Talk:Jim Murphy

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)

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)

Reasons for leaving South Africa

Policy says we need refs for stuff. "I heard it (from the man himself)" is not a reference. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Timings and dates

I was just reading this article and I'm confused about dates, particularly when this guy was at Uni. So here's what I understand:

• Born 1967
• Returned to UK for Uni aged 18, which would be 1985 or 1986
• President of NUS Scotland 1992-1994
• Sabbatical to be President of NUS 1994-1996
• Never got his degree

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean he was at Uni for 10-11 years, until he was 29, but never got a degree? If this is the case, isn't this a relevant point to flag up? Or has there been an error in dates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.60.53 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's likely he held sabbatical position(s) at Strathclyde as well as those in the NUS, hence the long period. However, Starthclyde is listed as his alma mater. For that reason I indicate that he did not graduate. The wikipedia page on Alma Mater indicated that It may also refer to the school, college or university from which an individual has graduated or which they have attended, and is usually the one from which one has received a bachelor's degree or associate's degree– i.e., where one is considered an alumnus/alumna. For that reason listing an alma mater may confuse readers into believing he is a graduate. Similarly, I removed the sentence in the article body stating he "chose not to graduate" as that seems to indicate he was a graduand and was entitled to graduate without any evidence of this being the case. I added a citation to Holyrood Magazine confirming Murphy did not graduate.71.66.119.40 (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

I reverted an unexplained deletion of cited material from this page. Can I suggest that any further removals (or additions) are discussed here first? --John (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Labour leadership claims

I have great reservations about this section. Not only is it almost entirely sourced from tabloids like the Record and the Daily Mail (not good for a [[WP:BLP|BLP), but the anonymous ip would seem not to be neutral. This dynamic ip address has edited several Scotland politics related articles, and appears from this post to have an agenda. If Murphy is elected to lead Scottish Labour then this article will need some serious attention. We ought to aim for at least GA level to make it comparable with other political leaders. This is Paul (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I removed it on this basis. --John (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been put back with sources, although I just had to remove another one from the Mail. There are other Mail refs in this article, so at some point they'll need weeding out. This is Paul (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive changes

Just a heads up to say that twice in the last few hours I've had to revert this, which I'm guessing is someone's attempt at humour since Scottish Labour hasn't been known under that name for 20 years. I also fear it's somewhat of a coincidence given the recent announcement about English votes for English laws, but perhaps I shouldn't jump to conclusions. This is Paul (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted sentence about the egg issue

I deleted a sentence from the section on the egg issue during his indy ref tour. It was a leading comment implying that Murphy should apologise for his statement. If we want to add this then we need to find a credible source for the argument, otherwise it breaks NPOV as the narrative of the article was implying he was under an obligation to apologise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.82.199 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Labour leadership claims 2

A rather silly edit war seems to be going on just now with regard to this issue. FWIW, I think the topic has relevance, but perhaps as part of an expanded section about the leadership contest. We don't have much on that presently. This is Paul (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the edit war is about exactly, but the first sentence in that section doesn't seem to be backed up by the references as far as I can see. The sentence claims that McKenna and Eaton have argued that the 100 days tour was a "publicity stunt" which was "part of a plot" to replace Lamont. There's absolutely nothing in the Eaton source to back that claim up - it simply says that the tour made him a "Unionist hero" and says nothing about it being a publicity stunt/plot. The McKenna source is more in keeping with the argument described here, but even then simply describes it as a glorified "job interview". I am going to edit this because it's clearly not an accurate representation of what the sources are saying. 159.253.162.139 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I hadn't actually checked the sources themselves, but as they were added by someone who appears to have an axe to grind I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose. This is Paul (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've edited this, removing Eaton entirely and putting a direct quote from McKenna. There is nothing in the Eaton source at all to back up the original claim made here that he was "arguing the tour was a publicity stunt". It's not even an opinion piece, it's a descriptive article that references the arguments indirectly. 159.253.162.139 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Good work. That makes sense actually as I didn't come across any claims like this during my research for Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014. What was said though was that Murphy's name was being bounded about as a potential successor to Lamont shortly after the referendum. I think we should reflect that here. I'll maybe work on this once all the editing on this page slows down a bit. This is Paul (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't a major omission from the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party section the reason for Johann Lamont's resignation (the "branch office" thing) and the arguments about the degree or otherwise of Jim Murphy's ability or real desire to change that branch office status? Many of the responses to his leadership bid and eventual appointment were about his true political alignments and allegiances, such as his Blairite past and his support for the invasion of Iraq - there is nothing about this in the article. The content dealing with His call to repeal the alchohol ban appears disgustingly weasely worded to me, as well as being completely out of proportion. Numerous organizations support this call, numerous politicians of various parties also support the call, and they were making the demand long before Murphy made any comments about it. There is nothing about this in the article, only some nonsense said by a nonentity in an minor organization. Balance requires a mention of the widespread support for the repeal - or better still the removal of that whole section as trivia (unless some decent sources are found to explain the real reason for Murphy's support - it is part of his narrative that the SNP is overly oppressive in nature). The Henry Jackson Society membership section also appears to be trivia over-emphasised for effect. The claim that the Scottish National Party called on Murphy to resign is not sustained by the source - it says that a single SNP MSP called on him to resign. Unless some decent sources are found to explain the real reason for Murphy's membership (it provides a forum for the Unionist narrative that Scottish Independence damages NATO and serves Putin's interests and acts as a conduit for American support for that narrative) I think it should be deleted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with the point re Henry Jackson - there's an awful lot of weight on one Herald article to create a whole section here, quite undue imho. --_nonsense ferret 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Leader of the Scottish Labour Party v Scottish Labour leader

There are some who appear to object to describing Murphy as the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and may prefer another title instead, such as Scottish Labour leader. Those people would argue that there is no Scottish Labour Party, only a UK Labour Party with a Scottish branch. Personally I prefer maintaining the status quo since the party has been described as the Scottish Labour Party for over two decades, this is therefore its WP:COMMONNAME and, regardless of people's personal opinions on the matter, Murphy was elected to take charge of Scottish Labour. We didn't have this issue in the days of JoLa, so I'm not sure what the problem is now. I think we need to settle this argument, so any thoughts on this matter would be welcome. This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC seems to favour 'Scottish Labour leader' (e.g. [1] for what it's worth...) JezGrove (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The entity that he leads is called the Scottish Labour Party - so, regardless of the degree of its branchyness, surely that is what it should be called and what he should be called the leader of? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree here. While you could probably say that the Scottish Labour Party is a "branch office" or what have you, it is undeniably some sort of entity, even if ineffectual or what have you. "Scottish Labour leader" seems like a simplification by the BBC to make things less confusing for readers. —ajf (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede =

The opening sentence describes Murphy as a "politician". As he no longer holds any office, surely his status is that of "member" of the Labour Party? Anything else should be described as 'former'. 86.171.225.90 (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923022301/http://henryjacksonsociety.org/people/council-members/ to http://henryjacksonsociety.org/people/council-members/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130421222516/http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mfwhoswho/individuals/M_mfwwi/jim_murphy.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mfwhoswho/individuals/M_mfwwi/jim_murphy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)