Talk:Neil McEvoy

Neutrality
While it is referenced the "Controversies section" seems one sided.

"only allowed to return after making a public apology." (My emphasis). A more neutral wording might be "He made a public apology and was allowed to return.

"went back on his election promise" seems emotive. Is there a source for this claim?

I'm not aware of him promising to resign as a Councillor if elected as an AM (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/new-assembly-member-neil-mcevoy-11352894). He has however pledged not to take his Councillor allowance/salary from May 2017 if reelected (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/neil-mcevoys-bid-cardiff-council-12187365). His justification for taking it from May 2016-May 2017 is that he he campaigned full time (he's said that on twitter but I cant find a reference)

In 2009/10 he had the poorest attendance record of any group leader in Cardiff: https://www.theguardian.com/cardiff/2010/sep/06/cardiff-council-councillor-attendance-2009-2010-data Paulharding150 (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with the "public apology" and "two jobs" issues.


 * The attendance issue is less clear. The Guardian article says that he had "the poorest leader rate", but it says that he has attended 27 out of 39 meetings while the Labour leader Ralph Cook attended 27 out of 37, which implies that Cook was worse. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I got my sums wrong, 27 of of 39 (69%) is worse that 27 out of 37 (73%), but not dramatically so. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go at improving the "Controversies" section, particularly sourcing the quotes and removing the repetition. For example it looked like 'rubbing it in' to re-list all the complaints/allegations in the final paragraph. McEvoy has been quite a controversial figure so it seems right to have a "Controversies" section, all the same. Sionk (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Revisited
I have revisited the neutrality warning for the page and made some edits. It does not appear any issues have been raised with the page's neutrality since 2017, so feel comfortable removing the warning which was placed. If any issues with neutrality remain, please do reinstate the notice. I have reread the entire page however and removed anything I felt was problematic. Llemiles (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality, again
McEvoy is clearly an outspoken individual but there seems to have been a clear effort by one editor in particular to 'curate' minor press mentions into the 'Controversies' section here (even its title is problematic; why not 'in the news' generally?) He is often in the local press but the instances mentioned here are very selective.

Given that McEvoy is now in the news as part of a rather bigger story this seems even more apparent.Svejk74 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Issues
Hi, I assume you are referring to my edits. I'm not sure why you didn't ping me, I'm more than happy to discuss the articles cited.

'Controversies' sections are always touchy for any politicians or public figures, because it has a common pejorative meaning from the outset. That said, in many cases it's hard to label it as anything else. I'm not sure I've seen any examples of other politicians who are given the 'In the news' heading.

Regarding the articles, I do try to stick to major news organisations. Unfortunately in Wales though political issues are rarely covered in national papers like the Guardian or the Times. It tends instead to fall on the South Wales Argus, South Wales Evening Post, the Western Mail (Wales Online) etc to do the legwork.

I am conscious another editor felt the article was too harsh on McEvoy and I wouldn't want that to be the perception. Unfortunately much of what he does is presented as controversial by the press, and I'm not sure how we can give balance without being seen to be 'spinning' the article to favour him. I would appreciate your (or other editors') input on any content which is not notable, though. Cheers. Llemiles (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I think the issue is partly one of tone. We are told that he is "divisive", according to Wales Online, but exactly why is not explained. The corporal punishment thing is sourced to a non-existent Twitter page; why is that there exactly? Is his view on this particular issue notable, or there some other purpose in mentioning it?


 * The falling out with and subsequent expulsion from Plaid is notable, but is a mention on a Wales Online list of high spending AMs' offices notable? Was the fact he appeared on the list mentioned in a news story outside Wales Online?


 * He was in the national press (Guardian) over the 'nuclear mud' issue recently: that is not mentioned, but a 2012 argument at councillor level over a petition (sourced to a broken link) is. Similarly a fair amount of space is devoted to a tweet which seems of minor relevance next to the party expulsion and which someone else claims to have sent.


 * These 'controversy' sections are problematic in many of the articles they appear in precisely for the reason they end up being a sort of grab bag of items of varying interest: some major, some transient. I think it would be better in this case to focus on the major issue of his expulsion and why he was expelled, perhaps under a more appropriate heading.Svejk74 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * All good ideas - definitely agree on the tweet citation and councillor broken link. I'll try and sort some of those bits out and do a new heading unless anyone beats me to it in the next few days. Thanks for the help. Llemiles (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)