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 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article read (and still does to some extent) a bit like a list so I've reorganised it a bit. Will do more work on it once I've done some more research on EM.
Rsloch ( talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
On Twitter, Baroness Nicholson has suggested that authors biased toward her cause become editors for the purpose of removing information about her and her opinions on transgender issues. This violates ( WP:COI) in my opinion, and I would suggest that the Transgender Issues section be restored and only edited to include factual information, which it appeared to do before the most recent revision. I am also going to submit a request for the page to be protected. Amekyras ( talk) 22:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ Amekyras:. As the person who originally added the content, I agree it seems the section has now become potentially subject to an edit war. After a first (admittedly justified) removal of the section by @ NedFausa:, I added a further citation to the Telegraph. Removals after that seem, to me, to not be based in policy. Every claim was cited, and citations to the subject's social media should have been permitted under WP:TWITTER, as they were only sources on actions taken by the subject. Since some of the removals were explicitly transphobic themselves, and since Nicholson and others are openly encouraging people to remove this content, I'm grateful to @ Creffett: for protecting the page but would ask that the content is added back - or that a more thorough discussion on it takes place. I dispute the claim by @ Roscelese: that it violates the NOR policy, unless the mere act of looking for a source now counts as research. I also dispute that it was poorly referenced, as the sources I included were 4 national and 1 regional media outlet, the Gov.uk website, a national LGBT charity website, and the subject's own twitter account. At best, I feel the second paragraph regarding the ReSisters tweet could have been removed. The content on writing to the Chair of M&S was publicised by the Baroness herself, and reported in the national media (the Telegraph as cited, it was also reported in the Daily Mail which I'm aware is frowned upon as a source). JustLucas ( talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I dispute multiple aspects of the proposed section. I shall list them separately to facilitate discussion of each.
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.(Emphasis in original.) NedFausa ( talk) 00:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Sorry for the back-to-back edit but I did want to add that including a section on transgender issues seems particularly pertinent when 6 out of 7 written questions by The Rt Hon The Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (all asked on one day in April 2020) are on trans people and singe-sex spaces. Lady Nicholson has also made spoken contributions on the topic. When the section is restored, I feel the inclusion of these points would be beneficial. They speak to her professional work on the topic, along with her letter to M&S, which was on House of Lords headed paper. JustLucas ( talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It's me again - there's a follow up article in the print copy of the Telegraph, Baroness Nicholson shared a photo of it. JustLucas ( talk) 11:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this story, only just heard about it, and have no connection with any of those involved. It's fair to say that Baroness Nicholson's views on trans people and other LGBT issues are only one small part of a lengthy political career, and arguably don't deserve their own section. That said, it seems odd that those views are mentioned in the article Damian Barr, but not this one. Biographies of politicians often include at least a small section outlining their political positions on major issues; on that basis, it would seem reasonable to include her views on LGBT issues as part of a larger 'political positions' or 'voting record' section. Robofish ( talk) 17:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I added a section about Baroness Nicholson's well reported controversial views on trans people. The entire edit has been reverted, which seems wrong to me. I'm happy to take it to Talk to get consensus on how this should be handled within the page, but I disagree that a section on this lends undue weight to the problematic and well reported nature of her views. You can see my edit here. I would like to invite others to comment on how the significant coverage of these views should be treated in her article. They certainly should go in somewhere. -- Jwslubbock ( talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
repeatedly removed all references to this subject from the page entirely. I reverted you edit initially over WP:DUE concerns, and suggested you, as the Editor who initiated the WP:BOLD edit, begin a Talk page discussion, to gain consensus for inclusion. You reinstated your edit, without waiting for any discussion to take place, with a personal attack in the edit summary and on my talk page. I then reverted the page per WP:STATUSQUO, and made constructive comments on this Talk page, explaining why I believed some of the content should be excluded, and why some should be included, looking to gain consensus before further editing the article, per policy. Your choice to re add that content straight away is pre-emeptive, given that there has been no time for other Editors to discuss the issues, and reach consensus as is the core principle of Wikipedia. As you failed to wait for agreement on inclusion, I have further edited that contribution, as it was again disproportionate to the rest of the article. . Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that records notable people, events etc. over history. We look at the significant and long term notability over that period, not just the last year. Per WP:RECENTISM, we need to maintain a balance of WP:DUE with the information that is included in the article. AutumnKing ( talk) 13:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
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 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article read (and still does to some extent) a bit like a list so I've reorganised it a bit. Will do more work on it once I've done some more research on EM.
Rsloch ( talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
On Twitter, Baroness Nicholson has suggested that authors biased toward her cause become editors for the purpose of removing information about her and her opinions on transgender issues. This violates ( WP:COI) in my opinion, and I would suggest that the Transgender Issues section be restored and only edited to include factual information, which it appeared to do before the most recent revision. I am also going to submit a request for the page to be protected. Amekyras ( talk) 22:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ Amekyras:. As the person who originally added the content, I agree it seems the section has now become potentially subject to an edit war. After a first (admittedly justified) removal of the section by @ NedFausa:, I added a further citation to the Telegraph. Removals after that seem, to me, to not be based in policy. Every claim was cited, and citations to the subject's social media should have been permitted under WP:TWITTER, as they were only sources on actions taken by the subject. Since some of the removals were explicitly transphobic themselves, and since Nicholson and others are openly encouraging people to remove this content, I'm grateful to @ Creffett: for protecting the page but would ask that the content is added back - or that a more thorough discussion on it takes place. I dispute the claim by @ Roscelese: that it violates the NOR policy, unless the mere act of looking for a source now counts as research. I also dispute that it was poorly referenced, as the sources I included were 4 national and 1 regional media outlet, the Gov.uk website, a national LGBT charity website, and the subject's own twitter account. At best, I feel the second paragraph regarding the ReSisters tweet could have been removed. The content on writing to the Chair of M&S was publicised by the Baroness herself, and reported in the national media (the Telegraph as cited, it was also reported in the Daily Mail which I'm aware is frowned upon as a source). JustLucas ( talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I dispute multiple aspects of the proposed section. I shall list them separately to facilitate discussion of each.
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.(Emphasis in original.) NedFausa ( talk) 00:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Sorry for the back-to-back edit but I did want to add that including a section on transgender issues seems particularly pertinent when 6 out of 7 written questions by The Rt Hon The Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (all asked on one day in April 2020) are on trans people and singe-sex spaces. Lady Nicholson has also made spoken contributions on the topic. When the section is restored, I feel the inclusion of these points would be beneficial. They speak to her professional work on the topic, along with her letter to M&S, which was on House of Lords headed paper. JustLucas ( talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It's me again - there's a follow up article in the print copy of the Telegraph, Baroness Nicholson shared a photo of it. JustLucas ( talk) 11:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this story, only just heard about it, and have no connection with any of those involved. It's fair to say that Baroness Nicholson's views on trans people and other LGBT issues are only one small part of a lengthy political career, and arguably don't deserve their own section. That said, it seems odd that those views are mentioned in the article Damian Barr, but not this one. Biographies of politicians often include at least a small section outlining their political positions on major issues; on that basis, it would seem reasonable to include her views on LGBT issues as part of a larger 'political positions' or 'voting record' section. Robofish ( talk) 17:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I added a section about Baroness Nicholson's well reported controversial views on trans people. The entire edit has been reverted, which seems wrong to me. I'm happy to take it to Talk to get consensus on how this should be handled within the page, but I disagree that a section on this lends undue weight to the problematic and well reported nature of her views. You can see my edit here. I would like to invite others to comment on how the significant coverage of these views should be treated in her article. They certainly should go in somewhere. -- Jwslubbock ( talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
repeatedly removed all references to this subject from the page entirely. I reverted you edit initially over WP:DUE concerns, and suggested you, as the Editor who initiated the WP:BOLD edit, begin a Talk page discussion, to gain consensus for inclusion. You reinstated your edit, without waiting for any discussion to take place, with a personal attack in the edit summary and on my talk page. I then reverted the page per WP:STATUSQUO, and made constructive comments on this Talk page, explaining why I believed some of the content should be excluded, and why some should be included, looking to gain consensus before further editing the article, per policy. Your choice to re add that content straight away is pre-emeptive, given that there has been no time for other Editors to discuss the issues, and reach consensus as is the core principle of Wikipedia. As you failed to wait for agreement on inclusion, I have further edited that contribution, as it was again disproportionate to the rest of the article. . Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that records notable people, events etc. over history. We look at the significant and long term notability over that period, not just the last year. Per WP:RECENTISM, we need to maintain a balance of WP:DUE with the information that is included in the article. AutumnKing ( talk) 13:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)