Talk:Joan Ryan (politician)

I personally enjoy how this article makes no reference whatsoever to the million pound bribe this criminal was caught accepting on video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.114.22 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Censorship

This page has been discussed in the Telegraph because somebody tried to delete embarrassing info about Ryan - see here. Could somebody, who knows how, put a message at the top to mention this page's mentioning :) ? Malick78 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've picked up on this too, in a separate article "Who are the Commons moles changing Wikipedia entries?". Apparently Joan Ryan herself has admitted she keeps coming back to the page and deleting anything she finds embarrassing or objectionable

One of the most persistent and successful attempts to edit information was made by Joan Ryan, who stepped down as a Labour MP in 2010. At least 10 attempts have been made from computers in Parliament to remove information about her expenses claims and a further 20 efforts to delete the information, some from her constituency of Enfield, have also been recorded in Wikipedia's logs. The sustained effort has proved successful and there is now no mention of Ms Ryan's Parliamentary expenses on her Wikipedia page.

This is disgusting cowardice at its worst. Do the crime, do the time - the details should be back in there 109.154.174.87 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Her role in the scandal should be fully described. Even her attempt to scrub this article should be mentioned. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the gravity of the offence - repeatedly editing her own page, breaching NPOV, to cover up a serious misdemeanour in office - is this adequate? The position of the paragraph should surely be either under the Scandal section or rate a section in its own right, but is even that adequate? In the early days of WP the general presumption was that NPOV meant no living persons should be included, but inevitably this was eroded as up-to-date information in objective memes requires some attribution of names. However, her career does not contain a single event of sufficient importance to justify her inclusion on those grounds - we should not in my opinion simply bow to office, as we do not, for example, list much more significant players in other sectors of the economy, such as industrial professional bodies. Perhaps an adequate punishment for this misdemeanour would be to acceed to her wish to have her details removed by deleting the entire meme? We would, after all, bar an editor for such misdemeanours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.143.24 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I have just tidied up the refs form Oxford Mail and Enf. Indy in the personal life secction. However they look like the same story syndicated, if so they should be reduced to one named ref. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Section removed under BLP

I have removed the following, because it is full of errors. We can replace it once we've got it right.:

==Expenses==

Main article: United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

Ryan was named in the MPs' expenses scandal as having "flipped" her second home. Ryan claimed expenses since 2002, and in 2007 was Britain's third highest claiming MP. Ryan claimed under the Additional Costs Allowance scheme, a system intended to help MPs pay for the costs of running a second home near Parliament. In Ryan's case, she made the claims on a second home. Her family home was in her constituency of Enfield further from Parliament than any other London MP. She also voted in the House of Commons to keep MPs' expenses secret.

Between May 2009 and March 2010 seven attempts were made from parliamentary computers to remove information about Ms Ryan's expenses from the Wikipedia article about herself; prompting media accusations that she was attempting to "cover-up" details of her expenses.

Error and questions

Will follow - give me a minute:

1. Named? By whom? And official source or a journalist. At what stage? Was she investigated? Was she cleared? Or are we throwing mud?
2. "Ryan claimed expenses since 2002" What, she didn't claim any before that?
3. "2007 was Britain's third highest claiming MP" needs context. So what?
4. "In Ryan's case, she made the claims on a second home." So? Is that disallowed? So did most MPs. That's the whole point of an "Additional Costs Allowance scheme"
5. "Her family home was in her constituency of Enfield further from Parliament than any other London MP" So what? Doesn't that explain the higher claims?
6. "She also voted in the House of Commons to keep MPs' expenses secret" The placing of this information here , without context, looks like a smear - an inference of a cover-up of wrongdoing.
7. "Between May 2009 and March 2010 seven attempts were made from parliamentary computers to remove information about Ms Ryan's expenses from the Wikipedia article about herself prompting media accusations that she was attempting to "cover-up" details of her expenses" Accusations? See WP:WEASEL. Who was saying this and why should it be given any credence? What was her response?

This is frankly looking like a hatchet job. Was she reprimanded or cleared by the Committee on Privileges?--Scott Mac 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Scott Mac asked me to comment. The first point about the expenses scandal and biographies of MPs at the time is that it is very easy for any reference in a biography to the expenses scandal to tend to make the subject look like one of the worst offenders in the scandal. I have kept a copy of 'The Complete Expenses Files', a special supplement to the Daily Telegraph published at the end of June to round off their coverage; it lists every MP and their claims, with a bit of text outlining the questionable claims. The booklet is basically in priority order: it begins with '50 notorious claims', then '50 most ludicrous claims', then 55 senior MPs from the main parties. Only after then do we get a section of 25 MPs classified as 'The Flippers' who include Joan Ryan. I checked the Wikipedia biographies of the other 24, and found expenses are mentioned in 8 and not mentioned in 16.

