# Talk:Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone

I'm not a fan of this woman, and she may be a thoroughly nasty piece of work for all I know, but the article currently reads like an out and out hatchet job. Editors may have reacted to previous COI and paid editing by her PR people. Whatever the reason, the article as it currently stands is unencyclopaedic and needs a rewrite. I have absolutely no connection with Michelle Mone. Ef80 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's an important principle that we call a spade a spade. Ericoides (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, yes, but neutrality is equally if not more important. --Ef80 (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ef80: Can you be more specific about what the problem is? Neutrality here means summarising what's been published in reliable sources and if those are on the whole negative stories, then the article should reflect that. If there are reliable sources that paint a different picture and aren't included then they can be added. SmartSE (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact that most recent RS coverage of Mone has been negative is part of the problem. Mone is a political figure closely associated with Boris Johnson's Covid response, and also appears to be a bit of a chancer, so there have been many attack pieces written in left-of-centre sources like the Guardian. By listing all these accusations in a fairly detailed manner, the article itself becomes an attack piece. I don't have a simple solution - it certainly isn't a matter of unearthing some newspaper article where Mone helped at a homeless shelter or gave money to Oxfam to provide 'balance'. --Ef80 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ef80: It's not just recent coverage though, or limited to the Guardian though - the FT, Times and Sunday Times have all published critical articles over several years, way before Covid. I strongly dispute that summarising these sources makes the article an "attack piece". SmartSE (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Not forgetting WP:BIASED, of course, which reminds us that, although Wiki articles are absolutely required to present a neutral point of view, that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. It is our job as editors to recognise which media articles are biased and/or partisan, and treat them appropriately.
Also, we need to be wary of mimicking the sensationalising and editorialising behaviour that pervades the media nowadays, even in what were traditionally thought of as reliable sources of sound facts. I notice that the current article is riddled with WP:EDITORIAL and WP:CLAIM type words, such as "revealed", "claim"/"claims"/"claimed", etc.
There is definitely plenty of room for improvement. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@DeFacto: So which sources do you think are biased and how have you determined that? I agree that we should be cautious the way we present information, but without any specific examples it is difficult to know what you think the problem is. Regarding "claimed" etc. it's important that the article conveys that all the stuff about Covid is accusations at this stage, and more generally, if a source says that the subject claimed something, how else should we report that? Some of the "revealed" could definitely be trimmed though and replaced with better attribution of the sources. i.e. The Guardian reported... SmartSE (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Smartse, I haven't reviewed many of the sources used by this article, so couldn't say which, if any, I think are biased. I was making a general point based on a skim through the article, and recognising the 'tone' problem as raised in this thread.
As I see it, there are two potential origins for that 'tone'. The first is that it is being injected by our Wiki editors' reflecting their own bias. The second is that it is inherited from biased sources, possibly cherry-picked, by the close parroting of them. The recommended approach to creating prose in articles, as we should all know, is to read, digest, and neutrally summarise a cross-section of sources, in our own words, and being careful to recognise any bias in the sources, pervasive or otherwise, and disregard it.
On the use of the word "claimed" you ask, if a source says that the subject claimed something, how else should we report that? Well, we read the source, see how/if it substantiates its phrasing, compare it with accounts of the same event from as many other sources as are available, then use editorial judgement to recount it in our own, neutral, wording. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
DeFacto summarises the issues well. Mone isn't an easy person to like, and most of the newspaper coverage of her various activities has carried clear notes of disapproval - the tut-tutting leaps off the page. This is acceptable in journalism, but it does jar when carried over into an encyclopedia. --Ef80 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian has no shareholder, proprietor or state funder who might discourage the truth being published. Especially with the false threats of litigation Mone and her husband employ. Other sources show more bias. 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:594E:48E3:1BEF:11A1 (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
How do you know all that about The Guardian? Do you believe that The Guardian always uses an impartial tone in articles relating to Mone? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Back in Jan 2022, I reviewed this article and found it a good article, but I don't think it fits the criteria now after undergoing quite a lot of changes. You can for example compare the lead between the reviewed version and the current one. Before going to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment I thought I'd check here first just in case anyone wants to improve the article. Mujinga (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Have the cases against her been dropped or swept under the carpet.  If so why?  She should be stripped of her titles. 2A00:23C6:3093:F801:3D92:B439:D29D:41FD (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Just heard her name on TV .Shes not forgotten by the millions of taxpayers. KPESTONIA (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please expand the use of the term ppe to personal protective equipment and maybe hyperlink. Thanks 211.27.66.50 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the details if Baroness Michelle Georgina Mone and because it is a protected site I was not allowed to make the necessary changes.
The changes are to be made to her marriage to Michael John Mone which wikipedia has as 1989. This is not correct. Her marriage to Michael John Mone was in 1992 which was done to hide from public view that she gave birth in the same year and give her some legitimacy.
The information is corroborated by the website wwww.scotlandspeople.gov.uk in the marriages section and in the divorces page "Year Of Marriage" section. 
BIRTHS
Www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/record-results/1336567623690bbaa786134
DIVORCES
www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/record-results/1061090248690bbb3302a2a
The divorce was in the Court of Session, serial number 5855, Divorce Year 2013; Marriage 1992.
Hence, it is right that you amend this record.
Many thanks ~2025-31308-66 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

These are primary sources and our policy about using them in biographies prohibits using them like this. We need to wait for a secondary source to take notice of it first (if they ever do). SmartSE (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)