Talk:Jo Swinson

message: :Image:Jo-swinson-sept-04-wee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jo-swinson-sept-04-wee.jpg

message: "She is the first ever Member of Parliament born in the 1980s." Not to those who count decades 1 to 10. Perhaps it needs a citation? 86.40.208.206 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that to some people "the 1980s" means 1971-1980, or 1981-1990?  I've never come across that in my life.  But I agree that we need a citation. -- Smjg (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decades 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jo Swinson. 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/20050410022054/http://joswinson.org.uk/ to http://www.joswinson.org.uk/
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) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jo Swinson. 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/20120325001643/http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/people/jo-swinson to http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/people/jo-swinson
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617194604/http://www.politicsondemand.co.uk/ to http://www.politicsondemand.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216120635/http://www.wpradio.co.uk/mp3s/JoSwinson.mp3 to http://www.wpradio.co.uk/mp3s/JoSwinson.mp3
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) 14:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Jo Swinson was the subject of the BBC Radio 4 programme "Profile" on June 15 2019. On it, it was said her Religious Studies teacher had praised her for an article she had written on the meaning of life.Vorbee (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of life

message: Someone asked me as an admin what to do about the drive-by vandalism today, so I've given it another two weeks of autoconfirmed. Should we make it indefinite, or switch on pending changes? I don't expect the drive-by vandalism to diminish any time soon, as (a) Swinson is leader of the party (b) it's a heated time in UK politics - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support some form of more permanent protection. Just a look at the history of this page shows that most edits are vandalism and reverting vandalism – reverting vandalism isn't a great use of editors' time when it can be avoided. Domeditrix (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I support indefinite protection. As you say, this is a very polarised period in British politics, and Swinson's party has adopted an arguably extreme position on Brexit. The vandalism isn't going to stop. --Ef80 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made it open to all editors - but put Pending Changes on, so new/IP editors' contributions need review. I've set this to indefinite for the reasons above, but there's no reason that can't be reviewed if editors feel it should be - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

text: It occurs to me to note that I'm not in a political party, but my wife is a member of the Lib Dems :-) So I'll be particularly careful in Lib Dem editing and admin activities - this one is a BLP that had particular issues, so I hope my actions here don't seem unreasonable. Though I'll probably leave it to others in future - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm quite hostile to the Lib Dems, but that doesn't stop me supporting your action. Nobody wants vandalism regardless of their political position. --Ef80 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pending changes isn't really suitable for articles that are hit with persistent BLP violations from anon editors as the attempted edits remain in the article history regardless of whether they are approved. It should really be semi-protected indefinitely. Does anyone have any objections if I switch the protection level? ?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection at all :-) I was going for some absolute-minimum protection level, but autoconfirmed is a good idea for the reasons you state. Perhaps review in six months, maybe we'll have an election and things will calm down a bit. (maybe that's wishful thinking) - David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: just set to autoconfirmed indef, let's review in March - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No review has happened yet. Swinson is now political history. Is the protection still needed? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's been no response at all on this I'll remove protection in three days unless a review begins. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Autoconfirmed protection
 Pending changes 

message: Jo Swinson is a member of the British Parliament, leader of the British Liberal Democrats, seeking to be a part of the British government and British Prime Minister. There already exists a Scottish Parliament where the Scottish Liberal Democrats have MSP and leader seeking to be the Scottish First Minister. 
Describing Jo as a Scottish politician is inaccurate. 
References were given but logically Ivar the Boneful deleted all three as this as it was ultimately WP:SKYBLUE. Erzan (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to re-supply those references if you want to make this change rather than just making edits like this one. It's no good arguing that they were provided previously and whingeing that someone else deleted them. The onus is on you to add them again. You have been warned about this type of behaviour before. This is Paul (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need references to prove that a Scottish person is British. If there's a debate about the best descriptor, or if "Scottish" was the previous status quo, that's one thing, but whichever is chosen there doesn't need to a huge list of citations after it. A reference after her nationality would IMHO only be appropriate if she explicitly stated "I prefer to be called X not Y". Even then it would be better mentioned in prose. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Scottish was the previous status quo and so there should be some consensus before we change that. I'm not making personal attacks, as has been suggested by Erzan, but this user has engaged in these kinds of arguments before, where they've wanted to change the status quo on other articles without debate. I'd reverted the change back to the status quo before reading this, but I'm happy to go for a third opinion or a dispute resolution. Since someone else has now commented here then I suspect the latter is appropriate. This is Paul (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

