Talk:Eric Joyce

This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

One was recently added. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

- The image looks to have been deleted by a bot. Why is this? (4th June 2009)

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)

I agree wholeheartedly with Ground Zero Furthermore, some of the facts here are simply and unpardonably, inaccurate - casting doubt on both the veracity and integrity of Wikipedia. For example, the mention of Rose Mckenna rejecting EJ is utterly wrong . She in fact rejected someone else. And that is only for starters. On the point made above by Ground Zero, i would also have to agree. I find no place whasoever in any biography with even a shred of integrity for the derisory tone adopted by the writer/s of this article. I have not re-written nor edited the piece, for even where I could, I find the whole article too specious to merit revision. It needs complete re-write - and I do hope that this is acknowledged and recitified by whoever it is who is responsible for such absolutely as soon as possible, for, from my point of view, this calls into question the intergrity of the entire encyclopedia. signed, DSP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.102.104 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 October 2006

Dont be so ridiculous DSP. You are overreacting and being far too dramatic. "brings into question the integrity of the entire encyclopedia" - what an overreaction. I have watched this article evolve over a number of years and it is not greatly different now from what it was when it was first written, perhaps you should read into the history of the article before you make completely spurious and ridiculous comments. The article simply states what a lot of his constituents feel, and know. it seems to me that all allegations made in this article are backed up and referenced. i would suggest that DSP is either Mr Joyce himself or a close friend/supporter. well wake up and smell the coffee my friend, this man is a rotten MP and this well founded, well written and completely truthful article simply highlights the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.34.212 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 October 2006.

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)\\

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) Interesting point to note in his career, whilst Mr Joyce likes to revel in a 'hard' infantry background and being 'of the men', once commissioned he was a military educator - in other words a teacher.

One interesting aside on Eric is that he is at this moment in time the only Labour MP who has seen adult military service in any capacity. In any event his commissioned soldiering was hardly sharp end and he is a marginal figure. I am not arguing for a millitary junta but perhaps if HM Government contained a few who had seen service they might have been a bit wiser and more sparing in their use of military power.

Most of the information about Eric's expenses is out of date. Since Eric's expenses for 2005-06 were publicised, he stated that he was going to endeavour to reduce his travel costs and this was publicised on the BBC. Furthermore as his majority has steadily increased at every General Election since his election at a closely fought byelection in December 2000, it would be fair to say that he has considerable level of support amongst the voters who have repeatedly chosen him as their representative at Westminster. A quick glance at his interventions in debates, and subjects raised in adjournment debates also shows that Eric uses every opportunity to raise the profile of the falkirk Economy and services that are aimed to improved the lives of his constituents as well as being the Chair of the most active all Party Parliamentary group, which serves to throw more light on the areas of Africa that fell victim to genocide in the mid 1990s. All in all a hard working MP who works very long hours to represent his constituency and to contribute to national and international issues to which he can relate his prior work and other experiences.Susanco (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

The UK has different laws on privacy from the US. The name of the MP's spouse is given at the top of the entry but there is no need to provide other information about their place of work or the names of children as was orginally the case in regard to this entry as this damages their privacy and if the MP and his/her family has been subject to threats of physical attack as many are it puts their family at risk.Suecooper (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The material relating to spouse and job must stay. Any attempts to remove it will be met with brute wikipedia force. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Addtional references have been added to reflect the fact that the choice of name of the new Forth Road Crossing was far from universally popular and that the sentiment expressed by Eric Joyce, though strongly worded, were shared by many in Fife and the Falkirk Council area as the name of the bridge did not recognise the fact that the bridge is a vital addition like to these three key parts of Scotland.Suecooper (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In several places in the article the word "majority" is used, but the election numbers in the infobox suggest a plurality, not a majority. Is this a UK terminology thing? Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Very belatedly, "yes" - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/majority?q=majority British the number by which the votes cast for one party or candidate exceed those for the next: Labour retained the seat with a majority of 9,830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.175.61 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

'At each general election, Joyce has increased his majority, although his percentage share of the public vote fell at the 2005 election.'

According to the 2010 election figures, his majority was reduced, as well as the number of votes and percentage of the overall vote. Valetude (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

This should have been taken up on my talk page. I disagree with your characterization, I have been attempting to keep the article NPOV.Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I can clarify that "suck it and see" is an idiom, it refers to tasting something without really knowing what it is like - you're not sure whether you will like it, but you will "suck it and see" whether you do or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Several of my posts on this site in which I have tried to add a context to entries that would otherwise be from a negative point of view so that they become more neutral keep being deleted as irrelevant. I don't share that view and before the amendments to the entries re the 'Hattersley' and 'capital gains tax' are deleted again with very little explanation, please can this be discussed on this board first. May be 84.68.103.2 could start to sign his/her posts to assist us all.Suecooper (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

- I have no interest in creating an account with Wikipedia, but I always fully explain my changes to this page, both in the section in the "history" of the article and on this discussion page. I find it necessary to make a lot of changes because you seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda on this page; that is you seem to be using this wikipedia page as a mouthpiece to try and portray Eric Joyce in as favourable a light as possible. Well there are two sides to every story, and wikipedia is here to make sure that both sides of the argument are fully explained. For as long as you insist on filling this page with biased diatribe, I will be here to moderate it. By the sounds of it you are a close friend/family member of Joyce, or someone who works for/with him - you refer to him as "eric" and to his wife rosemary as "rose". Well a piece of advice - perhaps you should not let your personal feelings cloud your judgment the next time you add/change something in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Good work! Most editors would never have noticed that, I certainly didn't. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Muchos gracios! And thanks also for your gracious reply to my comment above accusing you of being Eric's Wiki gatekeeper (I had forgotten to sign in, hence it was unsigned). I'm afraid that I allowed my indignation at him to run away with me, which I shouldn't have done and for which I apologise unreservedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with most of what the article currently says.the facts are that eric joyce has not paid capital gains tax on the sale on any of his properties. That fact is indisputable. the amount is also indisputable. To say that "it is alleged" he did not pay the capital gains tax is wrong. Because he did not pay any and he has admitted that. Also indisputable is the fact that he said he would "suck it and see" if asked to pay it back. The 3 sources referenced clearly show this. No other sources exist to show to the contrary,and so the tax section must stay as it is. if it is changed again to try and obfuscate the truth, as has been done, then that should be considered vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

-- I have removed part of the roy hattersley criticism section as it bore no relation to the quotation and had neither relevance nor link to it. The statement was made by roy hattersley, NOT by tony blair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Added detail to the capital gains tax controversy section about the state of disrepair of Joyce's second home. The relevance is to show that Joyce did not spend any of the second home allowance on actual second home maintenance costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because info is quoted in a UK tabloid paper doesn't mean it is right. Eric Joyce has stated publicly that he received no gain from the sale of either of the properties in accordance with a legal agreement with his wife, which has been confirmed by HMRC. This position has been quoted by the local paper for his constitueny but very little info from that paper goes onto the web. The info quoted by the Mail on Sunday about the state of their house in London is likely to be subject to legal challenge. Therefore Wikiepedia should seriously consider removing the references to capital gains taax and the state of the house. In previous legal actions against papers Eric JOyce has received substantial out of course settlelements. It is for this reason that it would be prudent to make judicial use of the 'adverb' allegedly'.Suecooper (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Once a complete and full reference to rebut the story can be found, then the part of the article can be changed to reflect this. However the original "allegations" should be kept in, ad infinitem, to show both sides of the story. That said, at the moment all the sources suggest that Joyce did not pay capital gains tax upon the sale of the property. That he may have found a small loophole to not pay an capital gains tax, by stating his wife owned the property, does not remove him from any guilt in most people's eyes. It may be legally sound, however it certainly is not morally so. If this rebuttal can be proven then the article can be amended. I will, of course, be informing HMRC of the situation and, as a subject of the United Kingdom, requesting that HMRC ensure that his estranged wife paid the necessary capital gains tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Change: Okay, based on what both of you have said... I'm going to make a few minor language tweaks to that section, and I'll describe them here afterwards for your review. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Change: I have reworked the expenses and controversies sections to make expenses separate from controversies. Given the massive fallout from the British MP's expenses scandal, the expenses claims deserved a small section of it's own. I have detailed any potential discrepancies in Joyce's expenses, and those highlighted by the BBC website. All have been fully referenced. The relevance of this is that all constituents should be able to easily see any expenses claims made which may have discrepancies or may not have been made "wholly exclusively and necessarily" within the role of being an MP.

Change: I have added a section to the recent controversies part about Joyce being convicted of assault upon two teachers. This was reported by Marina Hyde of the Guardian in November 2004, and having discussed it with Ms Hyde, and Joyce's parliamentary office, it has been confirmed as true. Constituents have a right to know whether their MP has been convicted of any crimes, whether expunged or not.

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)

Note: Could the individual who made the above two edits sign them, please?.Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

I would argue against removing the "embarrassing sycophant" quotation at least.this was,and still is, a somewhat famous (or infamous) quote in political circles.this is for 2 reasons: 1)it was an attack by the ex labour party deputy leader,quite an important person therefore and 2)it was an open criticism of a person in the same political party as the person who made it.such verbal attacks are rare in uk political peacetime and thus the quote was quite big news at the time.indeed many political commentators still reference the quotation when talking about joyce,as though it is almost synonymous with his political persona. I would therefore suggest,nay urge,that it merits a part of this encyclopaedia.

The "blairite carpetbagger" is a very famous quotation in local circles,ie central scotland,as it was made by the somewhat popular ex-mp of joyce's constituency.i therefore felt it merited a place in the controversies part of joyce's article (the battle for the falkirk byelection in 2000 being an extremely publicised and important event).however if you feel it is unsuitable then,of course,you must delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Surely the "embarrassing sycophant" quotation should still be there, this is a democracy after all is it not. Another quote that could be used is from George Galloway who stated "you could fit Eric Joyce's supporters into a phone box". Joyce sums up quite perfectly in one little smug package exactly what is wrong with NEWlabour, the fact Falkirk West can go from Dennis Canavan to this pro war expense fiddling Blairite sycophant really does make me despair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.89 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you see such a quote in a printed encyclopedia? Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have no real personal opinion on this matter.when i first began editing this page i simply followed what had already been used,that is bullet points.i sense that suecooper is the same.one argument for keeping the bullet points is that it eases reading and what are,essentially,a number of reasonably disparate points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a mention anywhere of Joyce's extraordinary performance on Scottish Newsnight recently? If not, I understand.Tessaroithmost (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason other than he did well that it merits a mention in an encyclopedia? Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The first hurdle is, did a reliable independent source (i.e., not Newsnight itself, a YouTube video showing the Newsnight programme, nor any outlet run by the BBC) discuss the performance?

The second hurdle is whether the event is due weight in the article.

And yes, I am answering these questions even though they are well over two years old and likely to be overshadowed by the effects of more recent events on his political career. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. WP:BLPNAME is the section link. Rwendland (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Fair comment. It must be so difficult to write an article about a school :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should exclude the name of this person unless she is given significant further publicity. PatGallacher (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just to note that The Sun did not report the same extent of the relationship that the schoolgirl claimed in the Daily Mail, even though The Sun was quoting from the same interview. I think the fact other newspapers were not willing to back up the claims in the Daily Mail, throws some doubts on the claim and means we should not report it. I will remove the recently added, but no longer necessary, Daily Mail cite from the article. Rwendland (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eric Joyce/CommentsTalk:Eric Joyce/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I find this entry deplorable. Some of the facts here are simply and unpardonably, inaccurate, while the tone itself is entirely derisive. I have neither re-written nor edited the piece, for even where I could, I find the whole article too specious to merit revision. It needs complete re-write - and I do hope that this is acknowledged and recitified by whoever it is who is responsible for such absolutely as soon as possible, for, from my point of view, this calls into question not only the veracity, but the very integrity of the entire encyclopedia. signed, DSP

Last edited at 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)