despite devorces or separations. For example see John McCain (example of divorces), Tony Blair (example of spouse included UK), Gordon Brown (example of spouse included), Malcolm Wicks (example of MP with spousal information), David Watts (politician) (example of MP with spousal information), Alan Whitehead (example of MP with spousal information retained after divorce), etc... Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant removal of spouse information 

message: Can the fact that the current name of the new kincardine bridge crossing was opposed be referenced?  The references that are there do not reflect this and so I have put this part as a hidden comment until it can be properly referenced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kincardine Bridge Crossing 

message: Jo7hs2 appears to have appointed him/herself as Eric Joyce's Wiki gatekeeper, deleting critical material, often within an hour.  I am one of Eric Joyce's constituents, and I don't take kindly to this sort of censorship of opinions that I express about my own MP.  All material that is accurately sourced should remain.  Full stop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.69.255 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I goofed with regards to the edit in question, and that has been commented about on your IP user page. I'll be more careful in the future. I did not know "suck it and see" was an idiom where you live, so the mistake was linguistic. I was NOT trying to censor you. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated deletions of critical material 

message: Eric Joyce is not entitled to use the honorific title "Major", the use of which is automatically granted to retired British Army officers, as he was dismissed from the Army and thus forfeited this right.  I have amended accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! Most editors would never have noticed that, I certainly didn't. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I've made a few small changes to the Capital Gains Tax controversy entry. I tweaked some of the language, included the amount in question, and removed the middle sentence about what he was quoted as saying in the Daily Mail. I'd like to discuss how to re-add it in a better way below.  Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original text read: "According to the Mail on Sunday he is quoted as saying that his London home was his main home to HMRC, even though he carried on claiming expenses for it as a second home." I see several issues with the sentence. First, discussing sources directly in Wikipedia is generally taboo. When was the last time you saw "according to the New York Times" in an encyclopedia? Second, it is directly or indirectly calling into question the veracity of the newspaper report, without a source to suggest that the veracity is questionable. Third, it fails to explain why it is relevant, as in, why that is an issue. Until we can come up with a sentence or sentences that are neutral, discuss the matter of him claiming the expenses on the home while it was his main home, without discussing the sources, without calling into question the sources, and explaining why this would be at issue, I think this should remain out of the article, and that is why I removed it. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax controversy

message: To avoid any future arguments over content in the Recent Controversies section of this article, I'm going to recommend that all major changes to that section, from this point on, be discussed here on the talk page. So... Please add a new section titled in some way to describe what you want to do, and if nobody objects after a reasonable period of time just do it, controversial changes should be discussed here and consensus should be reached. Minor changes should just be made, and if they might be controversial, discuss them here afterwards. This is generally what occurs when controversies arise on WP. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed some language to include the words "tabloids", "reported", etc... This should make it clear that the sources are questionable as tabloids, without mentioning the sources directly (since there are more than one), and without removing the material entirely. I also removed the "damp and fleas" section, which was largely irrelevant, unless of course taxpayers will be footing the bill to repair any damage, in which case it would probably be relevant. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to remove the sentence stating his office confirmed it. Unless you can cite who said it in some provable method, that is original research, and isn't permissable on wikipedia. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussing ALL edits to the recent controversies section

message: I personally suggest we remove any entries in the Recent Controversies section of the article that describe what other people have called Joyce, unless it is part of something Joyce himself did/said/etc... This specifically concerns the "embarassing syncophant" and "blairite carpetbagger entries, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. They would be fine on a political blog, website, or other such repository of knowledge, but they are not encyclopedia content, and are entirely opinion. They also have the potential to run afoul of BLP guidelines. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the "blairite carpetbagger" reference, per the discussion above. I am going to wait for more opinions on the "embarassing sycophant" quotation. I still feel that quotation merits deletion, although I could be persuaded if some sources were provided that backed up the contention that it is often repeated in the press/media when discussing Joyce. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the current references already do that, given that it is both a commentator from the guardian, and a commentator from the independant, who refer to it.  These are both british newspapers with a high sale-rate, and as thus have a wide circulation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.12.248 (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I personally would need to see a continued and systematic usage of the reference before I would buy that it was sufficiently important to override the strong NPOV issue the quote presents, as it is basically serving no purpose in the article other than to repeat the quote, and doesn't really make any point about Joyce. If more background existed, or if it were in constant use, it would make sense, but as it stands it really doesn't belong there. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Would you see such a quote in a printed encyclopedia? Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose removal of "Joyce was called a..." paragraphs in Recent controversies

message: The bullet points are really not suitable for an encyclopedia, and I really believe we need to ditch this format in favor of the paragraph format. Right now the article reads like a Resume. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest removal of bullet points/return to paragraph format 

message: I have reverted this edit as it was controversial unsourced material under the biographies of living people policy (BLP). Claims that he was "investigated" for fraud are a very serious accusation and something that is not supported by the sources. The sources for that sentence (link) state that he was sacked for the way he dealt with the media and therefore his lack of trust. I also reverted the section renaming as it is sensationalism, Expenses claims is a more neutral and more accurate way of describing that section. Woody (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, I can't see any fraud investigation in the citation  and if it relates to expenses and nothing came of it then we usually don't mention such anyways and the section header is also better as you edited to - expense claims. Ill ask the ip to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit revert 

message: I've twice removed the name of the teenager with whom Joyce allegedly had an affair. As far as I can see, adding their name adds nothing to the biography of Joyce, and may be in violation of WP:BLP. I'd welcome views from other editors on this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  WP:BLPNAME is the section link. Rwendland (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also have to agree that we should protect the privacy of an individual as it is not notable to the event. Keith D (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, perfect, thank you for the feedback! I think the IP may have re-inserted the name semi-unintentionally, but with some feedback and the WP:BLP section link I now feel a lot happier. I should probably put the school name back in, once I've confirmed it's reliably sourced, since it's info of relevance that almost certainly can't fall under WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it best not to name the school (not important in the context of a biography) but saying the school is in his constituency does seem relevant (and can be reliably sourced) Thincat (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair comment. It must be so difficult to write an article about a school :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of exclusion of name of teenager with whom the affair was/is alleged 

message: Currently the section about the "alleged relationship" is longer than the section about the Westminster assault(s). I think this is undue weight, especially since the Westminster incident has had massive coverage in reliable sources, while the alleged relationship has only had significant coverage in certain tabloids (although it has been mentioned in reliable sources as well). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed. I trimmed out all the tabloid crap and blocked an IP editor who tried to add it back in; they had already been warned. I will be happy to block or protect to prevent material like this from being added again, per WP:BLP. Hope that's ok; we definitely aren't a tabloid, don't want to become one, and mustn't use them as sources for controversial information on living people. --John (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little bit of undue weight 

message: Substituted at 14:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: , I had a number of problems with this:
*The heading sounds like this relationship is a fact. The use of "schoolgirl" is also problematic.
*The quote is clearly unacceptable.
*This story comes from a tabloid, was denied, and received little play in reliable press, eg. the BBC don't seem to have touched it.
*It doesn't seem to have affected his career.
Your revert also restored a personal life section that was largely referenced. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my main concern was that you hadn't given reasons. Now I can see where you're coming from. I'm not sure that Daily Record report is per se not worth recording, and if it was in the Telegraph and Herald Scotland too, that is better sourced than you suggest. But it can't be written up in a sensationalist way. Perhaps a rewrite rather than a deletion? --Doric Loon (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Joyce. 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  tag to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2469252.0.Salmond_opens_120m_Clackmannanshire_Bridge_over_Forth.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401230828/http://news.stv.tv/home/85472-scottish-mps-are-top-claimants-for-expenses to http://news.stv.tv/home/85472-scottish-mps-are-top-claimants-for-expenses
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227061805/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24037762-mp-arrested-over-commons-bar-brawl.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24037762-mp-arrested-over-commons-bar-brawl.do
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) 06:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eric Joyce. 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/20110707113716/http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/articles/1/18268 to http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/articles/1/18268
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) 15:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came to this article from other stuff which mentioned things about armed services and LGBT issues. It is clearly about a very contentious individual and I do not really want to get too involved. But it does seem to be a bit weak. There is quite a lot of evidence of vandalism and politics and I don't think it seems quite right that it says such a lot in a negative way about how Joyce got thrown out of the British Army but not so much about the fact that it was because he made a public stand against racism and homophobia in the army. Some things which seem 'notable' are not included at all.  And there seems to be some things which are wrong and checkable quite easily at Google. I don't know why it refers to child sex for example, when it was obviously a child porn conviction. That seems designed to make the conviction unpleasant as it is seem even worse. It seems a failure to observe WP:NPOV to me. Some of the other references seem odd, too. Is he really the judo champion? I do not really want to edit here but I thought I would put in a comment to see if anyone has thought about it anyway. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to edit this page ages ago and got nothing but abuse from some unhinged people. I would not really recommend it as you will just get abuse from the same people. At the moment it is basically a charge sheet. You would think the idea is to abuse Wikipedia by trying to get around the UK law on laying out the worst in people including all their old convictions. I am not defending the guys offences but this page is a hate fest. I cannot see why laying out all the stuff this article does about old offences is even legal in the UK I suppose American law might apply but the article could be a lot better. 217.158.34.210 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

