Talk:Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox/Archive 1

message: Why are you removing valid criticisms ?--Irishpunktom\talk 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

message: "aiming to bring about a 'Clash of civilizations'" -is pretty specific. I think we need a cite here. Armon 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funniest book I've read since The Stones of Venice, why? Septentrionalis 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clash of civilizations" 

message: In response to a mediation request from User:Irishpunktom I have received comments from both sides of the discussion about this article (here).  Please refrain from any of the article until these have been considered and we can have an adult discussion about matters on this talk page.  Kcordina  Talk  13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've investigated and the loss of the whip was actually unconnected - explanation and source added. David | Talk 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree about the BNP bit. On investigation the Christian Institute mention appears to be a bit off. The only 'Patron of the Christian Institute' was Janet Young, Baroness Young who died a few years ago. Perhaps the two have been confused? Baroness Cox is a Director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, but this is a separate organisation; she does not seem to have any formal links with the Christian Institute although she has spoken at some of their meetings. For example AR1999-2000_backup_web.pdf here it is said "We were pleased to invite Baroness Cox to Tyneside to speak about her work with Christian Solidarity Worldwide" and this report seems to indicate her general agreement with the Christian Institute. Perhaps the article should be worded "Cox is close to the Christian Institute, having spoken at events they have organised". David | Talk 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution of this article 

message: Below are my comments on some parts of the disputed section.  This is aimed to form into a discussion of the parts of the section.  Please join in and add your thoughts on each part.
Her books have been republished on the British National Party website [2] - As per hale-Byrne, the books are not published by the BNP, but rather are available via the BNP website.  This sentance is misleading, and, I think, mentioning that the books are available on the BNP is not necessary, as it carries with it some unwritten implication that the book endorses the BNP.  I'd suggest leaving this statement out.
She is a member of the Jerusalem Summit  - Irishpunktom says she is, Hale-Byrne says she isn't.  This reference  (the website of the summit), supplied by Irishpunktom, clearly states that Caroline Cox is a co-president of the summit, which sounds like being a member to me.  This statement therefore seems fine (with the insertion of the reference).
The issue of the description of the Jerusalem summit can be addressed when we draft a new article.
he had endorsed a book written by  The reference cited for this part seems to support the paragraph, and has not been disputed.  I see no reason for it not to be included, it certainly seems relevent.
Cox is a patron of the Christian Institute Could do with a reference for this, but sounds like relevent information if sourced.
Cox relinquishing the Conservative whip in the Lords  This seems at odds with Hale-Byrnes view of Caroline's involvement in the Lords.  A cite would be useful (have asked dbiv for one). Kcordina  Talk  13:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've investigated and the loss of the whip was actually unconnected - explanation and source added. David | Talk 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree about the BNP bit. On investigation the Christian Institute mention appears to be a bit off. The only 'Patron of the Christian Institute' was Janet Young, Baroness Young who died a few years ago. Perhaps the two have been confused? Baroness Cox is a Director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, but this is a separate organisation; she does not seem to have any formal links with the Christian Institute although she has spoken at some of their meetings. For example AR1999-2000_backup_web.pdf here it is said "We were pleased to invite Baroness Cox to Tyneside to speak about her work with Christian Solidarity Worldwide" and this report seems to indicate her general agreement with the Christian Institute. Perhaps the article should be worded "Cox is close to the Christian Institute, having spoken at events they have organised". David | Talk 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues to resolve

message: What exactly is under dispute here? Baroness Cox' sponsorship of the House of Lords launch party of the book is referred to in numerous sources. The material she wrote to promote the book is still circulating (she's not withdrawn it or disputed its authorship). The contents of the book are readily confirmable if you read it. That she was criticised for it is equally indisputable. So where is the problem? David | Talk 15:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baroness Cox and Wale Babatunde's book 

message: Folks, apologies for my absence from the discussion - I'm taking a break following the birth of my child.  I shall return in a couple of weeks, but hopefully everything will be sorted by then.  If you would like someone else to help out in the meantime, please drop a note over on the mediation request page.  Kcordina  Talk  20:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My absence

message: I have now returned to wikipedia after my brief break, and unfortunately I note from the edit history of the article, and the lack of comments on the talk page, that the dispute is still ongoing and that discussion seems to have stopped.  From a personal viewpoint, I think the article as at 9:25GMT on 15 May 2006 is a fair and balanced.  If there is not now agreement (which from the edit history it seems there isn't), I think it may be time to step up to some more enforceable dispute resolution as we have tried and failed on the discussion front and it seems to have deteriorated into a revert war again. Kcordina  Talk  08:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So are we any nearer a solution? 

message: On looking through the article again I think the coverage of Baroness Cox' campaigns on contemporary slavery is wayyyyy too short. Let me try to search out some more sourced information. David | Talk 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Baroness Cox is not currently involved with CSI, CSI or redeeming slaves.  She was not the founder of CSI or CSW. One could stake the statement about contemporary slavery out entirely.  The Wilberforce award is a human rights award and was given for her human rights work in general.Justif 18:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have ownership problems with this article. The section you removed does not say that Baroness Cox is currently involved with CSI. I am happy to make it clear that CSW is no longer buying slaves' freedom, but to do so would need to explain the circumstances in which they stopped (which was the criticism by the UN and several other international bodies) - are you happy for that to happen? I am quite surprised you think that mentioning Baroness Cox' involvement in campaigning against slavery should be removed from her biography. She is quite famous for it, and it has occupied a large part of her life. You are surely not suggesting it's "potentially libellous" to accuse someone of opposing slavery? David | Talk 20:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If I have been mistaken, it is not because I was lying (deliberately telling an untruth) but because I have not found a source to update the position. How about updating the article yourself, if you know better? David | Talk 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: She is famous for it. As a matter of fact Peter Sutcliffe is no longer active in the field of murdering women - do you want that part deleted from his biography? (Not that I am comparing campaigning against slavery with murdering women, but you get the point). David | Talk 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery