Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 18 April 2017

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. More information: /  An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northamptonshire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorthamptonshireWikipedia:WikiProject NorthamptonshireTemplate:WikiProject NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:BLP noticeboard

Economics query

UK Uncut held a street party/protest in Deputy PM Clegg's road on 26/05/2012. According to the BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18219101), Mrs. Mensch responded by taking to Twitter to describe the demonstration as "intolerable bullying". She tweeted: "I would normally never do this. I am Tory to the marrow of my bones."But how about £5 to the LibDems today? "If you believe targeting home & family of a politician you disagree with is intolerable bullying - £5 for Nick Clegg." Does anyone have further press reports, in which she explains how giving money to a multimillionaire would conceivably either a) prevent him from feeling 'bullied' by a lawful protest outside his home, or b) details as to whether her appeal is actually proscribed fundraising activity according to parliamentary regulations? 212.139.97.155 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)motjuste212.139.97.155 (talk)

Holy Cow?

After todays lawful and entirely peaceful UK Uncut protest outside Nick Clegg's home by largely wheelchair-bound protesters, Ms. Mensch Twittered a call for the criminalisation of protests anywhere near MPs homes or properties. Interestingly, the lyrics of a 'Snow Patrol' song (manager: Peter Mensch, her current husband; chosen to play at the Olympics 2012 ceremony despite the fact she serves on the olympics, culture sport and media committee,who are accusing Murdoch of sleaze), promote the verbal abuse and stalking of women in their own homes ...

You Holy Cow The telegraph pole knows where It knows where you live You Holy Cow I'll get it to take me there And shout abuse at your window 1,2,3,4 I can take no more You Holy Cow I'll stand out here all night Here on your front porch You Holy Cow I have no pride left to worry about

.. I can find no reliable source that she has distanced herself from these lyrics by donating the profits to a disabled charity like Nick Clegg- can anyone else?212.139.97.155 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)aj212.139.97.155 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

212.139.97.155 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.97.155 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted to say anything like this -which implies hypocrisy- you would have to find a reliable source. If you mention the two facts in the same sentence -implying they're related- that constitutes original research by synthesis which is not allowed. The objective is to write an encyclopedia article and it is important to maintain a neutral point of view whatever your feelings or beliefs.

JRPG (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholic?

She stood for election on the 'family values' ticket, is constantly professing her Catholic faith, and yet appears to be a divorcee - is one of these statements inaccurate? Is she adivorcee, or not a Catholic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.224.14 (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

She is Catholic. I know her personally and she is very open about and proud of her religion. I'm sure her religion could be verified via independent sources. 96.245.116.174 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion is a very personal matter and nothing to do with her role as MP. Unless she states her religion on her website or there is another citable source, I don't think it should be included. BTW, if you know her, PLEASE get a good copyright free photo. If you need any help loading it let me know. JRPG (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely if she professed it when standing for election, in relation to `family values', then it does have something to do with her being an MP. There are also precedents for stating the religion of politicians all over Misplaced Pages. I think that it should appear here. EdwardRussell (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Uni

Her official site mentions that she is Oxford-educated, not Cambridge educated. I am updating the Misplaced Pages entry to change this.--Rossjamesparker 12:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Writer

Why is she a "writer" rather than a writer. Is this some kind of criticism of her writing style? NPOV issue here? Darmot and gilad (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the quotation marks in order to remove any possible underlying insinuations. Echo park00 (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

P>But you left the descriptor 'Chick Lit' in, to ensure no-one was left in any doubt.80.42.235.51 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)LouisMacLift80.42.235.51 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst its not a big deal, I note the media put "chick lit" in quotes in at least 2 of the references used. See here and here We shouldn't therefore imply POV. JRPG (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Section blanking: removing properly cited items

I note that sections which could be deemed critical of Bagshawe have been removed without explanation. Please don't do this. See Biography of living persons:Public figures
JRPG (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone upload a reasonable sized e.g 1MB photo free of copyright? It can be uploaded using the toolbox menu on the left but a copyright declaration is needed. Formal publicity photo are usually the best and much more acceptable to the subject than some!
JRPG (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi - not being technical I cannot work out how to upload a photo. But here is a link to a copyright free one from her own Parliamentary website, which offers all the pictures for download

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.louisebagshawe.net/files/images/louise_bagshawe_conference_2008.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.louisebagshawe.net/01102008_conference_speech&usg=__rmXHd-qVfCpS4cDLFy9jYpy08Mo=&h=338&w=450&sz=25&hl=en&start=18&sig2=dZ_VGSfmlxBNJzvxUxDqHg&zoom=1&tbnid=ctjp6Mm_NJtnFM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=126&ei=FlgHTvGSFoSX8QOf06CwDQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlouise%2Bmensch%2Bmp%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D577%26tbs%3Disz:m%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=102&vpy=269&dur=2329&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=160&ty=214&page=2&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:18&biw=1280&bih=577

Here is another that seems to be the standard picture used by Parliament

http://www.louisemensch.net/images/louise_bagshawe_2010.jpg

There is also one of Cameron and her in the gallery section of the MP website, offered for free use download. I cannot link to it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.234.73 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions, thank you... I'll look at how to best get some of them uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and then we can use them in the article. Have a look at commons, it's a lot easier to use than Misplaced Pages IMO (being younger and less baggage!) and might be something you'd enjoy. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Whilst I could upload the photos, an unequivocal statement by the copyright owner -usually the photographer renouncing copyright which can be emailed to wikipedia is needed.

These both appear to have copyright claims. From experience with other MPS, I suggest you email her or ring her office manager. JRPG (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A short video and stills, allegedly of her many years ago at MTV has been posted by GQ Magazine (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrD4bGbB_GQ&feature=related) - but unless Mrs.Mensch has undergone significant work on her front teeth and altered her accent remarkably, I'm not sure whether you should use it.79.70.225.57 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.225.57 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't use anything unless we get a statement from the photographer or agent to say its copyright free. Its also unfair to use a really poor photo. JRPG (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone get permission to quote any of the sources used in this article? No. Why? Because it is fair use. So to use one photo of the person will also be fair use. This and all other bios on Misplaced Pages should have photos. If someone is afraid of copyright violation then just link to a photo that is already published. But a bio without a photo is incomplete. van Lustig (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed a photo is needed. I've read & understood Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright etc. & suggest you do the same. The easiest way to add a photo is to get the photographer to declare it copyright free or to provide a very small fair use image. Plan B which I've done for MPs is to write to them. Text used here is similarly fair use. JRPG (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to Louise Mensch?

I note that when the subject of this article spoke in Parliament today, she was credited as "Mrs. Louise Mensch" (this link is temporary), and her website has been changed. This seems to indicate that she will be using her new married name in her political life. It is unclear whether her books will be published or republished under this name, but would it be generally agreed that her article should be moved and renamed? Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I was a little surprised it was changed as most women on public life keep their name. However, it has changed on her website so its reasonable for us to do so. If we change, theyworkforyou.com will probably change.JRPG (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Per naming conventions, we move it when reliable sources change it - and I suspect newspapers will cotton on soon enough. If they don't change their usage, we shouldn't change the article. Bastin 22:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When a member of parliament decides to use a different name, the way it usually works is that the member's office tells the national media that he or she wants to be reported under that new name, and they generally fall into line, unless they are consciously trying to be difficult, which sometimes happens. So I would expect Louise Bagshawe/Mensch to sort it out quite quickly, and in the mean time we can wait for developments. Moonraker (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems the books will still be written by Louise Bagshawe, but the Parliamentarian will definitely be Louise Mensch. See tweet. Very difficult situation; interestingly the Evening Standard diary column today simply states that the Misplaced Pages article has had the name changed. Her biography on the Parliament website is now under Mensch. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, after seeing in the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph for today (Saturday 11 June) on page 13 a story reporting a routine political campaign in which it is 'Corby and East Northants MP Louise Mensch' helping, I've been bold and moved the page. Links have been changed but she will remain Louise Bagshawe in any mention relating to before her marriage, and also any mention relating to her career as novelist. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved back before I saw that. I did just check and have seen references in national newspapers to 'Bagshawe' since her marriage. Agree we should move as and when the balance changes. Bastin 22:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I gather she is going to go on using both names, one as a novelist (no doubt because 'Louise Bagshawe' will sell more books than 'Louise Mensch') and the other for her public or professional life, and of course she won't be the first. I suppose the question for us here is "Which aspect of this subject is more notable?" If Lewis Carroll had become a member of parliament and gone on to be Prime Minister, we should probably have our article on him at Charles Dodgson. If he had become a backbench member but no more than that, we almost certainly would still have him at Lewis Carroll. But then Bagshawe isn't Carroll. Moonraker (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Allason is an article and Nigel West is a redirect, although in that case it is a pseudonym. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We should use whatever reliable sources say, which differs on a case-by-case basis. It's not for us to determine iron laws of determining how she's most notable. We cite sources. In this case, we look at what the majority of articles by major national newspapers use to refer to her when describing her in a non-specialist way (eg not election results or book reviews). If they keep using 'Bagshawe' - for whatever reason, be it because they think her books are more important or because of inertia - Misplaced Pages does the same. Bastin 22:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In any conflict between a newspaper (even the most highly reliable newspaper) and the official publications of Parliament, I would unhesitatingly prefer the latter. A quick glance at the corrections column may explain why. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

NB Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Since that's written by her, it's not a reliable source, so is to be ignored. Your 'unhesitating' belief that primary sources trump reliable sources is at odds with Misplaced Pages policy. As far as Google News shows, there's one source that calls her Mensch, whereas quite a few still refer to her as Bagshawe. Thus, we stick with Bagshawe. Bastin 15:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying it but I think your argument is incredibly stupid. Are you saying Louise Mensch isn't a reliable source for the fact that her name is now Louise Mensch? Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the policy that I'm citing: "The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known". That is, we do not do as she requests or as her 'legal' name is. We do as reliable sources do: which happens to be Misplaced Pages policy on just about everything. It's really quite simple. If you can't understand it, don't call Misplaced Pages policy stupid. Bastin 22:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bastin's link is to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, which does not exclude relying on even self-published sources in certain circumstances. In English law, a person's name is what they call themselves, it's as simple as that, and I have no problem with someone being cited as a reliable source for what their own name is, so on that point I agree with Sam Blacketer. However, if Louise Mensch is a reliable source for the fact that her name is now Louise Mensch, it must follow that Louise Bagshawe is a reliable source for her name being Louise Bagshawe, and when she next comes to publicize a novel, whether in print or otherwise, we can be sure she will call herself Bagshawe, because that will sell more books, so are we any farther forward? Seems a pity we can't face up to the fact that many people now are called one thing in one context and another thing in another. On the whole, as in the case of Lewis Carroll/C. L. Dodgson, Misplaced Pages muddles its way through to choosing one name over the other, but the Wikipedias in different languages can and do make quite different choices. In principle, there's no reason why we couldn't have our article at Louise Bagshawe (otherwise Louise Mensch), or some such formula.

Of course, having a surname at all (or else more than one) was never essential or compulsory, it's just a social convention which is promoted now by most technocratic states, but it's already showing signs of breaking down. More and more women and other civil partners do not change their name in the workplace when they get married, and given that more than two-fifths of the births in the United Kingdom are to unmarried parents, it's becoming quite common for children to use one name at school and another on a passport. Sooner or later, we are going to need to come to terms with the increasing uncertainty of surnames. Moonraker (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think this is worth more than a few seconds discussion. The following description of Mensch's wishes is given in the Telegraph.

Louise Mensch is Conservative MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire. She is also a well-known novelist, writing under her maiden name of Louise Bagshawe.

Any newspaper wanting her to write a second article would follow her wishes, and we can't be criticised for doing the same.JRPG (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and because it's written at her request, it's not a reliable source. Otherwise, we could say (without attribution) that Policy Exchange "is an independent think tank working for better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy", that Katharine Birbalsingh "exposed the failings of the comprehensive school system at the Conservative Party conference last year", that Brendan O'Neill is "dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity", and - of course - that James Delingpole is "right about everything". Don't know about you, but it seems as though your use of puff as a source is pretty ill-advised.

Instead, and here's the point of the policy, Misplaced Pages does what newspapers do in their capacity of reporting the news. We ignore adverts, op-eds, etc - you are trying to cite adverts for op-eds! If you could please just provide sources that refute the Google News evidence I provided above that she is still better known as 'Louise Bagshawe', that'd be great. Otherwise, this isn't worth more than a few seconds' discussion. Bastin 07:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Strong consensus, valid arguments, patience (shown despite denials) now rewarded I hope. Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Louise Bagshawe → Louise Mensch – I'm out of patience with the idiocy on this page. On or about 2 June Miss Louise Bagshawe married Peter Mensch and announced that she was changing her surname. Her own website has all been changed as has her twitter account, and her Parliamentary biography. She writes as Louise Mensch, speaks as Louise Mensch, and is written about as Louise Mensch in the Independent, the Daily Star, the Mirror, and the Metro, not to mention her local paper the Northants Evening Telegraph (not online). On 7 June, page 3, is an article headed "MP changes name" which states that she will be Louise Mensch. On 9 June, page 7 and on 11 June, page 13, are articles making routine mention of "Louise Mensch" constituency activities making no mention of 'Bagshawe'. The fact that other newspapers, knowing that people may be familiar with 'Louise Bagshawe' and some unaware of her change of name, may still use it, is really neither here nor there and it is sheer idiocy to wait for them to come into line with a change which has clearly happened. If policy says different then that policy is idiotic too. Louise Bagshawe has changed her name to Louise Mensch and it is long overdue for her biography to acknowledge it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy is not idiocy. If you want to recreate "Who's Who", do that, but Misplaced Pages cites reliable third-party sources - as stated in the policy on names adopted on marriage that I linked to TWICE and to which you did not even attempt to respond. As such, all of that is irrelevant... except for the links to the news articles that refer to her as Louise Mensch. So I support the move. Bastin 15:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. It seems commonsense and therefore doesn't contradict policy which is based on commonsense. JRPG (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's clear that, since the marriage, Mensch has become the surname most commonly used in reliable sources. In addition, we (Misplaced Pages) generally do move articles of BLPs who officially change their name and have requested for their new name to be used. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Perfectly clear that it needs renaming Sotonchris (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Piers Morgan slandered -controversy

Seems to me as though the article needs a considered mention of the allegations she made against Piers Morgan. As far as I can tell (and an article in the Telegraph backs this up) she incorrectly quoted him and then refused to clarify during a live interview, resulting in 20+ news articles. I can probably have a crack at this later on, but feel free to pre-empt me... Luke.omahony87 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC) She subsequently admitted her appalling error and apologised,though under UK law, Parliamentary priviledge does not protect an MP against criminal charges (e.g. criminal slander or criminal libel).80.42.229.161 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.229.161 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

News Quiz as a reliable source source.

I note that references to her appearances in the news quiz have been removed, presumable because of verifiabilty problems. I've raised the question of TV programs before atMisplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and they say that specified TV/radio episodes are valid albeit very hard to prove. Whether any comedy program is a good place for serious political debate is a different question altogether, but at least she had her say and knew what to expect. Please ask the noticeboard if you have any concerns. JRPG (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am removing again because although there's no doubt about the actual appearance on the chat show, "was lampooned" etc is opinion and not as far as I can see backed up by any third party source such as a news report the following day, an article in a paper etc. It expresses opinion of the poster only. Am thus deleting this opinion whilst leaving reference to factuals like appearance and opinion on Occupy. Per Bastin 8 Nov 2011, up until now uncontested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.17.83 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I actually found it necessary to look the word up to ensure it wasn't falling foul of wp:npov and wasn't at all abusive. lampoon ..A light, good-humored satire seems a reasonable description of the whole show and she seemed quite comfortable during the section in question. Whilst I merely reinstated the original text, this section does seem to be the most interesting. I'll see if I can get a couple of other more experienced viewpoints. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Using audio/visual sources seems to me to be problematic, because even direct quotes are harder to verify than with written words.

In this case, it seems to me that the issue is an judgement on the nature of the subject's treatment show, and that for a wikipedia editor to make such a judgement amounts to original research. I'm inclined to go with the IP's suggestion that any such judgement should be included in the article only if it is reporting a review in a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

My objection to the News Quiz as a source is that any politician appearing on it is likely to be ridiculed -and hence the event is presumably not newsworthy. In my rulebook "lampoon" can only be used without quotes if everyone agrees this is a reasonable description -which is clearly not the case. Thanks to both. JRPG (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism?

Mrs.Mensch stood for election on the 'family values' ticket, constantly professes her Catholic faith, yet appears to be a divorcee - is one of these statements inaccurate? Is she a divorcee, or not a Catholic? Some of the information here may need to be updated.80.42.224.14 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)oddsocks80.42.224.14 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This website explains it. She can't take Holy Communion. JRPG (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. N.B. I know a married Catholic couple whose marriage is the second for both parties. They told me that when they each sought an annulment prior to marrying each other (this was in New York City around 1980), the clergy informed them that the Decree of Nullity could be received more quickly if the petitioner paid $1,000. --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick google of "Louise Mensch" "family values" appears to confirm she never stood for election on any 'family values' ticket - https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/statuses/133896610458513408 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.11.146 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Marketing Background Parodied by Cocaine-Riddled Character in BBC Mockumentary 2012

In the BBC mockumentary about the 2012 Olympics 'Deliverance Committee'< http://en.wikipedia.org/Twenty_Twelve_(TV_series)#Cast>, Ms. Mensch was portrayed as Siobhan Sharpe, the whacky-dust fuelled 'Head of Brand', and director of 'Perfect Curve' an off the wall advertising agency (played brilliantly by Jessica Hynes): I feel including a link to Ms. Mensch's reactions to this should be included.212.139.105.80 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)twl15:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Snow Patrol (Managed by Peter Mensch) chosen to play at Olympics Ceremony

Should include some background on how Peter Mensch's band 'Snow Patrol' were chosen to represent Northern Ireland at the 2012 Olympics ceremony, and the allegations that his wife exerted some pressure over the choice <http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/duran-duran-and-snow-patrol-to-play-olympic-games-opening-concert-7703467.html> . Picture of Peter Mensch at <http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=151183>.

Thanks for posting the link. This is a very serious allegation but it isn't mentioned in the article so we musn't include it in a biography of a living person.

Also I can't see proof that Snow Patrol is connected with Mensch -Jazz Summers is mentioned as manager. I'm not sure the 2nd link would count as a reliable source. Regards JRPG (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link to Mensch being their manager http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/57064. Might pop up in the newspapers as the games approach.80.42.227.99 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.227.99 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Menschn.com - technical difficulties?

