Talk:Laura Kuenssberg

message: Which citizenship(s) does she hold? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship 

message: 'She is married to James' reads oddly.  James who?  It is unusual to refer to people by just their forename. 86.185.218.173 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Name removed per WP:BLPNAME as it adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that his name is not very relevant, but as he is quite prominent in business, and was once a Parliamentary Researcher, it would be useful in principle to mention his work.  But as only the Daily Mail names him with surname, I do not think we have solid WP:RS to do this, and this would involve too much original research. Rwendland (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  James who? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Laura Kuenssberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925020213/http://www.rts.org.uk/Information_page_+_3_pic_det.asp?id=2790&sec_id=547 to http://www.rts.org.uk/Information_page_+_3_pic_det.asp?id=2790&sec_id=547
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Yesterday I made a change to record the fact that her coverage of local elections in 2016 was widely criticised on social media for anti-Labour bias. This was certainly factually correct. It has been removed. Does anyone know why? Or is Wikipedia anti-Labour too?
:No, it was deleted because you did not provide any citations to support this claim, e.g. from newspapers, TV channels etc. Peteinterpol (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit war going on over this is getting tedious, with content constantly added and removed.  Time perhaps to use Wikipedia's escalation procedures to try to resolve this once and for all?  Peteinterpol (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of bias in social media 

message: Why has the Canary been added to the see also section? It has not been mentioned in the article at all. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canary is a marginally notable blog which has published a lot of articles critical of Kuessenberg. That's far too tenuous to belong in a BLP. Dtellett (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of the Canary to "see also" 

message: According to its WP article, the Huffington Post seems a reliable source that has won a Pulitzer Prize.  A recent edit was justified by the editor by saying that it is not a reliable source.  What is the justification for that claim?  Is there any WP guidance on this or is it that editor's subjective personal view?  Peteinterpol (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Huffington Post is pretty mixed: there's some good journalists writing for it but it self describes as a "blog and content aggregator" and doesn't necessarily have the same editorial standards as other news outlets. It's discussed here  without drawing any clear conclusion. I'd have said the relevance was more of an issue with this particular quote though. It's a biography of Kuessenberg, not an inquiry into 38degrees' petition policing Dtellett (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the above, it's worth pointing out that the HuffPo journalists' comments are taken out of context: the writer mentions in passing "some speculation about a campaign to discredit the petition" in an article critical of the petition and its signatories. The sources of this speculation appear to be exclusively on WP:FRINGE blogs like the Canary and Craig Murray's blog. Dtellett (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I have now raised this entire issue in a request for formal mediation. Slightlymuddy (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure that is necessary, Huff Post is widely regarded as not suitable for a BLP due to its tabloid journalism. In addition, as Dtellett pointed out, the comments from Middleton are taken out of context, and ignore the fact that Babbs said that the abuse was on other sites rather than 38 Degrees itself, which was removed in your edit for some reason. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does it say in WP guidance that Huffington Post is not a suitable source for a WP:BLP? 

message: The incident in which Labour Party members booed Laura Kuenssberg is trivial and non-notable. It should be removed as we already know from other details that Kuenssberg is not liked by some people. As these seem to be entirely Corbyn's supporters, it is a small minority given his very negative approval rating and Labour's current low level of support in the opinion polls. Showing Corbyn's supporters in a bad light by indicating they booed someone is not, I would have thought, a good idea even if Kuenssberg is a hate figure for them.
The heading 'Controversy' is mildly sensationalist, whereas the version I used ("BBC political editor") is a statement of fact. Two of the three "Controversies" are really a matter of opinion. The Doughty incident could be seen as Kuenssberg and her colleagues doing their jobs as journalists in breaking a story, while the petition was itself controversial and had limited support. So there is an issue of non-neutrality here too. Philip Cross (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the booing incident is trivial and the controversy section should be worked into the rest of the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia and neutrality

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Kuenssberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rts.org.uk/Information_page_%2B_3_pic_det.asp?id=2790&sec_id=547
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110625064345/http://corporate.itn.co.uk/about-itn/media-centre/press-release/Laura_Kuenssberg.aspx to http://corporate.itn.co.uk/about-itn/media-centre/press-release/Laura_Kuenssberg.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laura Kuenssberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928152225/http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mfwhoswho/individuals/K_mfwwi/nicholas_kuenssberg.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mfwhoswho/individuals/K_mfwwi/nicholas_kuenssberg.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed an addition of Milan as the place of birth, as it was sourced from an ancestry website. I am generally against using these on BLPs as they are primary sources and we necessarily know whether it is her or another person with the same name (and possibly parents with the same name). Thoughts?  Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for quite a while for Milan in any other source and drew a blank. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: Is there any reason why we should ignore WP:HONORIFIC here? We're stating them for both of her parents, who are not even the subject of the article. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorifics 

