Talk:Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne

message: The article read (and still does to some extent) a bit like a list so I've reorganised it a bit. Will do more work on it once I've done some more research on EM. 
Rsloch (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061212124919/http://laprimogenita.it:80/Documenti/romanadopt.pdf to http://www.laprimogenita.it/Documenti/romanadopt.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080622025012/http://www.publications.parliament.uk:80/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi373.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi373.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090310010730/http://www.dialoguefoundation.org:80/?Lang=en&Page=29 to http://www.dialoguefoundation.org/?Lang=en&Page=29
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added a section about Baroness Nicholson's well reported controversial views on trans people. The entire edit has been reverted, which seems wrong to me. I'm happy to take it to Talk to get consensus on how this should be handled within the page, but I disagree that a section on this lends undue weight to the problematic and well reported nature of her views. You can see my edit here. I would like to invite others to comment on how the significant coverage of these views should be treated in her article. They certainly should go in somewhere. --Jwslubbock (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I would remind you of the principles of WP:GF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Comment on the content, not the editor. You're comments on my talk page and in the edit summary go against those principles, and are completely unacceptable. To the actual content, you made a WP:BOLD edit, it was reverted per the same policy, the onus is on you to explain why they are WP:DUE through discussion, to reach consensus. As previously stated, per WP:CSECTION, sections titled "controversy" should be avoided. Additionally, this article is a WP:BLP, and as such is subject to WP:BLPBALANCE. There is no justification for a section on Twitter activity in the last year to be larger than sections covering 10 years of activity in the House of Lords, or the entirety of the subject's charitable works. WP:RECENTISM needs to be considered here also. As this is a BLP, sourcing needs to be carefully considered. Three of the sources for her Twitter activity are Pink News (I include the Yahoo one here as it is a direct pull), which is a source which is considered generally reliable, but where caution is advised. As per discussion [] on this source, editorial discretion can be advisable. This is a topic where Pink News has a strong editorial line, and the weight of its coverage should be considered in that context. In general, I am not sure that the Twitter activity of the subject meets the standards for inclusion. The issue regarding the Booker prize does appear to meet WP:DUE and should be relocated to the 'Other work' section. It would be better with further background information, explaining Nicholson's involvement with the Prize in more detail, and reworded as, despite the headline she was not removed from the post as much as all honouary posts were dissolved, following the controversy. Inclusion of this would obviously also include reference to the incident with Bergdoff. I would propose relocating that information. However, I have reverted the article back to WP:STATUSQUO version whilst this discussion is ongoing, until a consensus can be reached. AutumnKing (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is good that you are now engaging positively with this by suggesting what you think should be included, but I remain concerned that you have repeatedly removed all references to this subject from the page entirely. I will therefore put back references to the Booker position and what happened with Bergdorf in the Other Work section. I remain concerned that there has been significant discussion on this Talk Page already concerning this subject, and the result is that people keep on removing all reference to something that very much meets WP:N due to the significant coverage of it. Indeed, it is the only reason the Baroness has been in the news whatsoever for the past year, and I hope we can reach a consensus about how this topic is covered in her page. Jwslubbock (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, your bad faith commenting is directly contravening Wikipedia's policies on good faith and civility. You also seem to be misunderstanding the concept of WP:CONSENSUS.  I have categorically not . I reverted you edit initially over WP:DUE concerns, and suggested you, as the Editor who initiated the WP:BOLD edit, begin a Talk page discussion, to gain consensus for inclusion. You reinstated your edit, without waiting for any discussion to take place, with a personal attack in the edit summary and on my talk page. I then reverted the page per WP:STATUSQUO, and made constructive comments on this Talk page, explaining why I believed some of the content should be excluded, and why some should be included, looking to gain consensus before further editing the article, per policy. Your choice to re add that content straight away is pre-emeptive, given that there has been no time for other Editors to discuss the issues, and reach consensus as is the core principle of Wikipedia. As you failed to wait for agreement on inclusion, I have further edited that contribution, as it was again disproportionate to the rest of the article. . Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that records notable people, events etc. over history. We look at the significant and long term notability over that period, not just the last year. Per WP:RECENTISM, we need to maintain a balance of WP:DUE with the information that is included in the article. AutumnKing (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I only looked at the Pink News opinion piece (which I believe Jwslubbock cited wrongly by saying it's Yahoo News) about "misgendered". And if the writer (Lily Wakefield) had bothered to consult the Oxford Dictionary she would have seen that Emma Nicholson may have been using the word "misgender" correctly, since it's a matter of using a word "that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they [i.e. pregnant women] identify". I approve of the policy that requires consensus for re-inserting contentious material, and Jwslubbock doesn't have it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti trans views