Talk:Geoffrey Cox (British politician)

message: All the lawyers not shown as Conservative on the table should be shown that way.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, upon a seccond look, this comment was and is wrong. Sorry!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I note a number of changes in the last few days reflecting both new input from Daily Telegraph sources and some useful style changes from experts.  I had marked some items as needing better sources and was in the process of replacing a Daily Mirror item with a local newspaper source including of course Cox's right of reply when much of it was deleted. This was a new editor and I will replace the deleted content + Daily Mirror section shortly and welcome any discussion of concerns about reliability once he is familiar with the rules. I'm looking for a fair and accurate encyclopedic description and will help if a source can be shown to be wrong. JRPG (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial items! 

message: :New users may not be aware that we are required to avoid the old tabloid press -see advice below
:According to WP:Suggested_sources#Current_news one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun."
:According to WP:BLPSOURCES, Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. 
:Whilst I'm quite happy to see the article attributed to the Plymouth Herald so long as a fair summary is provided, I think few editors would accept the Mirror.  Feel free to reply, I don't bite and I'm happy to help look for sources -but I may ask someone else to look at the section if it is simply reverted again.  Regards JRPG (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Daily Mirror possibly too partisan a source to be used in this instance, will not reinstate as a result.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.120.187 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the Daily Mirror in [[wp:BLP]] items 

message: :Re. tagging as vandalism.
::
:and
::
:::Edit warring over content leads to a rapid ban for all concerned! Editing rules are designed to stop experienced editors from edit wars. No one has labeled any edits as vandalism though new editors often delete valid content without good reason sometimes resulting in edit protection of the page! Please remember to sign talk pages with 4 tildas(~). 
:::Regards JRPG (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging as Vandalism

message: Re. tagging as BLP
::
:Hansard would appear to meet this.
::
:::Re Hansard, its a good source on what has been said but not a wp:reliable source for the content. Nor does it attempt to be neutral point of view. In October 2009 my former MP David Tredinnick, the health expert, told parliament that blood wouldn't clot if the moon was full!!!  In general we should avoid commenting on future court or tribunal cases and particularly with reference to an individual.  My objective is to make this article factual and fair avoiding wp:peacock and wp:weasel.  
:::This is an encyclopedia not an election manifesto.  If any editor has a conflict of interest they should declare it. They can still point out any errors on the talk page -I want to get it right. I've never had a dispute with an editor familiar with the rules but there are agreed dispute resolution facilities. Hope that helps. JRPG (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging as Biographies of Living Persons

message: Before he became Attorney General in 2018 (and therefore gave up private practice), Cox was the highest earning MP in Parliament. Should this be in the lead? While it is fairly well referenced, I don't think it should be in there - he is not notable for that in particular. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should his status as the highest-earning MP be in the lede?