On the other issues, 2002 is the earliest year for which the individual amount claimed by MPs was published. The 3rd highest claim for 2006/7 is for overall expenses, but it is clear from the total that it was because of a high claim for postage, and an exceptional £19,068 payment classified as 'other costs'. It turns out that was for staff cover, presumably for a member of staff who had a long term illness or was on maternity leave. I can't work out what is meant by her family home being "further from Parliament than any other London MP" and I don't think it is true. Some London MPs lived outside London.

There is a question over whether the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill would actually have made any difference to the disclosure of expenses claims. The Bill would have removed from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act the ability to request correspondence from Members of Parliament. The amount paid in expenses is not, strictly speaking, correspondence (or at least not only correspondence). The Bill was debated before the expenses scandal although at a time when campaigners were actively seeking the details of expenses claims, so there are many sources at the time which claim that MPs supported the Bill in order to cover up expenses claims. These sources have to be set against the insistence of the MP who introduced the Bill that it was not intended to do so and would not have that effect: col 593.

The Wikipedia point simply shouldn't be mentioned. The clear inference is that it was Joan Ryan, or one acting on her behalf, making the edits, but there is no evidence to support it, and the whole issue is a self-reference of the type that should be avoided. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. I suspected as much. She was listed in a Telegraph article, which listed some expenses among 100 others and without any response from her. So what? is my response. Unless she faced any official criticism or investigation, I can't see the need to mention any of this, and given the politics it will simply serve to smear without substance. I was thinking this section needed re-writing, I now just think we should omit it all altogether.--Scott Mac 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia fails to mention flipping for 16 MPs then that's simply an example of bios not being incomplete and not up to standard. Flipping is a extremely notable aspect of the expenses scandal and all examples should be covered. We should not cite failings in other articles as reasons to exclude text. Similarly any voting to keep expenses a secret is notable, particularly in the case of those who's claims later proved to be suspect.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I did a nice rewrite of the expenses section giving full details of large repayments ordered etc and including all relevant figures it has been removed again. There were minor problems with previous versions but people have deleted my content without even giving a reason. This is ridiculous.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote from the BLP noticeboard section on Joan Ryan: "What did she do that was not allowed? Was she made to repay any monies by the fees office?" I agree these are pertinent questions and therefore I went to the trouble of finding out the answers and amending the article accordingly. Any consensus is as much with the new version of the text which address all such issues.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The version removed here,[4] appears to have been conservatively written. It includes citations to four separate news stories in three different newspapers. It does not violate BLP. I only see one editor objecting to its inclusion. I'll restore it unless there's a consensus for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Going twice.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you replace that I will remove it again, as a clear manipulative insert. Why is it that you are attempting to synthesise facts to invite negative conclusions on a BLP. That seems to be you MO Will. As it stand, the text offers no explanation of why she "flipped", slides in the fact she was the 3rd highest claiming as if that was some sort of indictment. What did she claim for - it might all have been quite legitimate? And then mentions her voting record (referenced from a sole primary source) ignoring she was one of many and, by placing it beside her expenses, inviting the reader to conclude she did it to hide something. That's a synthesis of material to invite a negative conclusion. Why are you always the one arguing for the most negative material you think you can (just about) justify under the rules? I have given my objections to this hatchet job at length above, and Sam has concurred. You don't get to slip back months later and construe the fact people have moved on as consent. But why am I surprised? Wikipedia is not a politically motivated tabloid for your hack journalism across multiple articles.--Scott Mac 07:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a significant issue which should not be omitted from the article. I did not write it, and I'm sure it can be improved further. If I understand correctly, your concerns are that the reasons for the "flipping" need to be explained, and that the placement of the voting to keep MP's expenses secret leads to the implication that she was trying to hide her expenses? If those are the issues then we can fix them.

PS: Your remarks are personal attacks. Please show more respect to the living people who are your colleagues on this project.   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no respect for your style of editing - Wikipedia would be far more neutral without it. There's no doubt many pertinent facts could be inserted into this BLP, but here you are arguing for the most negative stuff, and insisting that people spend time combating your hatchet jobs one by one.--Scott Mac 07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Remarks about me should be placed on my user talk page. The sole purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to this article. I have replied to your comments, in which you appear to have identified two issues you have with the draft text. If I have characterized your concerns correctly I will post a fresh draft addressing those concerns. I assume you are not taking a position that this may not be included inthe article, just over how it is written.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with a minimal formulation:

• Ryan was named in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.

Any objection to adding that to the article?   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, here is my basic problem. There is doubtless lots of relevant information that could be added to this article. But you don't do that. You swoop in to make sure the negative stuff goes in. Then, rather than asking what's the most fair, neutral, and balanced way information can go in, you try to put the maximum amount of verifiable negative information in, and make others do the work of justifying why it isn't fair. You repeatedly do this across multiple articles for years, sometimes having people come up against you and sometimes not. That clearly is not to the advantage of the neutrality of this project. It is a manipulation of BLPs, although in any one instance it looks not unreasonable.

Let me put this back to you. You've asked me to explain what my problem with this and that is. But let's take the statement that she voted against MPs expenses being disclosed. True and verifiable. When I said "it is leading when put here", you suggested it went elsewhere in the article. But 1) Why did it not occur to you as an experienced editor of BLPs that it might be less than neutral? Why do you see yourself as "accommodating objections" rather than working towards a neutral article? And 2) let me ask, what is you motive for wanting this included at all? No doubt she voted yeah or nay, on thousands of occasions. Why have you suggested this one be included? It can only be because it implies an attempt to cover-up her own expenses?

In all, it seems that you are not here to improve articles, but to include as much negative implication and information as is allowable under the rules, modifying only in response to the objections of others. Why else I am continually having to question your BLP activity, and negotiate modifications with you?--Scott Mac 13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all very interesting but it doesn't address the proposed text. Since you haven't made any objection to it, I'll go ahead and post it.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It precisely addresses the proposed text. The proposed text is weasel wording and entirely unacceptable, and if an experienced BLP editor like you can't see why then you need banned from BLPs. Your MO of "I'll put the negative material in, and it is the job of someone else to tell me what's wrong with it (and justify it), and if they do I'll come back with a version that meets their objection, but does only that", is a flabbergasting disgrace.--Scott Mac 08:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds like this sort of thing might pass muster:

• Ryan was named by Newspapers X & Y in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.

It might make sense to put this next to her losing the subsequent election.   Will Beback  talk  10:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing: 2017 Antisemitism scandal

Bbb23 and Philip Cross, please explain your objection to the use of this Al Jazeera report as a source when you made this revert and this revert.     ←   ZScarpia   18:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, the news organization conducted an investigation and then reported on the results. If that were noteworthy, then other media would have mentioned the investigation and its findings. I reverted because no one has cited another source.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

So, you're not objecting that the source used is not reliable, that the source has been misrepresented or that the content is not neutral, instead you're claiming that Al Jazeera's reports were not 'noteworthy'? Admittedly, news sources seem to have concentrate on what was shown in the trailer for the series (which was the subject of the last episode) and its fallout, but, if you want proof that what the series showed caused a 'noteworthy' ruckus, here are a few (quickly obtained) sources which will help to confirm that:

• Middle East Eye - David Hearst - REVEALED: Secret tapes expose Israeli influence over UK Conservative Party, 07 January 2017.
• The Guardian - Ian Cobain, Ewen MacAskill - Israeli diplomat caught on camera plotting to 'take down' UK MPs, 07 January 2017.
• The Daily Mail - Simon Walters - Israel plot to 'take down' Tory minister: Astonishing undercover video captures diplomat conspiring with rival MP's aide to smear Deputy Foreign Secretary, 07 January 2017.
• The Telegraph - Israel "plotted to take down Tory minister", 08 January 2017.
• The Independent - Lizzie Dearden - Israeli embassy official filmed discussing how to 'take down' Sir Alan Duncan and other pro-Palestinian MPs, 08 January 2017.
• Electronic Intifada - Asa Winstanley - Secret video reveals Israeli plot to “take down” UK minister, 08 January 2017.
• The Guardian - Ewen MacAskill, Ian Cobain - Israeli diplomat who plotted against MPs also set up political groups, 08 January 2017: He also says Robin should not tell other people that the embassy has established the group. “LFI is an independent organisation. No one likes that someone is managing his organisation. That really is the first rule in politics.”
• The Guardian - Siobhan Fenton - Civil servant resigns after discussing how to 'take down pro-Palestine MPs' with Israeli diplomat, 08 January 2017.
• Information Clearing House - Craig Murray - Why Has Israeli Spy Shai Masot Not Been Expelled?, 08 January 2017. (Original article at Craig Murray's blog, which refers back to article Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran)
• Information Clearing House - Jonathan Cook - How Many British MPs are Working for Israel?, 08 January 2017. (Copy of article on Jonathan Cook's blog)
• The Guardian - Patrick Wintour - Why might an Israeli diplomat believe Alan Duncan needs 'taking down'?, 08 January 2017: “No settlement endorsers should be regarded as fit to stand for public office, remain a member of a mainstream political party or sit in a parliament. How can we accept lawmakers in our country or any other country when they support lawbreakers in another? They are extremists and should be treated as such.”
• The Guardian - Ian Cobain, Ewen MacAskill, Peter Beaumont - Israeli diplomats cautioned against 'operating' British Jewish organisations, 09 January 2017.
• The Guardian - Ian Cobain, Ewen MacAskill - Israeli official who plotted to 'take down' British MPs resigns, 12 January 2017.