There should be a section on Mrs Mensch's new business venture - the 'Menschn.com' site to rival Facebook and Twitter. The problem is, the site's 'internet wizard' (business partner Luke Bozier - who claims to have variously a former speech writer and digital advisor to Tony Blair) appears to be redirecting all internet traffic from search engines to an Amazon.co.uk site selling her books (e.g. type 'menschn.com' into IE and you reach http://www.amazon.co.uk/mn/search/?_encoding=UTF8&x=0&tag=bagshawe-21&linkCode=ur2&y=0&camp=1634&creative=19450&field-keywords=Louise%20Bagshawe&url=search-alias%3Daps). The BBC formerly reported that the 'menschn.com' address took you to a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Site (article at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18518162) - is this why Luke Bozier left his post as 'digital advisor to Blair', or is there some form of skulduggery going on? Rather glad he wasn't in charge of wiring the nuclear button up! 79.75.216.81 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)twl79.75.216.81 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well unless there is a mention in a reliable source in an article about Mensch, we can't say anything. If we had provided a link to her site which subsequently was redirected to Amazon, then it should be removed but at the moment, the media seems to be showing little interest. JRPG (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is media interest...according to Private Eye (of 13-26th July 2012, page 11), her site 'Menschn' "was full of security holes, allowing hackers to gather login and password information with ease and prompting the Information Commissioners Office to investigate......As an MP, ..she's long been obliged to register with the ICO as a processor of personal information..yet failed to get round to it before the launch, as the rules require. Nor..did it comply with the ICOs rules on cookies or privacy policies."

The 'Eye' express concern, mainly because a) Luke Bozier her business partner has worked as a 'digital advisor to the UK Government' b) failing to register is a criminal offence in the UK, and any MP convicted of a criminal offence can be forced to resign, and c) this MP has been the scourge of those who abuse people's privac on the Commons Select Committee on phone hacking.79.75.215.227 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)twl79.75.215.227 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very cautious about reliable sources and wouldn't choose Private Eye which has fallen foul of libel law a few times. I personally prefer BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent as they're online and their lawyers will check their facts. I seriously doubt she will be in breech of the Data Protection Act to the extent to which she would be prosecuted but if she has, it will soon be picked up by other sources. I would wait to see if this happens. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Resignation as MP

It is on the news that she is going to resign as an MP, no sourcing on this at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

http://news.sky.com/story/969338/louise-mensch-to-step-down-as-mp also her twitter https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.178.15 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Odd - according to MSN news reports (http://news.uk.msn.com/blog/trending-blogpost.aspx?post=00168ca2-e221-4b79-a64c-46dc78dcd677) she tweeted '"I am devastated by the necessary decision that I have had to announce today. It has been an incredible honour serving the people of #CorbyEN"' - which implies she was compelled to resign. Last seen at the Olympics wearing a sponsor's T Shirt reading 'Things Go Better With Coke', one wonders if she will be replaced by a femal Olympic Gold Medallist (drug free)?212.139.108.18 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.108.18 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

She has not resigned at yet, and remains an MP at present. Resigning as an MP isn't as simple as just saying you're not doing the job any more, see Resignation from the British House of Commons. Until she's actually appointed to an office of profit under the Crown, she remains an MP. To that end, I've edited the article to remove things like the end date of her term, which isn't correct. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as it's all over the media, the article looks a bit out of date, at least by a few hours. Don't call me Shirley, but shouldn't it be reflected in the article that she has handed in her resignation?1812ahill (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It does! What version are you looking at? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely you don't expect her to know about tiny Parliamentary details like that?I'm pretty sure that in E-Parliament, all you do is 'unfriend' your electorate and accept a salaried job writing a fictious column for GQ magazine.79.70.228.178 (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.228.178 (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Menshn merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Menshn into Louise Mensch. -- Widefox (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure this website is notable right now. Perhaps the best place is keeping inside her article. Widefox (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that. If it becomes more important it can be separated but it only has one reliable source and it lacks notability independently of Mensch herself. JRPG (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Not really notable right now, but perhaps one day. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

clarify: there's a lot of news articles generated about this new topic, which IMHO are notable because of her. Widefox (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the Menshn page were merged into Louise Mensch. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Is the reason for not removing this discussion from the page in any way connected with Luke Bozier's attempts to drive traffic towards the failing 'M#n##n' site???? And as that would be an advertising/marketing ploy, does that breach Wiki rules on advertising?79.70.232.67 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)LCTanner79.70.232.67 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Now Employed By Rupert Murdoch On The Times

Could you mention the fact that since leaving office, she has taken up employment as a column writer with Rupert Murdoch's publication (Times: source Private Eye 1323 21 Sept - 4 Oct 2012 page 8)- seems to compromise her high-faluting stance regarding sleazy relationships between the media /politicians, if not the entire Levinson Inquiry. 79.70.235.251 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.235.251 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, you should mention that she has a new job with the Times but to say its owned by Murdoch is a little too pointed. I don't regard Private Eye as a reliable or very neutral source but I would expect other papers to pick it up shortly. If you find a better source and need help citing it please quote it here. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, your far-fetched point that this compromises (or, to word it in a more "sleazy" manner, seems to compromise) "her high-faluting stance regarding sleazy relationships between the media /politicians, if not the entire Levinson Inquiry" is entirely your POV, which would have to be sourced as a published POV as well, and for certain added only as an opinion.

