Talk:Moira Cameron

message: On the Yeoman Warders page, Cameron's age at signing is stated as 16.  Here it is stated as 20.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctavishisdead (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nov 2007 

message: Here we have reliable information about her Wikipedia page being tampered with as part of the bullying campaign.  Taprobanus (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Were the edits oversighted? There's no sign of vandalism in the page history. Fences&Windows 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I was coming here to ask, and that was my assumption.  Fribbulus Xax (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Such edits could have been oversighted, leaving no hint they were ever there. Less likely, those edits could have been made to another article. The most helpful thing to do here is go with the sources and not try to do any original research as to the edit history of this topic on en:Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find we're allowed to discuss the edit history of Wikipedia articles on talk pages without it being 'original research'. Fences&Windows 20:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be talked about, only so long as nothing strays from WP:BLP but otherwise no, one can't put in an en.Wikipedia article text one's own original research as to any contribution or edit history on this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does anyone suggest adding this to the article? Fences&Windows 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to ask more about this on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is such a very serious matter, it seems appropriate to get to the truth here.79.36.126.176 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  God bless you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.24.118 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  News about her Wikipedia page being tampered with 

message: Reliable sources variously give her age on joining the British Army as 16 or 20. I can't find any reference to her year of birth. Fences&Windows 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The official info from The Tower (, , & ) says she joined (in June 1985) at 20, but doesn't give a year of birth.  This info is likely to be more "reliable" than some of the newspaper reports mentioned here.  David Biddulph (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Fences&Windows 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Age and year of birth unknown

message: * I'm closing this thread, which wound up being about topic notability. This article won't be merged outside the bounds of an AfD, nor is it likely to be deleted through AfD, which would be the only helpful means for any further talk about it. Any editor can take this to AfD now. There are meaningful WP:BLP worries and this talk page is not meant for unending loops of rambling commentary about comparative notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She became known and notable as the first female Yeoman Warder, so this bio is far from a coatrack for the allegations of harrassment against her. If you can find material in reliable sources that describes her army career, by all means include it, but most of the sources focus on her time as a 'Beefeater'. Fences&Windows 03:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Beefeater is a prominent posting for someone in the brit military with a long/storied past. The fact that there is a controversy about the first female is of note. Could we merge it with Beefeaters? I suppose so and WP:RECENTISM also plays a factor here, but over time, we'll see where it leads. If nothing more becomes of her, it'll probably be merged. If it does, it will probably add a lot more to the article. In any case, I say just let it sit for now and see what happens. Have a nice evening! — BQZip01 — talk 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, except that I see no reason for keeping the article separate from Beefeaters. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think that's a good idea. I couldn't find anything notable about her except that she was the first female tour guide and unfortunately got harassed. Could we just add this as a blurb to the main Beefeaters article? If we start making pages for every woman or minority who got harassed we would have a page for a victim in every police and fire department in the west. Meishern (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would probably be best just to leave it for now and see if anything else develops from this in about a month. That will allow time for things to develop (if they do) or fade away (if they aren't going to develop into anything. The deadline for Wikipedia submissions doesn't end in the near future. It's also worth noting that the article has been in existence for over 2 years now. I also do not oppose a merge, but think it's just premature. Let's see where this goes. — BQZip01 — talk 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  Ok BQZ. Lets leave it alone. Will you back me up when I create 3 articles about harassment experienced by 3 females in separate fire-houses in New York City since there were the first female fire fighters there? Meishern (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It all comes down to Wikipedia:Notability (people). See also WP:POINT. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  I was a bit sarcastic in my previous post. Yes, I am not sure if this tour guide meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) requirements. Being the first woman or a minority doesn't cut it unless its the first female astronaut to land on the moon. Being the first female tour guide is nothing special. If she did something else in her military career like storm a machine gun nest or carried her wounded friend to safety, then maybe. But like BQZ wrote, lets leave it alone for a bit, and see which way the wind blows. If lets say by June, 2010 nothing interesting happens, lets merge this with the main Beefeaters article. Meishern (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What has sway here is wide secondary coverage of whatever "first" it may be. If by some odd fluke, the world went agog over the "first bricklayer from Tunbridge Wells to fish from the pier at Brighton with a fluorescent pink fishing rod made in Shanghai" and got coverage in a flurry of secondary sources, the topic would most likely be taken as notable here: However loopy this kind of notability might be, the notability itself could be notable from the readership outlook of a reference like this website. At any time that an editor truly thinks this topic may not meet WP:BIO on en.Wikipedia, WP:AFD awaits. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

