Talk:Ed Balls

Related article

I just discovered this article, which covers a controversy earlier this year relating to the release of Ed Balls' government documents: Ed Balls document leak. I'm not sure if it really needs its own article, or whether it should be merged into this one, but it ought at least to be mentioned here somewhere, perhaps in a 'see also' section. Robofish (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Shoesmith

I note the references from wp:Suggested sources on Sharon Shoesmith and contributions by user:81.155.3.36. However this contains editorialising, the writer does not appear have a neutral point of view and the whole section seems wp:undue. I will try to make it compliant and hence a better article, please feel free to discuss.JRPG (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Task now done. The edits reflect that this was primarily a power contest between the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Judiciary. JRPG (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Twitter meme

I don't see any problem with including the twitter meme, it's a reason why he's known (I know it's nowhere near the most important reason) and it's not at all controversial. JASpencer (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should be excluded on the grounds of balance, WP:BLPGOSSIP and chiefly WP:WELLKNOWN. It is a slightly negative and barely noteworthy incident, not relevant to his public office and on the face of it not that well documented. Also consider WP:COATRACK. Leaky Caldron 10:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Barely noteworthy? Not that well documented? Yeah, sure it is. Tiller54 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with including Twitter memes is that this is an encyclopedia. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Twitter meme is a well documented fact and easily meets WP:GNG as an article on its own. As far as being negative (and I don't think it is) that's not a reason not to include this in his article as it clearly meets the standards needed for WP:BLP. JASpencer (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added something in. JASpencer (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. Lots of famous people have become the focus of an internet meme at some time or another. This is generally not worth mentioning in their biography on Wikipedia, which is meant to be a lasting historical record rather than a collection of trivia and transient Internet phenomena. I don't see any evidence that this meme is particularly significant to Balls' life or political career. Robofish (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Robofish that this isn't noteworthy and in any event is wp:undue. I don't think its negative, it just tells us nothing about Balls. I would support it being in the Twitter article. JRPG (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re my original thoughts above, it may now be well sourced but it is unlikely to be of lasting significance. Truly a piece of trivia and covered in part by WP:BLPGOSSIP, "Ask yourself...even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." No. Leaky Caldron 11:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of the Daily Mail

• According to WP:Suggested sources 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.

• Re the Mail story about his children -WP:BLPNAME applies. "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons."

The article will improve if better sources are used and I will remove material where the Mail is the only source. Feel free to discuss. JRPG (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this approach. I certainly think that, in general, even naming children of MPs is highly dubious - I have no problem saying who their partner is and that they have x children (or even x grown up children), but anything more strikes me as unnecessary unless the children are, for some reason, notable or have been made notable by deliberate actions of their parents (John Gummer's daughter and the burger eating incident might possibly fall into this area). Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've left the 'stammering' mail article in as its free of editorializing and backed up by other sources. Elsewhere the Mail content has been replaced with other sources. I was amused at John Gummer's daughter, the incident enhanced her reputation for independent thought in my eyes! JRPG (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ed Balls "Ed Balls" tweet

(and the subsequent "Ed Balls Day") It's not really an event relevant enough to be included in his biography is it? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I just saw it gets a lot of news coverage. Happy to hear opinions though. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest it might be a more appropriate entry in the Internet Phenomenon page as it has no real bearing on him or his work...although saying that the Chuck Norris page mentions his meme [[1]] what do people think? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say 90 percent of the people in the world who have heard of this guy is because of that LOLzy tweet. Wikimandia (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Wikimandia: Balls is extremely well known in his own right. His frankly trivial mistake with twitter is only of interest to some because he is well known. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure within the United Kingdom he is well known, but outside he is only known for that tweet. That's one of the all-time funniest tweets, and it seems to gain more steam every year on the anniversary. Wikimandia (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say it appears to be trivia & nothing to do with politics. Why not just put it on the twitter page? JRPG (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"... graduating ahead of David Cameron".

The article currently makes this claim about Balls, basing it on an assertion made in a newspaper article. However, I believe Oxford University, like Cambridge, does not publish a ranking of its graduates, but simply notes which class of degree each got. Results are printed alphabetically by class. It's therefore not particularly surprising that Balls would appear higher in this list than Cameron, and indeed would probably appear about fourth overall. Because of this, I believe we would benefit from better evidence than a single article by a possibly fallible journalist. Any comments? RomanSpa (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I added it originally & have 3 comments, firstly Balls got a Kennedy Scholarship which Cameron didn't, so he must have been in the top 8. 2ndly the author, John Rentoul repeats the point for emphasis at the end of the article and 3rdly is it really very surprising? Given the Kennedy scholarship evidence, I don't think a second source is necessary. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding how the scholarships are awarded. As you'll see from the article, those scholarships are awarded not just on the basis of academic achievements, but also on the basis of a wide range of other factors. In this they are analogous to the Rhodes Scholarships, which are similarly not purely academic. You could probably infer that if someone has a Kennedy Scholarship they probably have a first, but (having met both Kennedy and Rhodes Scholars myself) I'm doubtful that you can infer much beyond that with any degree of certainty. I certainly feel it's a claim that would require further support. (As for your remark about John Rentoul, I merely suggest you read the article about him before assuming that he is an unbiased reporter!). RomanSpa (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roman. I read both Rentoul's Independent article & his Wiki entry carefully & I only ever use reliable sources for edits. Rentoul is a visiting history professor at QMUL & whatever his views -& all journalists have them- I cannot believe that he would risk ridicule by getting his facts wrong. Having been the subject of both Telegraph & Observer major articles in the past, I know how carefully facts are checked. However, the simple solution is to attribute the statement to Rentoul & I will do that shortly. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Personally I'd probably delete the claim, but I'm not that fussed about it. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this for real?

