Talk:Jim Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Neutrality

With regard to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I realise that I, at least, have been failing to resolve our issues round this article. So this is an attempt to move things forward.

There are a limited number of us editing this article (somewhere between 6 and 8 of us since the beginning of September 2007) and we clearly have different views about what material is relevant, both in terms of facts and in terms of opinions. Previous versions of this talkpage have made my view clear (in unnecessarily intemperate language for which I must apologise), but we need to find a way forward that we can all tolerate.

I hope that I have taken a step towards this. I have headlined the article with a 'neutrality disputed' banner. I hope that this may both alert readers to the dispute, and attract other, more neutral, editors who may in effect moderate our differences.

Thanks

Grblundell 08:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just edited the article so that his career is described in paragraphs rather than in notes. I have tried to neither add nor remove any material, and to tidy up the references using <ref>{{cite web }}</ref>.
However, the coverage of Murphy's role wrt the EU constitution strikes me as problematic. There clearly is a major controversy around that issue, but I see several problems with current coverage:
  1. Murphy's primary role in this respect is to negotiate a treaty. The article as it currently stands presents his role as if he was "Minister for not holding a referendum" rather "Minister for Europe".
  2. Rather than attempting to describe his role in the treaty, the current text (which is well-sourced) reads like an attempt to build the strongest case for condemning Murphy's role in refusing a referendum. For example, despite several references relating to the referendum, there is no mention at all of what substantive issues in the treaty; an although the references make clae that it was Blair's decision to peviously promise a referendum, this section reads as if the current lack of a referendum is Murphy's sole responsibility.
I'm sure that there should be coverage in wikipedia of the debate around the holding of a referendum on the Reform Treaty, although as a current political controversy there is much to be said in favour of holding back a little and trying to provide an overview of the issue.
However, it seems to me that the best place to examine these issues would be in a broader discussion of the different political party's stands on the issue, probably in the article Reform Treaty unless and until the section becomes big enough to split out to a separate article. There are arguments being made by all sides, and there are many players involved; it would be silly to have the coverage split up amongst the biograpohical articles of the digft platers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, I suggest deleting the section headed "The EU Reform Treaty/Revived EU Constitution/Treaty of Lisbon". Any comments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. Grblundell 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reintroduced the material cleared away from the article and this talk page by Eastren07. While I have some sympathy for this removal, it seems to me that if we're trying to move towards a consensus on this article, it is (in the short term) important to edit with delicacy. In particular, we need to keep the 'neutrality disputed' banner - it is (to me at least) beyond doubt that given that text is being repeatedly removed and added again means that there is a dispute!
Cheers Grblundell 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have asked Eastren07 (talk · contribs) to discuss the article, but since there has been no response since my msg here on sunday, I have now removed the section which we agreed above should go.
I think that since this is biography of a living person, it is better not leave disputed material in place pending a resolution, but it may be that after discussion some of it could be reinstated. In the meantime, I have left the neutrality banner in place, because Eastren07 is evidently unhappy about the neutrality of the article as it now stands.
I am not very hopeful that Eastren07 will actually discuss matters, but I hope that I will be proved wrong on that point :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

[edit] NUS presidency

I have altered one section of the article with regard to a line about "dictaorial beahviour" as I do not believe this is relevant in a biography of this person nor was it a widely held opinion of standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastren07 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have reinstated it, because I see no consensus here for its removal. I'm glad that after so many undiscussed deletions you have come here to discuss things, but please can we discuss things before accurately-sourced material is removed rather than afterwards? It seems to me that it most unusual for Labour MPs to sign an Early Day Motion condemning an NUS president in this way, and that as such it is an event worth recording. However, I see that the list of EDM signatories were predominantly (maybe entirely) members of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, so I suggest that the article should retain the text on this issue but note that the EDM was signed by Campaign Group members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

i think the removal of the quote from the edm is more suitable. the quote has no relevance in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastren07 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained the reason why I suggest that it is relevant to Jim Murphy's career. Please could you comment on the reason I have offered for keeping it, rather than simply saying "no relevance". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)