![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains significant over-reliance on primary sources, original research, and personal opinions. Statements like "This however was not going to be as simple as perhaps she envisaged, as will be seen, but Chief Constable Richardson had the foresight to take steps to ensure she would get her pension...This was an irrefutable statement" are not encyclopedic. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing: Thank you for your support in getting this article published. It is my intention to improve on it within the coming months especially with the sources issues. TimothyWF ( talk) 17:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just corrected a url in a reference and I can see that there is a considerable amount of work to do in cleaning up the references. I'd like to help out in doing that but at present I find the mixture of text, references and annotations too dense to easily cope with. I'd like to seek consensus therefore to segregate the citations from the main text and place them in the References section as list-defined references; to separate citations from annotations (in a Notes section); and to make use of cite templates where urls or indexable journals are cited. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Despite having been
asked more than once not to do such things; and being warned that continuing to so while the matter is unresolved would be disruptive ("Please desist, until this dispute is resolved, since such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."
), one editor,
User:Nikkimaria, an administrator (who should therefore know better), has repeatedly removed White's nationality from the infobox on this article. Her edit summaries when doing so include
The nationality, which is given as "English" in the lede, should be restored; and not removed again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."; not to mention
"every time you remove nationality from an infobox, you carry out an action that will be difficult to reverse if the outcome of the discussion is not in your favour". Quite apart from that, and your removal of such data when the discussion was ongoing and recent, the disputed guidance on which you rely does not require or support the removal of the data from this article's infobox, even though you may feel strongly about this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"the disputed guidance on which you rely does not require or support the removal of the data from this article's infobox". I note that you again do not address my point in
"such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace - note that many countries do not automatically grant citizenship to people born within their borders.". The UK is one of those many countries where nationality cannot be inferred from birthplace, as the guidance explains. -- RexxS ( talk) 04:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I am watching this article and want to improve it. Whether the infobox shows her nationality is not my first topic. It should be discussed (again) in the template talk. My personal view: I NEVER add a nationality to an infobox (" the only real nation is humanity"), but I ALWAYS respect if others enter the parameter. In such a case I would only change it if it was wrong or unsourced. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The average reader, given a British birth and death place and no indication to the contrary, infers a British nationality; that's what I referred to with "expectations" above, and so what falls under "exclude unnecessary information" per WP:IBX. Furthering the confusion with which this discussion was begun, though, it appears that there are different understandings of "nationality" at play - both interpretations are unnecessary in the infobox here, but would affect what is meant by "restored". Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
"Being a British subject is determined by the status of parents, or by naturalisation, not birth."The template documentation already deals adequately with the distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship", where applicable.) For an editor to do so, having had that pointed out to them, is inexcusable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The documentation of the infobox used in this article is quite unambiguous: "Nationality... Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ."
White's British (= United Kingdom) citizenship is clearly not the same as her English nationality. I have therefore again restored the latter, per the documentation.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"Nationality... Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ". Finally, you protest that I have "not presented any coherent argument in favour of ignoring the template documentation"; indeed I have not, since the documentation supports my stance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This source suggests that the first policewoman in the UK was Edith Smith in 1915. Our article describes her as the first female police officer in Britain with full power of arrest. A number of other sources seem to agree that she and not White was the first documented British policewoman ( ex). How should we address this in this article? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it there is no documentation that Edith Smith was attested. Also she did not pay into the police pension fund nor receive one when she retired. Mildred White, on the other hand, did pay into the police pension fund from her first day of duty and received a pension from the police pension fund when she retired in 1937, dating back to 1918. Her problem was that no other policewoman had done this so the administrative machinery had to be created. Also, again from day one, she received all the various allowances and benefits of her male colleagues making her their equal. I have deliberately inserted the word 'Documented' into this article because that is what it is. TimothyWF ( talk) 14:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have continued to improve this article over the past months with the help of fellow members of Wikipedia. It is my intention to continue with improvements. I wish to delete the statement in the article's heading that it relies on Primary sources as I do not think this is now correct. If anyone disagrees with my proposed actions please let me know in Talk. TimothyWF (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC) TimothyWF ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am writing to fulfill the statement I made to improve the article on Mildred White and specifically to look for further secondary sources. I have been busy these last few months doing this. In the UK Police force there were three peer internal newspapers/magazines starting from the late 1800's until about the late 1940's. Females within the Force, for several reasons, were just not written about in these internal police publications. The exception was The Police Chronicle which took up the cause for employing women as police officers between 1918 and 1925. Thereafter it changed, possibly because there was a change of editorship. A few quotes from the Police Chronicle are of interest: 1918: Female Commandant :"In the meantime there is little possibility of the question arising as women police are not authorised to make arrest. Women police do not desire to possess the power of arrest until it is legally and properly vested in them." 1925: Article, Chief and Women Police. Chief Constable states : "In my opinion the employment of women in police uniform are entirely useless." 