This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active
politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of
biased editing, talk-page
trolling, and simple
vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
You haven't explained why this is an unreliable source for the the information cited. Stating that anything published in one particular source is inherently unreliable is lazy and unnecessary.
WP:QUESTIONABLE means exactly that, not that it can never be cited. It's obviously an accurate summary of the maiden speech she gave in parliament as evidenced from Hansard.
SmartSE (
talk)
20:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Smartse, in
this revert you say "please discuss why this shouldn't be included". Please read my edit summaries,
WP:BLP and
WP:CON for a few. Now please tell me why you think your opinion trumps those, and that it should be restored without being brought into line with the policies and before achieving a consensus. And
WP:ONUS adds another. --
DeFacto (
talk).
17:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
DeFacto: Yes of course I have read your edit summaries but none of them provide any justification not to include material sourced to a reliable source. You can throw as many policies around as you like, but it is meaningless if they are irrelevant. ONUS is the only one that might be relevant here, but given that there is currently a 2:1 consensus for including it, I don't see how that helps your argument. It is ironic that you are asking why my "opinion" trumps these policies when you justify removing material with just mirroring more Guardian left-wing political tittle-tattle and Labour mischief-making which is of course, entirely your opinion.
SmartSE (
talk)
18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Proxima Centauri, why, when you added it, why did you dismiss the idea of adding the full context from the cited source that made it clear that she had been approved for that appointment before she made any donation, and that no rules had been broken? Did you think it better complied with
WP:BLP's insistence on neutrality without that dstraction? --
DeFacto (
talk).
20:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Smartse, a "2:1 consensus for including it"? Have you ever read
WP:CON? It seems not, judging by your law-of-the-jungle approach of just toggling content to your favoured bias rather than discussing it first on the talkpage. If another editor comes along and objects to the change, what do you think they should they do? Should they revert you with a 2:2, or would you revert back again as they had no majority, claiming a deadlock? How should the content be decided then, do you think?
What's wrong with the traditional idea of leaving the status quo content until a consensus, in the conventional sense, is achieved on the talkpage? --
DeFacto (
talk).
19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Why is not declaring it important to you, it wasn't a breach of any rules. And who was defending her, and from what? Factual context from the source is not defence, it's context to the politically motivated attacks. --
DeFacto (
talk).
11:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Proxima Centauri: "was morally wrong and if it wasn't against the rules the rules need chnging." I do hope you realize within the context of editing and discussing a WP BLP, this is a problematic comment. Also please be aware I have no dog in this fight. I'm just an 'ugly american' :) who came across this person in the news and visited their page. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.23:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Seems to me that any opinions any of us may have about the rights or wrongs of the matter aren't particularly relevant. This seems to be a fairly minor controversy - worth including, but could probably be shortened to about two sentences. I would also suggest moving it to the "Controversies" section.
W. P. Uzer (
talk)
14:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Government and Departmental explanations are not the same as the individual defending themselves or otherwise. It is not contraversial. And it is fairly balanced - neither passing judgement on the decision made or the means of going about it.
Atomix330 (
talk)
21:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Right, @Czello and @81.170.20.2, can both of you please explain here why you think that your edits should overrule the other. Instead of reverting each other's edits, can we discuss it here please?
Ellwat (
talk)
10:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Let me just correct my typo-riddled edit summary on that - it should say: the lead should summarise what's already in the article body, and I don't see all of that being already in the body.