I say far-fetched because while the Times column might lead to Mrs Mensch being questioned about consistency, such a later employment cannot impinge upon the merit of her earlier stance. Str1977 11:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Distancing herself from business partner Bozier -claims she didn't check his CV?

In the wake of Bozier's alleged downloading of child pornography (he asserts his accounts were hacked), Mrs. Mensch was quoted in this Daily Mail article ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249030/Louise-Menschs-business-partner-exaggerated-links-Tony-Blair-bid-woo-investors-failing-company.html) as being oblivious to the over-exaggerations in his CV, didn't check it and 'took him on trust'. Are there any links to the press launch of their 'silicon valley backed' IT company, in which his hyperinflated links to Tony Blair are actually mentioned? 79.70.236.95 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.236.95 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting but be very careful about the Daily Mail in the article. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source

The best advice is to stick to Misplaced Pages:Suggested sources. Its unlikely any experienced editor will remove a link to one of these sources unless there is already sufficient coverage of the point being made as per wp:undue JRPG (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Media

There are two very short sections about the media ('The Sun' and 'Other Media'). What do people think about a merge? EdwardRussell (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of the Daily Mail

Special:Contributions/50.74.11.146 has removed an item referenced by the Daily Mail. It should not have been included.

According to WP:Suggested sources one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun."According to WP:BLPSOURCES, Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. JRPG (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of properly cited reference to an article by Hadley Freeman

I note that the Guardian article which references Theodor Herzl has been deleted. It was in the wrong section and was, I believe wp:undue but I will restore a shortened version shortly. JRPG (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

One opinion article, criticizing someone for their Tweets, is surely not notable enough for its own section in a BLP Avaya1 (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Clare" and the NME

I've removed this section again. There's nothing to support the claim that it's a "controversy". The article itself contains nothing that could be construed as controversial, not is is critical - if anything it's entirely neutral, with no opinion either way.

The fact that an editor thinks it's controversial is not enough. That's original research, and not applicable for Misplaced Pages. The claim needs to be backed up by additional sources that specifically say she stirred up high feelings - ie controversy.

Secondly, the addition is poorly written. Simply reverting it and putting back in badly written prose is not the way to persuade people that your version is best. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Eva Carneiro

Has Mensch ever written anything about the continued disgraceful treatment of Eva Carneiro? JRPG (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Have I Got News For You

Does her appearance on Have I Got News For You really need to be mentioned? I mean, I watched that episode, and the show is satirical so I don't think it caused that much controversy, did it? Also, the source listed doesn't say that it caused controversy, but just said what happened. What does everyone else think?  Seagull123  Φ  21:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The source listed is http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2012/aug/06/louise-mensch-six-mensch-moments and it is in the Louise Mensch#Controversy section.  Seagull123  Φ  21:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph, and several other paragraphs from this section. It seems that people have been adding to it without appreciating what 'controversies' means: it means something she did which provoked significant criticism and dispute. Much of this section was just 'she said something provocative' with no evidence of any criticism arising as a result. We need to be really careful with sections like this, particularly in BLPs, and only include real, genuine, significant controversies, and not just any old Twitter talking point of the week. (Even what remains is probably still somewhat excessive, but I'll leave it at that for now.) Robofish (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Political views?

I feel like Mensch's political views should be included under personal life section. Thoughts? Mention me as you reply to this. matieszyn (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs as sources

Please note WP:RS##Exceptions allows the use of blogs by professional journalists even if they are reporting twitter material. Twitter is normally a wp:Primary
JRPG (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Guardian article says she no longer heads Heat Street

Seems like the article should be updated. TimidGuy (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section

The whole section was a trivia-like collection of items of varying quality. The more more substantive items could be integrated into other sections, which left the section with a list of tweets and reactions of questionable notablity. Hence I move the entire thing over here, for further comments. Str1977 12:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This article contains a list of miscellaneous information. Please relocate any relevant information into other sections or articles.

In 2013, Mensch regularly appeared in the media after the death of Margaret Thatcher, calling those who celebrated her death a "vocal minority", "idiots", and "pygmies".

In June 2014 Mensch tweeted "F*** you, Greece. Nasty things happening to nasty people." The remarks were later reported in Greek media and press.

