Talk:James McMurdock

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

England

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Needs reference to criminal conviction.

Maybe so, but the only sources I can find are in publications not regarded as reliable sources, e.g. the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. PatGallacher (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source good enough? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn083wy3e7po 87.75.117.183 (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at James_McMurdock#Early_life_and_education? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait

Nothing yet [1], but it'll probably come. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing yet at [2], but someone uploaded an "own work" picture, saying it's "official portrait". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing

@PatGallacher, on your edit here [3], please consider WP:BAREURL. WP:TUTORIAL has info on how to make better cites. Also, look closer at the Yahoo entry at WP:RSP, because you're not citing Yahoo, despite what the url says. Atm, I have no opinion on if the refs you added are WP:BLP-good enough. Note that just because something is online, it's not necessarily good as a WP-ref. Also, just because something is in the news now, it doesn't necessarily have to be on WP now, we can wait a week or 5 for better sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these sources, [4][5], both The Echo (Essex), they seem to indicate that they are writing what they read in WP:DAILYMAIL. For a WP:BLP, this is problematic. Czello, Doug Weller, other editors, do you have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we clearly cannot use them. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Bring us BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, CNN, The Times or something equivalent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I don't much doubt this thing happened, but I think WP:BLP is a very good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even with sources it would clearly not belong in the lead and would have to say more than he did it. But I don't think there are enough, if any, suitable sources for a BLP. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do now have a BBC source. I never put it in the lede. PatGallacher (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to early life, I think it fits better there. "former girlfiend" is the funniest typo I've seen today ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to remove anything sourced from bylinetimes, not an rs an certainly not for a BLP

See [6]. Note that such things are decided at RSN, not here. I'll do it tomorrow if no one does it now, but User:THeShavidow1 y0u should revert any edits by you using it. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only used it in my edit to state who his mother is as no other sources mention this, but per the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Byline Times (bylinetimes.com, NOT byline.com) I will remove the source THeShavidow1 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the assault conviction paragraph

I personally think that the reference to his assault conviction should be left out of this article as I think James should be asked if he wants that to be on there or not

- I don't know who wrote this comment as it's unsigned but that's not how encyclopaedias work. Porterjoh (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Porterjoh It was User:Jared bubb. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense as they've been the one removing the reference. I don't think we can run an encyclopaedia based on what people want posting about themselves. Porterjoh (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is not for McMurdock's benefit, but reports what reliable sources have said about him. Tacyarg (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This neads to be in the lead also Arcot Shankar (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not a defining part of who he is and it happened before he was notable. It'd be WP:UNDUE in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 15:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because UNDUE is only a small part of NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic ... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.. The sentence I inserted conforms to the aforesaid NPOV policy and gives due weight to the contents of the BLP article. Arcot Shankar (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly belongs in the article unless I have missed something. As we should follow WP:Lead it also belongs in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]