Talk:Jake Berry

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jake Berry. 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/20140105042738/http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/profiles/mp/Jake-Berry/Rossendale-and-Darwen/781 to http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/profiles/mp/Jake-Berry/Rossendale-and-Darwen/781
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102222504/http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/jake-berry/62817 to http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/jake-berry/62817

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
I've readded the section about him being criticised for shouting "Britain First" as it fits the guidelines of notability and was correctly sourced. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately your additions have been removed, on the basis of Twitter not being an encyclopedic source. If more suitable sources are found, then the section may be re-added. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of a paragraph
Hello, in September, 2021, I removed a paragraph from the Parliamentary career section of this article, because I saw it copy/pasted in several other MP articles (extremely sloppy editing etiquette). It only mentioned Berry once, and to be frank, it doesn't seem quintessential to include in this article at all. Seems like a gotcha vote that honestly doesn't pass the the ten year test. Yesterday, that edit was reverted by an IP user, I reverted that edit. It was reverted again by User:Floccsy, which I reverted, then my edit was reverted again by them. Seems like the IP user is Floccsy (3RR)... but at any rate... I asked them to justify their reasoning. Long story short, they stated what "a public representative does in their office to represent the public is useful in understanding how they have represented the public in their role as a public representative," which I don't disagree at all with, but to use that as the sole criterion as to whether to include content in a BLP WP article isn't in line with WP policies. I tried to explain to them that Wikipedia is not a list of every action/vote taken by an individual, and also linked them Relevance in hopes that they'd understand, though I think they're missing the point. They think I'm contradicting myself yada yada. Anyway, I'm hoping that a consensus can be reached one way or another on this matter. Thanks, -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the paragraph in question:
 * In January 2016, the Labour Party unsuccessfully proposed an amendment in Parliament that would have required private landlords to make their homes "fit for human habitation". According to Parliament's register of interests, Berry was one of 72 Conservative MPs who voted against the amendment who personally derived an income from renting out property. The Conservative government responded to the amendment that they believed homes should be fit for human habitation but did not want to pass the new law that would explicitly require it.[13] --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP User is not Floccsy. PerpetuityGrat's reasoning for the removal did not remain consistent and appeared from my side to be a ham-fisted attempt to purge negative information from a wikipedia page. As these decisions have far-reaching and long-term consequences, I believe that this passes the ten year test, and will be as relevant in ten years as it is today. I appreciate that the paragraph may need reworking to prioritise Berry within it, and to satisfy Wikipedia's relevance criteria, and would welcome input on that development as opposed to a ham-fisted removal. Thanks, - Floccsy (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not have the sole intention of purging negative content, otherwise I would have removed the paragraph about Berry being investigated by police. I haven't really been inconsistent in my reasoning, you can see my edit summaries... but let's focus on the actual discussion. This was a copy/paste paragraph. There are endless amounts of votes that can be relevant to virtually every audience, but I don't believe that this is vital to this BLP article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with PerpetuityGrat that I don't think it does pass the ten year test in my view. This was a Labour Party Opposition amendment. It is generally conventional for MPs in a governing party to vote against opposition amendments. The only reference that includes Jake Berry voting in this way in 2016 is an article in The Independent, giving a long list of 72 MPs and the only mention of Berry in the reference is his name listed along with 71 other Conservative MPs. This content about the Labour Party unsuccessfully proposing an amendment in 2016 was copy/pasted into numerous WP articles of Conservative MPs. The content lacks multiple reliable sources to confirm it was significant that Berry voted against this Labour Party amendment. I support the removal of the paragraph. This is not about removing negative content – it's about removing a copy/pasted paragraph that is, in my view, perhaps WP:UNDUE and not vital for a BLP article, given it has just one reference containing a long list of names who voted against the Labour amendment. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)