message: Please replace the following text, "..a Tory apologist and propagandist who should've been killed by Labour activists" with is currently the BBCs political editor 165.225.80.165 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism has already been removed. Thanks for letting us know! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019 

message: Protect whole article due to repeated vandalism of page. Mgrant78 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is for requesting edits to pages that are already protected.  If you think that the article should be protected please list it at requests for page protection. I've removed the duplicate request below. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection request

message: It's really odd/sad that Wikipedia continues to allow Scottish nationalists to repeatedly change Kuenssberg's nationality from Scottish to British because they don't like what they belive to be her politics. Pathetic.
2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:293E:C14:449B:C828 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary I believe the present lead reflects her identity accurately. Not using this as a negative - I dislike the SNP on a moderate level - but her politics clearly reflect a more pro-'One Nation' view than any regionalism.--SinoDevonian (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: Ping me or request unprotection if PC gets in the way.-- Deepfriedokra   13:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  pending changes 

message: Can someone add a bit about the criticism the subject of this page received for reporting that a Conservative Party aide was punched? Here are some sources:
:https://www.indy100.com/article/laura-kuenssberg-bbc-tory-punched-matt-hancock-aide-labour-protester-9240166
:https://talkradio.co.uk/news/laura-kuenssberg-under-fire-punch-claim-19121032736
:https://www.thenational.scot/news/18090259.bbcs-kuenssberg-removes-tweet-activist-punching-tory-aide/
:https://www.thenational.scot/news/18090162.laura-kuenssberg-faces-criticism-tory-punch-claim/
:https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-and-itv-political-editors-apologise-for-false-hospital-punch-claim-in-tweets/
:https://uk.news.yahoo.com/laura-kuenssberg-says-sorry-for-wrongly-tweeting-that-labour-activist-punched-tory-adviser-110952226.html
:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/10/photo-fake-tory-punch-tweet-storm-boy-hospital
Thanks
83.218.151.178 (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there were also "several other high profile broadcast journalists" who have been heavily criticized. ITV's Robert Peston and Paul Brand were also named. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite the large number of sources provided above, this looks like a simple mistake and also trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm looking at the Trivia Page at WP:HTRIVIA and I can't see how it fits the criteria of "trivia" and does not fit the criteria of "relevant". Can you list the criteria for "trivia" as you understand them so we can see how you came to your decision? Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The advice opens with this sentence: "Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important." I don't think it was important, certainly not in terms of Kuenssberg's career as a whole. Sometimes reporters get things wrong, through no fault of their own. Happy to get the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

text:  just added a bit about it being factually false about the Punch 80.47.148.59 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC's Laura Kuenssberg criticised for reporting that a Tory aide was 'punched' 

message: Can we add something about the subject of this page receiving a warning from the Electoral Commission? Sources:
:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/laura-kuenssberg-bbc-postal-votes-electoral-commission-a4311261.html
:https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/laura-kuenssbergs-postal-votes-comments-17403636
:https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/concerns-raised-as-laura-kuenssberg-reveals-insight-into-how-postal-votes-are-stacking-up-1-6420389
Thanks 80.47.148.59 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . Now added, thanks.  Many people may be unaware this is even possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postal Votes 

message: Some of the bias allegations levelled against Kuenssberg seem to be based on social media reaction to her tweets - which are often negative, due to issues that many hold with her reporting. Kuenssberg is regularly demonised on social media with a large amount of sexist commentary. Minor things which have caused a stir -such as sharing a link to the blog of the PM's senior adviser or directing people to a statement that Omar Salem had made himself on social media- are examples of things which caused a storm online but seem to have little relevance to assessing Kuenssberg's skills as a journalist. It is entirely fair for her to direct followers to a statement by Salem when he had been the centre of that day's news as well as to link to a blog by Cummings - who was central to the Conservative campaign. It would have been different if she had read this unadulterated on air, many journalists regularly share links with their followers without offering substantial rebuttal or analysis online. Social media allows people to read things and form their own opinions. Whilst some more notable controversies -such as the 2015 Jeremy Corbyn report- have a right to be in this section, others are frivolous and paint an overly negative picture of her journalism and present her as fundamentally biased which is not the case from someone who regularly watches her reporting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:13B:B900:EDAE:9FBC:ECBD:473C (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Allegations Section 

message: In business if you are owed money you employ experts on a commission to recover it.  There must have been a debt collection agency  or fraud team somewhere that would have tried.   Or was there something more sinister going on?  That is our money that he wrote off in a causal fashion and no one challenged it. 
This money would pay for the NHS to get back on track.
It would help individual in these hard times.
It could pay the women who are owed so much on the pension scandal - Waspi Campaign
Why are the conservative so happy to let this money be written off. It is a disgrace. 
Perhaps this could be put to the New Prime Minister.
Jacqui Martin. 2A00:23C8:4E20:7101:B5B3:C9E4:DAC1:AE30 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the Liz Truss  find a way to get back the Gove Billions that he wrote off?