Mensch has been accused in UK newspapers of combining a tenaciously philosemitic defence of "the Jewish people" with an ignorance of Jewish history. She once tweeted that the term Zionist was merely an antisemitic code word for Jew; when asked by another user whether she would consider Theodor Herzl – one of the founding fathers of Zionism — antisemitic if he were to use the term, Mensch replied in the affirmative.

The controversy / criticism section is relevant and should remain; however, the way it was presented in the article as "trivia" is unencyclopedic at best and should be reworked. — Confession0791 21:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

These barely formed Internet debates are indeed trivia and I vote for keeping them out of the article. Connor Behan (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

They are well-sourced. Who says they're "insignificant"? — Confession0791 06:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that they are completely run-of-the-mill. The articles aren't focused on Mensch, they aren't on the "news" section of the newspaper websites and they didn't lead to any protests, boycotts firings or anything else in real life. If Mensch were hardly ever vocal except for these few times, or if she expressed a really unexpected opinion, they might be significant. But she speaks her mind constantly. Plus liking Thatcher and complementing Jews without researching them are both quite common. This is literally just her saying something, someone else disagreeing and everyone moving on. Connor Behan (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Silcocks, James (9 April 2013). "Margaret Thatcher Dies: The Reaction to the Reaction". The Huffington Post.
2. Jones, Oliver (13 April 2013). "Opinion: Thatcher – respect her funeral and respect our right to protest". TNT.
3. "Ex-British MP Mensch labels Greece 'racist' over ADL poll results". Kathimerini. 11 June 2014.
4. Freeman, Hadley (7 November 2014). "God save us from the philosemitism of Burchill, Amis and Mensch". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
5. "Louise Mensch's Latest Twitter Gaffe Is Her Best Yet". The Huffington Post UK. 18 August 2014. Retrieved 28 May 2015.
6. "Louise Mensch makes a tweet of herself over anti-Semitism". London Evening Standard. 18 August 2014. Retrieved 28 May 2015.

BLP Smears

This article is full of BLP smears in the form of poorly-sourced extraordinary claims, POV language, and UNDUE details that portray Ms. Mensch in an unfavourable light. In two recent instances I have removed the offending text, only to see them immediately reinserted.

The term "property speculator" is applied to Ms. Mensch's former husband in a single source, and has been taken out of context to insinuate the negative tenor of "speculator" into the article. By contrast, this gent is widely and accurately described in abundant RS as a "property developer", the well-documented career for which he is known. See . This article is under Discretionary Sanctions and Arbcom expects us not to play around and edit-war BLP smears into these articles. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So cite the sources and change the language. Jeez. Also, where did you get the idea that this article is under AE? Mensch's own words have earned her significant notoriety (to the point she was asked on BBC primetime whether or not she "has lost her mind") li). Like it or not, that's not something you can do anything about, unless you can find evidence that Putin really did murder Andrew Breitbart.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I left the DS template on your talk page after you violated BLP, so I suggest you read it. Rapidfire deletions of DS notices are really not comme il faut. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well what does it have to do with my revert of your unsourced edits? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@S. Although I think that part can stay after some editing, I have no significant objections to removing it altogether as you did . Just saying. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible that there's a kernel of good content in parts of this article, I agree. There's also other noteworthy and well-sourced content that can be added with some further research. However @Guccisamsclub: should undo the recent reinsertions of BLP violations and be aware that this article falls under DS. Please read WP:BLPSOURCE and do not reinsert content that violates policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to delete well-sourced, notable and uncontroversial material. This material consists of Mensch's own statements, as quoted by numerous RS, which invariably and explicitly characterize them as conspiracy theories. No sane person, never mind a reliable source, has disputed this characterization. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Gucci, you say "no sane person has disputed..." I "disputed" this when I removed the BLP violation and opened the current talk page thread. BLP smear violations may not be reinserted for any reason. Please review this thread. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because you called them "BLP smear violations" does not mean they are. You've already had ample time to "dispute" the content. Have you have disputed that these are — as the sources say — "conspiracy theories"? No. Or have you disputed that Mensch actually said those things? No. Have argued that the sources are being misquoted? No. Have you tried to explain why this content might theoretically be contentious? No. Here's what you have done: you have deleted sourced content with a false edit summary; threatened me with DS and then refused to explain why; cried BLP without bringing up a single specific source or claim. None of these are not valid ways of challenging sourced content. Stop wasting my time — I've stopped wasting yours and mine on the "Russian Interference" article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

On March 24th 2017 Mrs. Mensch told on American HBO TV channel's "Real Time with Bill Maher" show, that the London parliament killer guy wasn't an islamic terrorist at all. She even said the Islamic State is actually supported by Russia sending: "Russia is sending Chechnyan militants into ISIS and they are absolutely trying to leverage this against a billion peacefull people - thats what I believe"