1925: "Women police patrols were, of course,a different body, not forming any part of the police service." Article quoting a speech by Lady Nott-Bowers, Police Chronicle, 1918. (Lady N-B was a well known political and social reformer of the time.) I could give other examples including the prevalence of Chief Constables to state that women police would make good chauffeurs - for them. Even though Mildred White held the rank of Inspector her retirement (1937) was not noted in any secondary source such as internal police news, nor indeed any other female officer at this time as far as I can see. Last week I satisfied myself I had exhausted all sources when Lo and Behold I have found, by chance, a further source to investigate. Apart from this I do not think there are any other sources to be found. TimothyWF ( talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The infobox gave her age at death as "82 or 83" but I have corrected it in line with birth death dates to 84 and I have adjusted the age where stated at points in her lifetime accordingly. Cloptonson ( talk) 12:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted the section which talks about White making the attestation. The attestation quoted in the article was the new one introduced under the Police Reform Act 2002. It should have been a dead giveaway that the new attestation talks about "fundamental human rights". Nobody in 1918 was going around using terms like "fundamental human rights".-- 2A02:C7F:F663:F000:8D77:3DAD:A3D2:CFB3 ( talk) 02:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains significant over-reliance on primary sources, original research, and personal opinions. Statements like "This however was not going to be as simple as perhaps she envisaged, as will be seen, but Chief Constable Richardson had the foresight to take steps to ensure she would get her pension...This was an irrefutable statement" are not encyclopedic. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing: Thank you for your support in getting this article published. It is my intention to improve on it within the coming months especially with the sources issues. TimothyWF ( talk) 17:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just corrected a url in a reference and I can see that there is a considerable amount of work to do in cleaning up the references. I'd like to help out in doing that but at present I find the mixture of text, references and annotations too dense to easily cope with. I'd like to seek consensus therefore to segregate the citations from the main text and place them in the References section as list-defined references; to separate citations from annotations (in a Notes section); and to make use of cite templates where urls or indexable journals are cited. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Despite having been
asked more than once not to do such things; and being warned that continuing to so while the matter is unresolved would be disruptive ("Please desist, until this dispute is resolved, since such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."
), one editor,
User:Nikkimaria, an administrator (who should therefore know better), has repeatedly removed White's nationality from the infobox on this article. Her edit summaries when doing so include
The nationality, which is given as "English" in the lede, should be restored; and not removed again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."; not to mention
"every time you remove nationality from an infobox, you carry out an action that will be difficult to reverse if the outcome of the discussion is not in your favour". Quite apart from that, and your removal of such data when the discussion was ongoing and recent, the disputed guidance on which you rely does not require or support the removal of the data from this article's infobox, even though you may feel strongly about this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"the disputed guidance on which you rely does not require or support the removal of the data from this article's infobox". I note that you again do not address my point in
"such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace - note that many countries do not automatically grant citizenship to people born within their borders.". The UK is one of those many countries where nationality cannot be inferred from birthplace, as the guidance explains. -- RexxS ( talk) 04:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I am watching this article and want to improve it. Whether the infobox shows her nationality is not my first topic. It should be discussed (again) in the template talk. My personal view: I NEVER add a nationality to an infobox (" the only real nation is humanity"), but I ALWAYS respect if others enter the parameter. In such a case I would only change it if it was wrong or unsourced. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The average reader, given a British birth and death place and no indication to the contrary, infers a British nationality; that's what I referred to with "expectations" above, and so what falls under "exclude unnecessary information" per WP:IBX. Furthering the confusion with which this discussion was begun, though, it appears that there are different understandings of "nationality" at play - both interpretations are unnecessary in the infobox here, but would affect what is meant by "restored". Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
"Being a British subject is determined by the status of parents, or by naturalisation, not birth."The template documentation already deals adequately with the distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship", where applicable.) For an editor to do so, having had that pointed out to them, is inexcusable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The documentation of the infobox used in this article is quite unambiguous: "Nationality... Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ."
