Talk:Claudia Webbe

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Left a note at User_talk:Claudiawebbe about Wikipedia's Autobio guidelines. -- Yamara 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiography

message: The link cited doesn't actually say she studied these subjects at university. "She studied mathematics, statistics and later social science at university.[4]" 86.151.168.139 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does, in the third paragraph. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Details of university qualifications are here: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/claudia-webbe-5b5a6a8 86.151.168.139 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use LinkedIn - anyone can claim anything. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  University? 

message: Please edit or correct this entry - Webbe apologised after an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found she had broken the code by failing to declare payments late 
It is incorrect to say that she failed to declare payments that is not what the commissioner ruled the findings of which are a matter for public record
The citation should be taken from parliament not a false newspaper report 
In February 2021, Webbe apologised after an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that she had broken the Code of Conduct for MPs by failing to declare payments she received for her work as a councillor in Islington.
As minimum this should be changed to 
In February 2021, Webbe apologised after an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that she had broken the Code of Conduct for MPs by failing to declare payments late she received for her work as a councillor in Islington. 80.195.222.71 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021 

message: Please edit or correct this entry - 
Reason for correction 
Webbe apologised after an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found she had broken the code by failing to declare payments late 
In other words the word late is missing 
It is incorrect to say that she failed to declare payments that is not what the commissioner ruled the findings of which are a matter for public record
The citation should be taken from parliament not a false newspaper report. The Parliamentary Commissioner findings are a matter of public record and published on the Commissioner website in parliament 
This is what it currently says 
In February 2021, Webbe apologised after an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that she had broken the Code of Conduct for MPs by failing to declare payments she received for her work as a councillor in Islington.
As minimum this should be changed to 
In February 2021, Webbe apologised after an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that she had broken the Code of Conduct for MPs by failing to declare payments late she received for her work as a councillor in Islington. 80.195.222.71 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was ambiguous - was the registration late or the payments? I have fixed it. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021 

message: The IP who edited this article about 4 hours ago seems to be yet another contributor with a conflict of interest & no understanding of our policies and guidelines. It geolocates to Islington, fwiw.
I have left a note on their talk page and provided explanations in my reverting edit summaries. - Sitush (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the authors comments is "Stop this - this is being done from the Parliamentary Estate, where the details of Members of Parliament must be accurate You cannot for example say that Ms Webbe's parents are African if that is not true and that Ms Webbe has never ever described them as such. Her Maiden speech makes clear they are Caribbean. Stop this now". The claim about being on the Parliamentary estate, given the IP is not true but if it is true sounds very much to be COI.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. There is a bit of to-ing & fro-ing on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

text: , obvious COI is obvious but I can do no more due to 3RR. Would be helpful if someone else can step in until the message gets through. WP:VNT, WP:RS etc have been raised but still they think they can remove a validly sourced statement. Nearly as bad is that they misunderstood that statement to mean that Webbe was/is a member of Momentum, which is not what was said. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI 

message: We say in the lead that Webbe is suspended from the Labour Party but her website is clearly still branded as a Labour Party website. Is this down to some subtle difference between a suspension from the party and a suspension of the Whip? I find Labour rules particularly arcane (Richard Burgon said much the same on Politics Live today!) but it is probably important that we get it right here. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The commonly used term "suspended from the Labour Party" actually means suspended from being able to represent the Labour Party, not your membership suspended (though there are restrictions).  For an MP functionally it is fairly similar to suspension of the Whip. eg a "suspended" member can still vote in some internal elections, though not attend/speak at meetings.  Check out pages 34-35 or the rule book if you want to verify this. By and large the MSM misreports exactly what it means. It is debatable if her website should still use Labour Party branding (as she shouldn't be representing it), but as her website is hosted by a Labour Party web server, I guess the party is not fussed about stopping it. It is different to Corbyn's situation as he is not suspended, so can attend and speak at meetings like the current conference. Rwendland (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

text: ... For WP purposes, her parliament website says she is an "Independent" reflecting whip not applied, but as per above she is still a (limited) member of the party.  I think what we currently have, party=Labour but with the footnote, is fine.  Pedantically "Whip suspended" in note should be "Suspended from representing the party", but I don't think this is a big deal. Rwendland (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks. Should the lead be clarified? We say suspended from the party there but suspended from the Whip in the section about the legal issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspended from the party? 

message: Why are individuals allowed to add things which are part of an ongoing criminal case and not true  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.222.71 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If details of a trial can be printed in a UK News Papers then they are eligible to be printed here. The Trial is to determine what is true and what is not the allegations are reported as allegations. The only people who know if the allegations are true are the people involved, so are you admitting to being Claudia Webbe?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we must also be aware of WP:NOTNEWS and, iirc, WP:BLPCRIME. Just saying for the benefit of the anon, who seems to be related to Webbe: it isn't all one-way traffic/we do have some tighter restrictions than the newspapers etc, whether or not they apply in this case (sic). - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment moved

message: The word “affair” is not used once in the source
In September 2021, it was reported that the alleged harassment was directed at a woman whom Webbe believed was having an affair with her partner, and included a threat to send explicit photographs of the alleged victim to her children.[30] 82.16.13.60 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: It's a perfectly acceptable paraphrase of  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021 

message: There is no mention of the word “affair” in any of the source articles. At best if we are using Newspapers as source rather than the actual court reporter then it should say “ a women believed to be in a relationship with her husband” 2A00:23A8:D46:2500:F4EE:2A94:5020:7DBF (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the anonymous comments and article edits over recent weeks relate to COI and SPA accounts, almost all geolocating to Webbe's constituency or London base. Whoever it is remains clueless regarding how Wikipedia works and, indeed, fairly useless at comprehending the English language, all this despite numerous explanations. In this particular instance, I refer them to WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and a decent dictionary of their choosing. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021 

message: Scheduled for something in Westminster mags tomorrow, though double-booked with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon AKA Tommy Robinson! https://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/viewcourtlist2014.php?courtlist=mgwestm_P211013.00.htm&type=maglists --Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why mention this? We don't need a running commentary on the talk page & the media will report it indue course. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a heads up to check the press tomorrow.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no need. She is an MP and it was bound to make headlined because of that. We have to be careful not to inflame things because it is clear from goings-on involving COI/SPA contributors here that Webbe and/or her supporters think we have it in for her when in fact we are/should be just reflecting what has happened. For similar reasons, I have omitted the district judge's speculation that a custodial sentence might result - just wait until a decision is made (and, yes, that will inevitably the headlines, too). - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Back in Court

message: Can Webbe still be a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, as our article currently says, when she is not a Labour MP but rather sitting as an independent? Wondering if the info needs to be amended in some way (using , change of tense, and/or something else). - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she can still be a member of the Socialist Campaign Group without being an MP. Jeremy Corbyn is still a member despite not being able to sit as a Labour MP at the present time. Alssa1 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its full title is "Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs" so if your not a Labour MP you cannot be part of it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to need a reliable source that shows that's the rule regarding membership of the organisation. Alssa1 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that is the full title, from the official website and is the only guidance on membership, it is you that needs a reliable source to say that non-Labour MPs can be members.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If your interpretation was accurate, Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't be a member because he was suspended from the party, and remains sitting as an independent MP. Furthermore Dennis Skinner couldn't be a member under your grounds either, yet he is President of the grouping. You are making a positive claim; you are saying that there are rules and the rules are X, you need to have a reliable source that explicitly states X. Drawing conclusions without explicit justification from a source, borders on WP:SYNTH; among other things... Alssa1 (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no reliable membership of officer list that backs up your claims of who is currently in the group. The only reference I can find is Wikipedia itself which seem to be making claims without citation.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

text: That doesn't claim to be a list of the membership and even if it was it isn't valid and its not my claim it s the name of the group. So until some valid list is produced we should remove those who dont comply with the criteria set out in the groups' name.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The source being cited to produce the membership list on the Socialist Campaign Group... I didn't say the group was using that Twitter link as a membership list, I was saying that that twitter list is what has been decided by the community to be used on Socialist Campaign Group Wiki article to create the membership list. I don't take issue with the methodology because 1.) There is encyclopedic value in producing a list of people affiliated with the group. 2.) There is no alternative source available (thus far) to produce the list and therefore I see no issue in using it. I don't agree with your assertion that we must use the "criteria set out in the groups' name" because that would mean that we have to remove Jeremy Corbyn from the listing too (as I said already, he is not a Labour MP currently). Alssa1 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't come up to Wikipedia standards. So the claims should go. NO if's no buts.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how Wikipedia works. The "NO if's no buts" attitude is not conducive to building a consensus. Alssa1 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore here are some more references that says she is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group: 1, 2, 3. There is no source that says she has been expelled from the group, nor have you provided any sources that say that membership of the Socialist Campaign Group requires someone to be a sitting Labour MP. Alssa1 (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know very well how Wikipedia works and self-made claims are reported as self-claimed. You have provided no evidence other than her claim, nor have you provided any evidence that contradicts the name provided full name as given on their website as the organisation. Wikipedia works by only repeating statements of fact in reliable sources.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

text: You have added no valid evidence and given the self-declared rightwing nature of your politics. It seems highly likely that this is your motivation for including these unsupported claims on this page.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've stated on your talkpage, please consider WP:BRD and WP:AGF before making edits. Alssa1 (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem not to understand the rules regarding citations dist from editing until you understand the concept of a reliable source.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  I'm quite happy to have the whole line removed as no evidence of her continued membership has been provided, the plenty of evidence regarding here no linger being a labour MP is available. Do we need to provide evidence that people who have just died are former members?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer on Wikipedia to any question that begins with "do we need to provide evidence" is "yes". Although I support the addition of "As of 28 Sep 2020", I do not support the removal of a reliably sourced statement without first finding a more recent reliable source that proves the contrary. MarshallKe (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Seems like the simplest solution is to establish the when from the source: As of 28 Sep 2020, Webbe was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs. Schazjmd (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with this approach, and I seem to remember reading that guidelines endorse this for claims that may change in the future. MarshallKe (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable, I support. Alssa1 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I dispute that it is "widely understood", speaking as a Brit who has had a considerable uninvolved interest in UK politics since the mid-1970s & has known a fair few MPs of various parties! The issue seems to be resolved here for now but in any event my suspicion is that Webbe will always be welcomed wherever Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell etc may be and regardless of any rules that may be in place.  This may become more apparent should she lose her position as an MP in the near future, which seems likely if her appeal fails. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist Campaign Group 

message: your  constitutes WP:OR without a citation. This statement is not supported by the cited source, and you need to source this statement. MarshallKe (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm quite happy to have the whole line removed as no evidence of her continued membership has been provided, the plenty of evidence regarding here no linger being a labour MP is available. Do we need to provide evidence that people who have just died are former members?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer on Wikipedia to any question that begins with "do we need to provide evidence" is "yes". Although I support the addition of "As of 28 Sep 2020", I do not support the removal of a reliably sourced statement without first finding a more recent reliable source that proves the contrary. MarshallKe (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the simplest solution is to establish the when from the source: As of 28 Sep 2020, Webbe was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs. Schazjmd (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with this approach, and I seem to remember reading that guidelines endorse this for claims that may change in the future. MarshallKe (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable, I support. Alssa1 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I dispute that it is "widely understood", speaking as a Brit who has had a considerable uninvolved interest in UK politics since the mid-1970s & has known a fair few MPs of various parties! The issue seems to be resolved here for now but in any event my suspicion is that Webbe will always be welcomed wherever Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell etc may be and regardless of any rules that may be in place.  This may become more apparent should she lose her position as an MP in the near future, which seems likely if her appeal fails. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break after ANI post

message: As far as I am aware, we don't usually show the Socialist Campaign Group as a political affiliation in infoboxes, just as we don't usually show association with the Tribune group, the ERG or the Monday Club. All of these, and more, are pretty much subgroups for MPs within larger political parties. I am not sure if mentioning SCG in the infobox here is some sort of extension, even pointiness, related to the fracas above but it seems to me to be out of place. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. Most Labour MPs are in multiple sub-groups/factions, eg Progress, Trade Union Group of Labour MPs, Labour First, Labour Friends of X, Christians on the Left, etc.  It would be crazy if we tried to infobox list all of them. Rwendland (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good additional examples there. I have removed it & hope there won't be another edit war. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, reverted for discussion. Second, we don't make a judgement on what should be included on a page based on what is included on a different page. If you think there is an encyclopedic value for including other political affiliations such as Progress etc on X politician's infobox, be BOLD and put it in, don't remove affiliations from the infobox of other pages. As for the claim that we "don't usually show the Socialist Campaign Group as a political affiliation in infoboxes", that is untrue; Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, Tahir Ali, Richard Burgon, Dan Carden, Ian Lavery, Rebecca Long-Bailey, John McDonnell, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Zarah Sultana, Nadia Whittome, Tony Benn, Ronnie Campbell, David Drew, Emma Dent Coad, Dennis Skinner and others, all have long-standing inclusions of the Socialist Campaign Group in their infobox. Alssa1 (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting list of articles.  Have to say IMO that is a wrong use of the otherparty field.  Although Template:Infobox officeholder is not explicit about it, there is a strong implication it is for affiliation to other political parties (in the past, or present for associated parties like Co-operative Party). Socialist Campaign Group is not a political party, either in the formal sense by being a party registered at the Electoral Commission or in an informal sense - it is clearly a faction of a party, so SCD shoul not be listed there IMO. Rwendland (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The field you're referring to is titled "Other political affiliations", as is the help text. It is not explicitly termed as referring to political parties and is used across Wikipedia to list a wide variety of different political affiliations. Given the fact that it is used elsewhere in the manner I've described, the guidance for field usage makes listing the Socialist Campaign Group perfectly acceptable, and there is no damage to the encyclopedic value of the article for including it in the infobox, I don't think it's legitimate to have removed it. I have therefore reinstated the inclusion given the fact that as per BRD my original reversion should not have been undone. Alssa1 (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

text: You removed the inclusion for a reason: "we don't usually show the Socialist Campaign Group as a political affiliation in infoboxes", this claim is inaccurate, and there are plenty of examples of us listing the Socialist Campaign Group in the infobox under "Other political affiliations". Secondly, you may theorise that the reason for its inclusion is down to some "underhand promotion" by Momentum/Militant, but that's neither here nor there; we go by the encyclopedic merit of its inclusion. Next, you can keep on saying that it's an "addition of something not commonly done", but that's just not accurate; I have provided a number of examples where we do exactly that. Finally, I'm confused as to the relevance of the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia for ~2years longer than me has to our editing dispute; if I feel there is merit to citing WP guidance on a particular dispute I'll do it, regardless of how long someone has been editing. Alssa1 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist Campaign Group redux 

message: Change spelling error (last para) from appealled to appealed. 146.200.131.207 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alssa1 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021