text: All I'm saying is, that's what WP:AFD is for. Otherwise, a fairly wide consensus for a merge and redirect would have to show up here. WP:AFD would draw wider, quicker input and to a more lasting end. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Meishern - I am assuming then you believe the entire Yeomen Warders page should be dismantled as it does nothing but discusses what you refer to as "tour guides"?  DukeEGR93 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't merge.  She's notable over a large number of years, and tons of sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This should absolutely not be merged, even suggesting to do so is, frankly, absurd. If the article needs improvement, then Fix It. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Duke, I don't think the entire Yeomen Warders page should be dismantled. They are notable as a group. Is there an individual page for the leader of the Beefeaters? No. Why? He did his job for it looks like 20 years. We have a page for Moira Cameron because she got harassed. My point is, that if we start making pages for every person who was harassed we would get a very long list and not an encyclopedia. If we remove harassment from this article then the article would read "First female Beefeater". That's it. What about the first female tour-guide of Lachmonchester Castle? Meishern (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So take it to WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  Gwen, this article wont get deleted. It became politicized and as someone else wrote that she is now famous for being harassed, so this article isn't going anywhere. If 'tampering' with this article made international news, deleting it will definitely be front page material. Need a year to let the flames cool down. Then we merge it. Meishern (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind, politicized topics often become notable because they have become politicized and gotten wide coverage. Meanwhile this article will likely last another year and if it does, it's likely here to stay (lacking any overwhelming need under WP:BLP or something deemed needful through WP:OFFICE). This topic is not about the first female, bog-wonted tour-guide of Lachmonchester Castle, it's about the first Yeoman Warder in over 500 years and how some reliable sources say she got bullied over it. Her name is and will be noted a search term and en.Wikipedia isn't paper. By the bye, I wonder how many Beefeaters are vegetarians? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: "then we merge" - not without an afd you won't Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  nobody merging. in 1 year, when things quiet down, when the sexists are fired and all is happy, we will merge this article into the main article.Meishern (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will mention this page certainly existed as a standalone before any of the current issues began.  I understand the question about her relative notability as an individual - as well as questions about the inflated prominence of the current situation within the page - but I did want to express my opinion that calling her a "tour guide" to try to diminish the notability of this page doesn't couple well with notability of the group.  This is not a matter of a female tour guide - it is a matter of the first female Yeoman Warder in their 500+ year history. Is that notable enough?  I certainly think so - though I'm clearly biased since I started this page.  DukeEGR93 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  I don't get it and that's why I am not editing this article. She was an army accountant and now is a tour guide, first woman in 500 years. About time. How do I know she is a tour guide? Look at the photo. She guides tours around, that makes her a tour guide. I know you made this page Duke, but seriously, you couldn't find anything else? Don't blame you. Because there is nothing else. Merge. Meishern (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am just not sure how you can assert the notability of the organization to which Moira Cameron belongs and then insist on saying she's just a "tour guide."  She is the very first woman in the 500+ year history of what is, by your assertion, a notable group of people.  That just feels awfully notable to me and awfully notable with respect to the number of individual notable sources... DukeEGR93 04:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: She is not merely a 'tour guide', she is a member of an highly exclusive military ceremonial position in one of the most visited UK tourist attractions. To get there she needed to be one of the most senior NCOs in the British Army. If you don't understand what a 'Beefeater' is, I suggest you do some reading. London and the UK are very different place to New York and the UK has a very different culture which may be difficult for everyone to understand. She has had a large amount of non-trivial coverage in the UK. If you want to merge you will need an AFD, otherwise it will be merged right back out. Suggest you come back in a year like you suggest and review the situation then   Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a rewrite

message: I just read on the BBC website  someone received a 'caution' for defacing a wikipedia entry, while vandalism is a pain I am at a loss to understand how the police can involve itself, if anyone could illuminate the issue I'd be eternally grateful.Twobells (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If defacing Wikipedia articles became a criminal offence, I dread to think how much police time would be taken up on it. The edit history of Moira Cameron may have removed some edits on WP:BLP grounds if they were potentially libellous.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no evidence outside the news reports of what edits, if any, were made to the page. How the outside world treats Wikipedia edits all depends what the edit says. Vandalising Wikipedia can be srs bizns: Wikipedia biography controversy. Fences&Windows 02:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is very unusual for the police to become involved with Wikipedia, it would be useful to know what caused this. There is a very naughty edit to the article here, but it comes from an IP address in Venezuela. The mystery remains as to what led to the police caution. Can anyone help here?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Quote: "A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "A 56-year-old man received a caution under the Communications Act 2003 on Tuesday October 20 following an investigation by officers from Tower Hamlets. It related to inappropriate use of the internet.". Since there are only two uncontroversial edits to Moira Cameron in 2009 prior to November , has the edit history removed some edits?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defacing a wikipedia entry a criminal offence? 

message: Done. Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Superfluous Word [that] 

message: The one (not two) Beefeater sacked for the alleged harassment has since recieved a public apology, retraction of all suggestions of sexism/harassment, and compensation. 92.15.57.60 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article somewhat misleading.