Talk:George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock

This article seems very slanted towards its subject

I have amended the final section. Whilst Lord Foulkes has often times been challenged online for his views, much of the text seemed to be very 'extreme'. I have changed the text to fully reflect the fact that Lord Foulkes is often times questioned and criticised for his views via people posting to online blogs and news items throughout the UK. I have removed the term cybernats and the 'anti Scottish suggestion, as their is no substantive evidence nor a citation for such an outlandish statement. In addition, I believe such phraseology detracts from the merit of the entire biography on this Lord. I think the amendment fairly reflect the sentiments originally expressed, albeit very poorly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.140 (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It talks up Foulkes, trashes the SNP and gives no details of his claims on taxpayers' money when he is touring studios defending MPs claims.

I question its NPOV

Cannonmc (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Have re-included previously posted details of expenses claims; but it doesn't seem too biased. It includes his tired/violent and emotional episodes and has a section for controversy. Perhaps the tone of the Scottish Parliament section could do with a dial down... "exposed" for instance, carries a few too many heroic connotations.

Fleeelf (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think including his every embarrassing TV appearance is going to produce a very balanced biography. The only print newspaper I saw today was the Scotsman, and his latest faux pas got between two and three column inches there. Hardly a major story then, given that the expenses drama as a whole ran to several pages. This is "dog bites man" stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the only embarrassing appearance I'm aware of, and it has recived reasonable coverage in a variety of media - enough to warrent the fairly short coverage here. I'd agree that it doesn't need too much attention, but one line covering the incident and another to detail his fairly restrained use of the expenses system seems appropriate.

Fleeelf (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

'Responsible for Labour's opposition'?

The article currently states that 'as the most time-served politician currently serving in Holyrood, Foulkes has been responsible for Labour's opposition to the minority SNP Government'. What is this supposed to mean? To me, it either implies that Foulkes is the leader of Scottish Labour, which he isn't, or that he was instrumental in convincing Labour to go into opposition after the 2007 election, which he wasn't (what else could they have done?). He's a Labour backbencher in opposition to the SNP government, but I don't see how he is 'responsible' for Labour's opposition in general.

Equally, I've changed 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' to 'the Iraq war'. The former is rarely used (now) and is POV.Benjaminkje (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph in controversy isn't neutral, giving a very strong opinion that (1) Lord Foulkes is correct and (2) those that criticised him are faceless/isolationist. I think the same points could easily be made in much more neutral language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.138 (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and the changes you have made. I've deleted the final paragraph of the Controversy section, as it was poorly formatted and without sources. Exok (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the section on University tuition fees, to reflect that fact that the amendment to the Scotland Bill has now been tabled by Lord Foulkes in the house of Lords. The wording is available in Hansard, and effectively places control of differential tuition fees in Scotland under Westminster control as a reserved matter (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2010-2012/0079/amend/ml079-ii.htm). I have also updated the text to reflect the fact that this amendment will only relate to Scotland, and that the devolved legislatures in N.Ireland and Wales will still have the freedom to set reduced or zero rate tuition fees for their resident students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.140 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The material you're now trying to add appears to be your own view of what may be the likely impact of Foulkes' proposals. You need to find a source for this, which should be easy. Until it's sourced, it shouldn't be added.See WP:V Exok (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

'Position on independence'

The fist paragraph cites the subject's support for devolution, but does not mention his opposition to Scottish independence. This is an important omission, if readers are not already somewhat familiar with Scottish politics. 109.144.203.132 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930204248/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article2175035.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article2175035.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock. 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/20080821185341/http://www.journal-online.co.uk/articles/show/2686 to http://www.journal-online.co.uk/articles/show/2686
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sundayherald.com/search/display.var.2228400.0.foulkes_claimed_45_000_to_stay_in_own_london_flat.php

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) 22:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)