text: As I said, I am not going to edit here and I do not think think spent offences should be mentioned at all. However, these seem like sensible edits. There are places you can go to for advice as you proceed. Take a look at 'Teahouse' and other ways of requesting comment. FrankiegoestoRedruth (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you @FrankiegoestoRedruth. I will try to make these edits over the next few days. I will then look at teashop and other things you suggest. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Reverted, quite the POV push. Sources that don't mention the subject but are about exhausted criminal charges in general have no place in this article per WP:SYNTH, and simultaneously removing sources like BBC is quite the red flag. I have linked this page from WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Eric Joyce to try to get some fresh eyes and ensure our coverage of the subject is balanced. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see you're a very experienced editor and I am not. But is it in order to revert without discussion in that way? Your reasons for revert mentions blog material. That, and other aspects of your argument, are highly arguable and surely that's the point of this discussion page? It's been going for three months - your claim of POV seems particularly out of order since it implies bad faith on my part. it's obviously not a Bold edit, having discussed it in advance then explained it in retrospect. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: These are some massive proposed changes, yes your bold edit has been contested which is indeed normal editing practice. this string of edits removed important context and were not minor edits. As near as I can tell the vast majority of RS coverage of this person has been related to their fight in parliament and otherwise their criminal history, so our article should reflect that per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Following WP:BLOG and WP:SYNTH aren't contentious observations; a source that doesn't mention the subject of this article shouldn't be cited (the edit also added scare quotes). I think there's some room for trimming newslike events such is mid-trial proceedings and arrests, but it's going to be much better to take them on piecemeal rather than in one big cut. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, and thanks for this @VQuakr. I really appreciate your effort in telling me so precisely. I think I bit off more than I could chew, to be honest. It's not exactly my favourite subject, this guy, but I can see looking at the history of the article that it's a long way from what seems fair. He did a good thing in standing up for minorities in the Army and it's written to make him look like he just got booted out for being a bad guy. The violence stuff went across the world (admittedly as a bi of a silly story in some ways). He obviously developed a massive drink problem. There's a massive meme in the UK about him bering personally responsible for changes of government and tons of other stuff not in the article. I found it all just by googling. He's written articles in the major media about stuff like Africa and other things. The worst thing in the lead and further down is that the article says he is a child sex offender, which literally means he had contact with a child, when he was obviously convicted of looking at a child abuse image. Actual child sex offenders obviously go to jail for a long time. His actions disgusts me but it is not the same thing at all either in law or reality. The BBC report is funnily enough a total outlier and completely wrong. That part should obviously read 'child abuse images conviction'. And that's if convictions should even be lined up like this is a Wikipedia article at all. As it stands, the article just looks like a charge sheet designed to evade the UK and elsewhere laws about expunged convictions and giving people a second chance. I have an expunged conviction - lots of people do and might not be able to ever get jobs if Wikipedia just published them all. And if you read the history here at Talk page you can see it's dominated by local political opponents. Anyway, I really do take your points seriously and I will learn from that in my other editing. I'm not sure what to do about this article, which is a total mess and so unfair, so I might just leave it now. I might make a better effort on a more basic scale when I have thought about it. And thank you again, @VQuakr. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, @VQuakr, @FrankiegoestoRedruth for your comments. I've followed through with a WP:RFC. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible improvements