Talk:Jury Team

Why the "UK"?
The edit summary on the move from Jury Team claims that it is "[c]onsistent with other British political party pages". This is simply not the case; what about Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Democratic Unionist Party? Not one of those has the "UK" disambiguation. If, as I believe is the case, the British "Jury Team" is the only one in existence, there is absolutely no reason for the "UK" to be added, and this article should return to the simpler title. Loganberry (Talk) 14:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should make it clear that I'm not saying that the Liberal Democrats (etc) should have the "(UK)" added; I'm actually saying that this article should have it taken away! Disambiguation should be used when it's needed, not simply to make things look "tidier". Loganberry (Talk) 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone got an answer to this, please? Loganberry (Talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous
This isn't at all objective - it's just a party political tract. What gives? Has no-one noticed? 193.54.67.93 (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's an argument there, yes. I don't really consider myself qualified to make a proper judgement, so I've added a POV-check tag in the hope that someone else will. Of course, there's nothing to stop you editing if you have the sources! Loganberry (Talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a huge copyvio, actually, so give me a few mins to find sources and I'll rewrite doktorb wordsdeeds 17:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Full Manifesto
My website has a full copy of the Jury Team manifesto. We're driving towards having a copy of all English-language political manifestos of every political party in the world on our site in the same/similar format. All the content on the Jury Team website is contained in PDF files. As more and more manifestos are added over time, my site could become a useful resource for Wikipedia. Declaration of Interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. Full Jury Team Manifesto Jdfjurn (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Metadate discussion
is insistent on edit warring over the content and use of the Jury Team meta data template, and wants the EU election pages to display 'Jury Team' as the meta data, and the Glasgow by-election page to have its own non template version, to say 'Independent Jury Team'. I can see no rationale for this difference, and given the unique nature of this 'party', it makes no sense simply putting 'Jury Team' on the wiki ballot tables just because that is what appears on the actual ballot, because these candidates are quite obviously Independents, both the EU ones and Smeaton. My solution to this was to have the metadata say Independent (Jury Team), but I am open to suggestions, as long as the data links here (as their 'party'), but mentions Independent. Simply having 'Jury Team' in the ballot tables is frankly not accurate. MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that if Jury team is on the voting paper then why not Jury team, they are not really true independants are they? Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the 2nd photograph in this newspaper article. What are those words in big black bold print, right above John Smeaton's heid? --Mais oui! (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sun is not a political WP:RS Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mais oui!, read my above post very carefully. Nowhere have I said he is not associated with Jury Team. But if you use more credible sources than just a photo in the Sun for what his political affiliation is, and hence what should be in the wiki table, such as the BBC: (JOHN SMEATON - INDEPENDENT BACKED BY THE JURY TEAM), and every source in this article in fact, you will see quite obviously that simply saying he is the Jury Team 'party candidate', is not accurate in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not "just a photo in The Sun". It is the promotional material that John Smeaton himself chose to have at the press conference where he launched his campaign.  Which newspaper published the image is entirely irrelevant. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And if you read this article, the whole point of that promotional material is to illustrate he is an Independent with financial backing from the Jury Team. It categorically does not mean he is the 'party candidate' for the Jury Team. There is a difference. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the chance to discuss it here. My stance on this is as follows. During the European Parliament candidate selection process, it was quite clear that despite the List electoral system the candidates under the Jury Team label were a) independent and b) would stand under the same Jury Team description. Regardless of their "independent" candidature they all stood under the same party label. That is why the party description/Metabox template has always been "Jury Team."
 * Following the European elections this guy in the Glasgow NE byelection seems to be the first major candidate selection by the JT. Now *if* he is standing as "an independent guy with Jury Team support", then his candidate description box at the GNE article can be changed to "Independent (Jury Team)". *If* he is standing as "an independent guy under the Jury Team label" then we can keep things as they are. What we cannot do is change the ENTIRE metabox for Jury Team, because whatever this candidate is, the European Parliament candidates were definately and unquestionably a list under the designation "Jury Team" on the ballot paper.
 * I totally understand your solution. However it doesn't fit the rather unique and eccentric Jury Team model. 80.193.130.5 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have absolutely no clue what you think the difference is. There has been no constitutional change in the Jury Team between the two elections as far as I can see, they were supporting Independents then, they are supporting one now. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The big advantage of templates like the metadata shortnames is that they can standardise often complex descriptions. This general cause isn't helped by creating multiple shortnames for slightly different situations - how should editors know that they should use "Jury Team" for one description and "Jury Team (UK)" for another?  This doesn't in itself rule out using a non-templated descriptor, if it is merited by unique circumstances.


 * In the early 20th century, politicians frequently ran under a wide range of descriptions, or as independents, with the support of a variety of groups. For this period, we've generally used Craig's candidate descriptions, which are based on self-identification.  The situation has changed somewhat now that candidates can only run for registered parties, or as independents.  Now, there seems to me a clear distinction between independent candidates - those who do not register a party affiliation with the Electoral Commission - and party candidates - who do (there are a few side cases, with parties which make a political point of not registering, such as Republican Sinn Féin or the Communist League).  For the European elections, Jury Team ran its own lists; its candidates were independent of any particular political platform, but were not considered independents for the purposes of the election - the same situation as the Alliance for Change candidates a few years ago.


 * This time round, it seems that Smeaton is running as an independent, and will carry that description on the ballot paper; if this is the case, he should be listed as such, with a note in the text as to the organisations which are supporting him. If it turns out that he eventually registers as an official Jury Team candidate (or if the evidence convinces us that he will), we should change his description then.  Warofdreams talk 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I officially give up. Clearly the whole 'non-party party' thing has confused everybody. Some people clearly think he is the Jury Team party candidate (based on publicity photos no less), depsite the Jury Team not being a proper party at all, while some people think he is an Independent because he might (wp:crystal) register on the ballot as an Independent, when clearly he is associated with JT even if he does. All I wanted to do was make it clear in the wiki candidate tables by using the label 'Independent (Jury Team)', which still linked here through the meta data, that candidates backed by Jury Team were politically Independent, but were financially supported by the Jury Team in this new model so the simple 'Independent' only label was obviously not appropriate. That description to me applies to both the EU candidates and Smeaton, despite what might be required by the machinations of registration and party lists. If that is too complicated a concept to get across to editors to let that be shown to readers, so be it, they will just have to find out if/when they click the link to get here. I certainly would not think it is appropriate for them to be listed as fuill Independents. But I seriously don't want to waste any more time on it, so I'm out. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea of the party is very clear; I really don't think anyone is confused by it. It can be briefly explained in the article text without any problem.  The question is how best to represent this in the election summary table.  I don't believe that "Independent (Jury Team)" makes that at all clear.  Many independents run with support of one or more organisations - which should we include?  Best to stick to either "Independent" or "Jury Team", depending on which affiliation he has said he will use for the election itself.  No crystal ball needed - any issues can be explained in the text; if he changes his mind, we update the article. Warofdreams talk 22:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The ballot paper at the GNE by-election stated "John David Smeaton - Jury Team" --Strugglingwithlife (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Update needed
This article should be updated to note how the Jury Team candidates did in the 2010 UK election. (I know the overall result: none of them were elected, but not the specifics.) Robofish (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware Jury Team effectively ceased to exist as a party when Paul Judge woundup the Alliance for Democracy and returned to focus on business, there are no signs of any activity on their blog or twitter feeds (one of which no longer exists) or from Jury Team on their Facebook page since 29 April 2010. It has fallen so much into obscurity that it is no longer even mentioned in the media so far as I can see.--Lord of the Isles (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't even seem to have stood any candidates. Comparing this list to constituency results, none of those people stood. One candidate in Sutton and Cheam was supposed to be Jury Team, but stood as Independents Federation.. The Cardiff Central candidate didn't stand. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Defunct?
Looks like they are history. No activity om any social media in over two years and their website is gone. Harry the Dog WOOF  18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jury Team. 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/20100327002744/http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=874&frmType=partydetail to http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=874&frmType=partydetail
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929164544/http://www.juryteam.org/about.php to http://www.juryteam.org/about.php

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) 19:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)