Talk:Charlie Elphicke

Daily Mail -tax lawyer story is not a reliable source

The Daily Mail is a pro-Conservative newspaper not necessarily noted for its wp:npov attitude. It has been rejected as a reliable source -see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source and I intend to remove the tax lawyer item as per WP:BRD.
Comments welcome. JRPG (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Further note, the Right of reply from HMT described the report cited by the Mail here as 'an economically-illiterate piece of garbage'

If the HMT spokeman is to be believed 'According to the CPS rationale, Margaret Thatcher's first nine years in government put the tax burden up by £104 billion or over £4,000 per household.' Presumably Elphicke report didn't include that information, the methodology must be suspect and the source is best omitted. JRPG (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and reliable sources.

Hi Bettinathegreat. I appreciate the time and effort you have spent on this article. We both want to produce a better encyclopedia article but I'm seriously concerned about neutral point of view and the sources you are using. Could you please have a look at my comments about the Daily Mail article and also have a look at wp:suggested sources. These are less prone to bias and I wouldn't expect any editor to delete a fair summary from these sources. Could you also please give an edit summary when changing a page? Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss anything or better still put it on the talk page. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article, editorialising, unreliable sources.

I'm trying to write a balanced article fully in accordance with neutral point of view and reliable sources here -as I do on other articles for politicians of all parties. Two SPAs appear not to have looked at the rules and are ignoring the talk page and declining to give reasons for edits and are simply reverting. I've put messages on both pages. If they worked with me we could get a good article. JRPG (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the highest Conservative swings in the country.

There is no source for this statement which appears to be just puffery. Neither the Guardian election map nor one of the ‎parliament briefing papers suggest it's in top 5 swings. I've tried to find a reliable source without success but if you can simply say where it came in the swing tables that would be useful. JRPG (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now added a link to Harvard spreadsheet showing it was the 31st highest swing though a number of constituencies had boundary changes. JRPG (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Multinational Company Tax Avoidance Campaign

This section has multiple issues. Some of the references don't mention Elphicke at all, twitter references are wp:primary sources -see Wikipedia:Twitter#Twitter and not suitable. This Daily Mail article says Elphicke called for tax evaders to be named, shamed AND prosecuted. This is legal nonsense as naming + shaming prejudices any trial & The Mail is NOT a reliable source. I really don't think that The Week is saying that Osbourne & Schaeuble arranged their discussions around Elphicke's research, so neither should we imply it. JRPG (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPA activity on this page.

@Reginaphalange27, Darrencrissappsoc, Bettinathegreat, and 86.24.33.239: I note that contributions to Elphicke’s page from the above named seem to

• Consistently involve multiple edits on the same day
• Do not include a reason for the change
• Ignore wp:npov

Additional problems are that they have :-

• Deleted his role in the 1922 committee and 301 club without discussion or a valid reason.
• Mark significant changes as minor
• Changed the wording to imply Elphicke played the lead role in the port of Dover rather than as one of an all party group of 7 people

All editors seem to be experienced. I’m trying to contribute to an encyclopedia but few of the changes made by the above have improved it. I have reverted the most recent edit awaiting edits summaries and a talk page discussion. If this is simply reverted I will request an investigation. Co-operate & we can get a readable article not a hagiography. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi JPRG - thanks for the comments on the edits. This was an attempt to bring the page up to date. Here is the reasoning for the edits:

- It is not clear what the relevance of 1922 Committee subject topic is. Please can you explain? - the tax campaign has not been updated for two years. Clearly you challenge what others have written yet you have not contributed. Will you update what has happened since or do you have a POV difficulty? What happened on the charities campaigning over the last two years? Will you update this page? - Are there other matters the subject has done and what have you done to contribute to keeping the page up to date? - The subject is an incumbent Government office holder. Yet you have deleted attempts to put this into Wikipedia style. Why? Please will you make the necessary edits? - Hospital OPD issue. You have reinstated. Where is source for that? Please can you do your bit to help ensure all information is sourced? - Where is evidence for all party port group you refer to? - As you delete the attempts of everyone else to bring this age up to date, will you now do so or just attack others' efforts?

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to see an up to date accurate WP:NPOV article which uses wp:reliable sources to confirm each statement. The history of this article is not good but as you are aware paid editing is now verboten though it sometimes makes the press. I feel it can be useful if it doesn’t lead to edit wars.

You are the 1st I/P I have reverted to have actually used this talk page & I have included the welcome message on your talk page -though you are clearly familiar. Please assume I have a good working knowledge of parliament & the whip system but less detailed knowledge of Elphicke & Dover than you have. I’m fully aware you probably want to update the article before the conference & will help.

Please provide sources, preferably WP:Suggested sources NOT primary sources and use meaningful edit summaries. So long as the summary matches the source and is not wp:undue I don’t have a problem. You should not remove the section on the 1922 committee which is reliably sourced without consensus –which you don’t have. It was wp:notable before the election and time doesn’t change that. Re the tax, I thought that really interesting but too much detail on individual points. I may change it and we’ll hopefully agree.

Regards JRPG (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi JPRG,

It's good to see you have made some updates. Yet you have not explained what the 1922 committee topic is about and why it is relevant. Why is it notable? Can you also put the article to put it into Wikipedia house style for office incumbency? Can you look at the other edits you deleted which were an attempt to update the page?

The Article looks ungainly and too long. Can you edit it and update the page for events over the last two years?

Greetings 92.2.200.224. I’ll see if I can get someone to update the succession boxes as it’s easy to make a mess of the formatting. Re the relevance of the 1922 committee section, this is the difference between writing an election pamphlet or sales brochure and an encyclopedia. Elphicke’s work was covered by at least 3 reliable source newspapers and is therefore wp:notable. See also Wikipedia:Recentism. No experienced editor would remove it.

I’ll look for more recent newspaper articles but you are welcome to add anything from a Wikipedia:Suggested sources# Current news or put its url on this page. JRPG (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlie Elphicke. 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/20150520125406/http://www.grassrootdiplomat.org/whoswho/ to http://www.grassrootdiplomat.org/whoswho/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Photo

I don't understand why are IP addresses editing the official image of Charlie Elphicke to another one. I will revise it, but please do not edit the image because the image I have inserted is the official portrait of Charlie Elphicke MP.

• File:CharlieElphicke.jpg
• 

I agree, the official portrait is better. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

However, we must remember that these images were heavily criticised and are not official images, it is not listed as such on the Parliamentary website. Therefore, calling it an official portrait is somewhat misleading. I think we ought to exercise caution in repeatedly inserting this image. As you can see, it isn't even the official picture on Parliament's website https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/charlie-elphicke/3971

Then, why would all other MPs have their official portrait on their Wikipedia articles?

Because someone has uploaded them all very recently and will no doubt be removed. Also, some MPs have this as their official photo, Elphicke does not - see link above - therefore it is an unofficial photograph with possible copyright implications.

CharlieElphicke.jpg has been speedily-deleted from Commons. Does anyone object to the new image being used? Even if it is not an official image of the person, does it depict the correct person? If so, then it should stay. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

sub judice

PatGallacher (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You presumably intended {{sub judice|UK}}? David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wife and 4 other MPs trying to influence judges.

Why is this not in the article? Thry were convincted of such by the house of commons and suspended. Rustygecko (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)