Google News search results using term "joan ryan"+jazeera.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You misconstrue what I said, but putting that aside, I spot-checked a few of the sources you listed, and not one mentioned Ryan. You're need to find a second source that makes this incident noteworthy to Ryan, not to others. As an aside, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The second source mentions Ms Joan Ryan does this second source justify the restoration of the edit ?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/08/israel-plotted-take-tory-minister/ McGhee (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that "you're claiming that Al Jazeera's reports were not 'noteworthy'" misconstrues what you said then perhaps you didn't say what you meant. Also note the Google News search link tacked at the bottom: Google News search results using term "joan ryan"+jazeera.     ←   ZScarpia   11:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jewish News - Justin Cohen - Labour dismiss complaint against Joan Ryan MP over Al Jazeera series, 21 March 2017.
• Middle East Eye - Alex MacDonald - The inside story of Labour Party's anti-Semitism saga, 14 January 2017.
• Jonathan Cook Blog - How many British MPs are working for Israel?, 08 January 2017.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A Middle East Eye article explaining how another appearance of Joan Ryan in the Al Jazeera Israel Lobby series "prompted a call from Sir Hugo Swire, a Conservative MP who chairs the Conservative Middle East Council, for the Friends of Israel organisations linked to all of the UK's main parties to disclose their funding arrangements": Middle East Eye - Alex MacDonald, Simon Hooper - Israeli diplomat worked inside Labour to discredit 'crazy' Corbyn - 08 January 2017.     ←   ZScarpia   10:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

An Al Jazeera article about the episode featuring Ryan: Al Jazeera - Israel Lobby: Anti-Semitism battle in UK Labour Party - 13 January 2017.     ←   ZScarpia   09:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joan Ryan. 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/20101212104533/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23802442-london-mps-will-lose-cash-for-second-homes-after-being-forced-to-repay-expenses.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23802442-london-mps-will-lose-cash-for-second-homes-after-being-forced-to-repay-expenses.do

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: 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) 18:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Open letter to Joan Ryan from Tony Greenstein

Tony Greenstein - Open Letter to Joan Ryan Chair of Labour Friends of Israel — MP for Enfield North & Jerusalem Central, 14 December 2017: "Your Attack on Kate Osamor for supporting BDS against Israel is no different from Thatcher’s Opposition to Sanctions on South Africa."     ←   ZScarpia   11:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lost No confidence vote in lede

I think this should not be removed from the lede without discussion, as it is important. Dif = [5] ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course this ought to be mentioned in the main body of the article, but it isn't important enough for the lead. The lead needs to be short and sharp, and give the gist. No-confidence votes are good for the narrative but not for the headlines.

See WP:LEAD: "The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on – though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2]" [bolding mine] Harfarhs (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, remember that nothing in the lede needs a citation; it should be mentioned in the main body of the article and given a citation in the normal way there. Harfarhs (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you think it unimportant. Prominent controversies seems to describe it rather well.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the lede is not great - rather messy.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think it is a "prominent controversy" at all. It is (or was, until Ryan left the Labour Party) an intra-party battle, but not a prominent one, or even important one in the scheme of things that we're considering here. It's a detail in the story. It's halfway to being trivial. The important stuff is the parties she has represented, the constituency ditto, the jobs she's held and the bodies she's led. If we added any more to the lead we would certainly be in breach of WP:LEAD. Narrative, as I say, is a different matter, and the main part of the article should have a sentence on the no-confidence vote. A valuable guide is whether what you put in the lead is the same length in words as what you put in the main body of the article. If it is, you're including too much in the lead. The lead should be introducing stuff that rates more than a sentence in the main body of the article. Harfarhs (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

At the moment the lede mentions twice the party she joined yesterday. In the context of her career, which the article is sadly lacking in, the no confidence vote seems a prominent controversy, as does her expenses scandal, and wikipedia editing. Given that it is claimed that she has repeatedly edited this page herself, perhaps it is not suprising that the entry seems very favourable to her.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Since I did not add the no confidence vote to the lede, I suggest waiting until further opinions are proffered.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the references from the lede in line with your advice.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tightened up the lede without removing/ adding anything significant. While I think the vote of confidence could be omitted in normal circumstances, here it is part of the significant event of her leaving Labour, so should be mentioned. Jontel (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jontel! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 02:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)