User talk:JMF/Archives/2015/November

Serious issue regarding inference, impartiality and accuracy.

There is a serious issue regarding inference, impartiality and accuracy is respect of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Formal_party_policies section.

Links to a bunch of Guardian articles does not indicate official Labour Policy. Further, there are Labour MPs who are in favour on 'leave'.

This section would serve the public better if it was linked to official party declaration as opposed to news articles of MPs with opinions. By this, one could say that Labour were in favour of 'leave' if we base official policy on articles, for example: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-mp-kate-hoey-why-leaving-the-eu-is-a-left-wing-move-a6687936.html

Can we work together to make this section more balanced, and firstly based on declared official policy, ideally from each of the party's website? For example: subsections, "Party A.B.C... Official Policy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edjones1s (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, John Maynard Friedman. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Bondegezou, I have added my 2 cents worth there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your guidance.

Dear sir

I refer to your recent contribution at the following revision items:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmorrison230582&diff=prev&oldid=692711450

and here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bondegezou#The_inclusion_of_political_parties_who_have_no_MPs_or_seats

Two authors seem determined to conduct edit war without discussion or reason, and are displaying inconsistency in their appraoch relative to your approach, which I consider to be fair. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum&diff=691594332&oldid=691594047

Will you please guide us? Edjones1s (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The approach is not "inconsistent" because these are two different sections of the article that are being edited. The "history" section is referring to the period (mainly 2010-15) when it was being publicly discussed whether the UK should have a referendum. During this period the BNP had MEPs and Respect had an MP (George Galloway), so their views were reported at that time. The section JM Friedman was editing relates to the views of the parties now, or looking forward to when the referendum will actually be held (between now and the end of 2017). These parties matter less now (if at all) because they no longer have any elected representatives. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maynard Friedman's approach of Wikipedia's fundamental of "notable" applies. The BNP have never held a seat in parliament, by this one could say that any group or person is "notable", as such - why not list a selection of those who supported a referendum during the date specified. You should provide a valid reason for why you believe BNP are more notable than any other fringe political group. Edjones1s (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Edjones1s, you are correct about the principle but in error about the detail. At the time of calls for referendum, Respect had an MP and the BNP had an MEP - so they were notable back then and thus their citation for that historic event should stand. However, they have no such status today, so their opinion now in advance of the vote is not notable and Wikipedia should not report it. Except in the astoundingly unlikely event that they win a bye-election in the meantime.

PS See WP:assume good faith. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)