Is there really a politician named Ed Balls? Shouldn't this page be investigated for vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.161.50 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

::He does exist but the article seems inaccurate in stating that he is a politician. It should state that he is unemployed or a house husband.MissingMia (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not an assumed name. When he was a teenager at an all-boys school, his surname was often the target of much low humour. Occasionally he was given the nickname "Ophelia", and if you say "Ophelia Balls" quickly you'll understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8011:401D:1D:F6DF:1B02:82E8:C510 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting he's done cabaret? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015

End of term is incorrect, should end on 8th may. Still in position until vote count complete, therefore 8th may. Cdavid138 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing

Can someone edit that Ed Balls was the first contestant announced for the 2016 series of Strictly? I have the link right here to prove it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/strictlycomedancing/entries/5226be8c-cd7b-4ca9-8fe8-0bfcbc4e3b2e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:81C5:5100:AC91:F410:4570:A000 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Added. I think it's significant that he was the first celebrity to be announced. Obviously the BBC saw that as a some kind of coup. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Placement

I don't think his appearances, now approaching 20, on a TV show that typically attracts 45 million viewers really belongs in a section titled "Personal life"? Ann Widdecombe has a section entitled "Media work and appearances" and John Sergeant has a dedicated sub-section as part of "Career". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"Vast amounts of trivia"

Maybe we don't need the weekly scores, dances and tunes. Perhaps just a mention that Balls has been bottom of the scoreboard for 9 of the 10 weeks? But I don't agree this is all "trivia". This is all quite unusual for a major UK politician and his persistence, despite the judges' scores, has become quite controversial. I think a link to his "Great Balls of Fire" routine is certainly appropriate: [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

what I eliminated is so obviously trivia it isn't true. I mean, really. Why not detail every dance he did? We already have enough on this in the quote from one of the judges, which quite adequately tells the reader what he was all about on the show. Any more on this would be ridiculous. If he had been on the Great British Bake Off would you have details of one of a really funny-looking meringue? Of course not. It's the same for one of his funny dances. Enough! In a year's time even what is left there now will most likely be trimmed down, and rightly so. Boscaswell talk 20:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It was all true, actually. Balls has shown himself to be able to improve week on week, and despite possibly being the worst dancer, has been kept in by public vote for 9 weeks. Some would even regard his efforts as the high point of his public persona. His appearances, and the controversy over his longevity, have been a talking point in tabloids and broadsheets alike - even today The Sunday Times is calling him "the star of Strictly". Funny-looking meringues can be very revealing. So, puh-lease, dah-ling. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

But then it was just the same for Ann Widdecombe, so this can't be said to be unusual. And, excuse me, but since when did the fact that something is a tabloid talking point make it essential that the subject be given a lot of detail in Wikipedia? Since never, I'd suggest. Oh hang on. Sorry. On reconsideration I retract it all. Let's give over Wikipedia to detailing really important information such as how much better a ballroom dancer Ed Balls has become during his run on Strictly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Christmas annual! Boscaswell talk 09:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you finally getting into the Christmas spirit. He's front page news this morning. But whooah!! you think Anne could ever hope to jive like Ed?? I guess they'll all be queuing up now for a funk out. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. you still think this is part of his "personal life"?

I've never thought that it and other media stuff should be in 'Personal life'. Boscaswell talk 20:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Where do you suggest? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Now moved. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Smith Institute appointment

The article states, under Political Career: He stepped down as Chief Economic Adviser to HM Treasury, but was given a position at the Smith Institute, a political think tank. HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office was [sic] subsequently stated that "the normal and proper procedures were followed".[13]

The referenced material is a Daily Telegraph article in which the partial quote appears. In the Telegraph it states: A spokesman for Mr Balls said last night: "In advance of leaving the Treasury in 2004, Ed Balls spoke directly to the permanent secretary. "Mr Balls's office consulted the permanent secretary's office on his appointment to the Smith Institute. "HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office have confirmed that the normal and proper procedures were followed."

I think that the current Wikipedia article gives the impression that the partial quote is from HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office, rather than from a spokesperson for Mr Balls. I wonder if someone can find better source material to support the quote. TiredOfLondon (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ed Balls.

Ed Balls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.227.144.13 (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Muttering Idiot" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Muttering Idiot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § Muttering Idiot until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)