White's British (= United Kingdom) citizenship is clearly not the same as her English nationality. I have therefore again restored the latter, per the documentation.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"Nationality... Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ". Finally, you protest that I have "not presented any coherent argument in favour of ignoring the template documentation"; indeed I have not, since the documentation supports my stance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This source suggests that the first policewoman in the UK was Edith Smith in 1915. Our article describes her as the first female police officer in Britain with full power of arrest. A number of other sources seem to agree that she and not White was the first documented British policewoman ( ex). How should we address this in this article? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it there is no documentation that Edith Smith was attested. Also she did not pay into the police pension fund nor receive one when she retired. Mildred White, on the other hand, did pay into the police pension fund from her first day of duty and received a pension from the police pension fund when she retired in 1937, dating back to 1918. Her problem was that no other policewoman had done this so the administrative machinery had to be created. Also, again from day one, she received all the various allowances and benefits of her male colleagues making her their equal. I have deliberately inserted the word 'Documented' into this article because that is what it is. TimothyWF ( talk) 14:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have continued to improve this article over the past months with the help of fellow members of Wikipedia. It is my intention to continue with improvements. I wish to delete the statement in the article's heading that it relies on Primary sources as I do not think this is now correct. If anyone disagrees with my proposed actions please let me know in Talk. TimothyWF (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC) TimothyWF ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am writing to fulfill the statement I made to improve the article on Mildred White and specifically to look for further secondary sources. I have been busy these last few months doing this. In the UK Police force there were three peer internal newspapers/magazines starting from the late 1800's until about the late 1940's. Females within the Force, for several reasons, were just not written about in these internal police publications. The exception was The Police Chronicle which took up the cause for employing women as police officers between 1918 and 1925. Thereafter it changed, possibly because there was a change of editorship. A few quotes from the Police Chronicle are of interest: 1918: Female Commandant :"In the meantime there is little possibility of the question arising as women police are not authorised to make arrest. Women police do not desire to possess the power of arrest until it is legally and properly vested in them." 1925: Article, Chief and Women Police. Chief Constable states : "In my opinion the employment of women in police uniform are entirely useless." 1925: "Women police patrols were, of course,a different body, not forming any part of the police service." Article quoting a speech by Lady Nott-Bowers, Police Chronicle, 1918. (Lady N-B was a well known political and social reformer of the time.) I could give other examples including the prevalence of Chief Constables to state that women police would make good chauffeurs - for them. Even though Mildred White held the rank of Inspector her retirement (1937) was not noted in any secondary source such as internal police news, nor indeed any other female officer at this time as far as I can see. Last week I satisfied myself I had exhausted all sources when Lo and Behold I have found, by chance, a further source to investigate. Apart from this I do not think there are any other sources to be found. TimothyWF ( talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The infobox gave her age at death as "82 or 83" but I have corrected it in line with birth death dates to 84 and I have adjusted the age where stated at points in her lifetime accordingly. Cloptonson ( talk) 12:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted the section which talks about White making the attestation. The attestation quoted in the article was the new one introduced under the Police Reform Act 2002. It should have been a dead giveaway that the new attestation talks about "fundamental human rights". Nobody in 1918 was going around using terms like "fundamental human rights".-- 2A02:C7F:F663:F000:8D77:3DAD:A3D2:CFB3 ( talk) 02:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)