text: It appears you did add sources. In future it would save everybody a lot of time and effort if you would provide diffs to highlight something like this. I've now added them to the infobox. This is Paul (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  No apology for ignoring users explanations for their edits, personal attacks and self engineering controversy? Ok.Erzan (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can admit to making a mistake because I didn't spot your edit with the references, but I didn't engineer a controversy, nor did I make any personal attacks. If anything I didn't assume good faith because of your previous behaviour on a different article, behaviour for which you were blocked. Anyway, the situation is resolved now and I'm quite happy with the outcome. This is Paul (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal attack included the fact that you did not care that the references had been edited by another user. Please refrain from a third personal attack, I don't want to go to dispute resolution over something that can be easily stopped. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've explained the situation above, but since that's the third time you've accused me of making a personal attack I strongly advise you to familiarise yourself with WP:CIVILITY, and let's all move on, shall we? This is Paul (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling someone 'whinging' for explaining your error is a personal attack and uncivil. Refusing to apologise and bringing up unconnected past edits to distract from facts, is uncivil. Refrain from doing it otherwise it wil have to be raised as a dispute. I rather not, as it is something easily avoided. Erzan (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my final comment on this thread. My description of you as whingeing may have been a bit over harsh, but since you were blocked on a number of occasions for edit warring, and for abusing multiple accounts, is it any wonder that I jumped to the conclusions I did when I saw you apparently engaging in the same activity again? If you want to complain about me then by all means do so. Mentioning your past activity is not a personal attack. It is fact, you did what you did, and there's been little activity from you since then. It turns out on this occasion you did the right thing, so I sincerely hope you are a reformed character and that you have come here to edit constructively. This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Final warning. Refrain from making everything personal and stick to the facts. Otherwise a dispute resolution will have to be made on uncivility. Erzan (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

text: She is British and Scottish and she is a politician in both UK-wide and Scottish contexts - we have references, and WP:BLUESKY does apply anyway. In her current role as leader of a political party represented through every part of Great Britain, I'd have thought it most appropriate to describe her as British. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this analysis – especially while she is described as an x politician. She currently acts as a politician in the British Parliament, not the Scottish Parliament. Opting to refer to Swinson as a Scottish politician (when no clear preference either way has been found) give readers a false impression. Domeditrix (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for providing civil responses. It is much appreciated. Erzan (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jo Swinson is a British politician 

message: There is now a dispute resolution discussion open here. This is Paul (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: She is British and Scottish and she is a politician in both UK-wide and Scottish contexts - we have references, and WP:BLUESKY does apply anyway. In her current role as leader of a political party represented through every part of Great Britain, I'd have thought it most appropriate to describe her as British. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this analysis – especially while she is described as an x politician. She currently acts as a politician in the British Parliament, not the Scottish Parliament. Opting to refer to Swinson as a Scottish politician (when no clear preference either way has been found) give readers a false impression. Domeditrix (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for providing civil responses. It is much appreciated. Erzan (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute resolution

message: under the 2019 election campaign sub-section, the section relating to puberty blockers is highly biased, describing it as "regarded to be highly unethical and controversial" and lists 2 sources corroborating that. This does not meet balance criteria. This section, though not explicitly so, reads as accusatory and does not follow the tonal criteria. It is unsurprising that these breaches are surrounding trans issues. I will not personally edit the article myself, as I am fully aware that it will swing in the opposite direction, thus I request a more experienced editor to do so. ADM.Tetanus (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of impartiality re: puberty blockers