Talk:Coleen Nolan

message: Is it me, or are all the Loose Women panellists constantly having their articles vandalised? Douglasnicol 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, it's not just you. the loose women page is always being vandalised, too. seems wikipedia can't keep on top of these idiots. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Can we sort out this 'courting controversy' argument instead of constant revert wars?  My view on it is neutral, but you could consider a few things.  For one thing, you might not wholly approve of a particular lifestyle, that doesn't mean to say you're also against it.  My main point though is the 'courting controversy'.  To be pedantic, I would argue that if you're using that term it means Coleen is deliberately using a statement like that as a publicity stunt. Douglasnicol 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not for us to say whether she deliberately courts controversy or whether the controversies are unintentional. We don't know what she is thinking and should not speculate. If there is an RS reference describing her in this way then it can go in. If not, leave it out. Surely it is just as good to say that she has "caused controversy". --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less what I mean.  Courting controversy to me means you're intentionally trying to get a reaction and we've no indication that's what's she's doing, so I don't think it should be in myself. Douglasnicol (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: On Loose Women recently, some of the panelists have referred to Coleen as "Mrs. Fensome" - has she changed her name to Coleen Fensome, or is this simply a reference to her marriage by the panelists? Cipher (Talk) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter; she is usually referred to as Nolan. Jim Michael (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: Coleen has requested that the personal photo of her is changed to one shes owns copyright off ie cnred1.jpg
We contacted Dartford Living and they have agreed to this. The picture is in the public domain and I dont see why you are objecting to this?  pplease explain why you are being obstructive and why you cant accept her choice of picture??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolansonline1 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern Nolansonline1 but we have no evidence that you have permission from the copyright owner of the image. All we see is a copyrighted image uploaded and added to the article. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously which is why the image was removed. You need to provide some evidence that the copyright holder has released the image as you said on the image page that you own the copyright to the image which you are now saying you dont. We have a system explained at Commons:OTRS so you can provide the evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to get a better image would be to just crop the existing one. We don't need to open a can of copyright worms. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it wasn't as good as I thought because the image was quite badly pixelated. Even so, I think the new version is an improvement. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some suggestions on User:Nolansonline1 talk page, as they are the webmaster of the nolan site it would be easy for him/her to add the licence info to that site and the image can be used. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DanielRigal thanks for your work on the new image. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox image

message: Sources do not support claim. The stonewall release is non-existant and the mirror link doesnt show anything on their site either. A search of both sites doesnt bring up anything about gay adoption - on the contrary the mirror site has an advice column where Coleen is very positive regarding a gay IVF couple. From a brief google, everything seems to lead back to wikipedia, and thats all posted on non-reliable blogs anyway. If a reliable source can be found, re-add Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reliable sources are provided. The fact that the links have gone dead does not invalidate them as sources. They have been flagged as dead links, and if they're archived online, we should locate archive links. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did actually try that, I dont think they are dead, I doubt they existed. They could be dead and not available, but given Stonewall and the mirror keep archives of their material and going back to the period of time she was supposed to have had this 'controversy' I cant see anything there.... All the google searches lead to blogs that are either parroting the exact same wording, or quoting wikipedia directly. Given the controversial nature of the claim on a BLP, it needs to be backed up. And like I said, what I can find on the mirror directly contradicts the alleged position.Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Adoption 

message: This article had a considerably 'controversy' section, entirely dedicated to some comments about sex tourism she made on Loose Women in 2005. I really don't think this is a significant enough controversy that it belongs in the article; it's not clear how serious she was being in the first place. I've removed it. Robofish (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a fan of "controversies" sections, although I have restored the section a few times when it was removed without comment by editors which I suspected of a COI. Obviously, your removal of it is completely different and I won't be restoring it. I do think some of what was in it could legitimately be worked into the article in other places though. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Made minor correction.  Coleen is the youngest of 8 children, not 7 - just because one of her sisters died doesn't mean she didn't exist.  In chronological order the Nolan siblings are: 1) Tommy 2) Anne 3) Denise 4) Maureen 5) Brian 6) Bernadette (Bernie, deceased) 7) Linda 8) Coleen.  They're even all listed in the infobox! ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 sibs, not 6 

message: In the opening line it states that she is English, this is justified as The reference says she was born and raised in Blackpool.
We have other individuals on Wikipedia:
*John_Barnes_(footballer)	Born and grew up in Jamaica			described Nationality:English
*Emma Watson			Born and early years in France		described Nationality:British
*Keanu Reeves		Born in Lebanon					described Nationality:Canadian
who have nationalities that are different to where they were born or grew up, what is special about this person that they can derive nationality from their place of birth and the others do not? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because she has not moved to another country and gained a different nationality like the others you list. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of her parents are English, and by virtue of Jus sanguinis she would be Irish, but this encyclopedia is asserting she is English, is there a reference to a renunciation of this alternate nationality or an assertion of her English one? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality