This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liz Kershaw article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure that that's really true anymore. SteveRamone 21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Kershaw recently came forward following an e-mail from the Director General wanting employees to come forward with info on allegations relating to Jimmy Savile. Whilst at Radio 1, Kershaw has disclosed that she was groped live on air. The presenter remains anon. Is it worth writing a section on the recent allegation of groping on air? [1]
References
I strongly object to both the removal of the talk section & the edit protection. The only recent IP edits were me and that other person. 3 edits in total, all clearly made in good faith...edit protection is often overused, but this is just...off the scale abuse of the feature. As for my talk page comments: While I've generally despaired that newspapers are accepted as RS on wikipedia....they are. Tens of thousands of citations....including the daily mail. The Telegraph and the Guardian are currently used in this article. I feel it particularly obscene that the one time it is disputed by a mod is one of the rare cases where the article is accurate. This is a major story that has been defacto censored in the UK by a judge, but that censorship does not apply to wikipedia. The reduced number of sources is something wikipedia should be capable of working around, as, without wanting to knock Kershaws future potential, this is probably going to be the biggest aspect of her life. 92.15.52.18 ( talk) 03:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)