Maybe her thoughts should be covered in the article as well

Were these remarks discussed in secondary, independent, reliable sources? If so, which and what was the focus of the coverage? SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

BLP problems regarding weakly sourced and undue edits are being discussed at BLPN here. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If you bothered to WP:LISTEN (or cared), you'd know that the discussion was already over. Outcome: your gripe with this content has no merit whatsoever. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Case

@Anthonyhcole: responding to this

• Promote is NOT "right", because these conspiracy theories originate with Mensch. She is not "promoting" or sharing theories invented by others. "Put forth" is right.
• "Believe" is also textually wrong. None of the other statements in the sentence contain the word "belief". If you really what to be precise, it should read "absolutely believe" and be separated from the other statements. As @SlimVirgin: pointed out on BLPN, the distinction between stated and "said that believed" is without a difference. I'll add that this absurd emphasis on "belief" is WP:UNDUE, and sourced to only Mesch's own WP:PRIMARY and confusing self-defense, and thus reflects Mensch's POV that her "belief" in these theories is morally equivalent to religious faith. (This makes Mensch sound even crazier, so I'm not sure what people are trying to accomplish by stressing this aspect.) But Mensch also said she had evidence, and this is the aspect that is stressed by the The Independent piece. So why not put that in too? But this is not the place for semantics: "stated" is both accurate, neutral, and to short. It is therefore preferable.
• Lastly the material from Rolling Stone was both uncontroversially true (it's what Mensch said) and reliably sourced to the Russia expert Matt Taibbi. Yet you removed it with no justification. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

1. The BBC video clearly demonstrates that Mensch was stating a belief, not reporting a confirmed fact as would a journalist. This was discussed and confirmed on RSN, and you should drop the stick on that one, WP:TE and all that.

2 Taibbi is a marginal source in a fringey publication and any content worth putting in a BLP will have better sourcing available. Taibbi has no standing as a "russia expert" among the literate and well-informed public. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Not a response to my objection. 2. Rolling Stone is RS, and Taibbi has worked as a journalist in Russia for a decade and speaks fluent Russian. You calling him "marginal" among the "among the literate and well-informed public" (can't make this shit up) is a fact-free statement that has zero weight. You can call him fried chicken, for all I care. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fail. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Taibbi, Russia, conspiracy theories etc

Further to the above section, and this content specifically, it seems suitable for inclusion. Mensch is currently one of the more vocal people pushing a pretty extreme Trump/Putin line. Indeed, it is pretty much all she tweets and blogs about currently. In doing so, she is also quite open in criticising people for purportedly being Russian shills or agents etc, and this, along with her general line on Russia is something that has attracted attention, from Taibbi and plenty of others. Taibbi is a serious and well-known author and journalist, and Rolling Stone is fine as a source. All the Russia stuff actually needs to be better reflected in the lead too, with due weight (it needs expanding as a whole). N-HH talk/edits 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

UNDUE weight to denigrating commentary in marginal publications by marginal commentators is a violation of our core BLP policy. BLP is not just saying Mr. X looks like a drunken donkey. Giving disproportionate prominence to sensationalist or recentist negative remarks, without context or balance, is the essence of BLP, and this stuff is an unwarranted smear with vague and disparaging insinuations. I'd hardly call Taibbi a "journalist". But at any rate, if there is a specific documented fact reported in that publication, let's see it and we can discuss putting it in the article. Undocumented, unspecified, smears or references to "her general line" without specifics we can scrutinize don't fit WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The content in question is not denigrating. It simply documents, in a perfectly reliable source, what she is on record (and it seems not at all ashamed of) openly doing. What "smears" are involved exactly? I'd accept that there would be a problem if we were simply citing empty critical commentary on Mensch – eg comments describing her as a shill or whatever – but this is not what the content consists of. There are no BLP concerns. Your frankly bizarre comment about Taibbi "hardly" being a journalist skirt closer to a problem in that regard. N-HH talk/edits 06:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ps: I won't die in a ditch for this precise content, but she has an incredibly vocal and aggressive presence on Twitter and her blog on the Trump/Russia/Putin issue, something which is widely recorded in reliable sources. Taibbi's piece itself is quite polemical (and as noted I would not support quoting those elements of it) but, per your request for "specific documented fact", these comments of Mensch's are explicitly singled out and highlighted, and directly verified with cites and links in the article. N-HH talk/edits 07:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that SPECIFICO has fought about this endlessly, both here and on BLPN. Since the material consists entirely of Mensch's own statements as quoted in RS, her concerns got absolutely no traction. But she still keeps trying to delete the content she doesn't like, after the consensus ruled against her. This amounts to vandalism. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH:Article improvement tags should not be removed until the cited issue is resolved. Contrary to your edit summary when you removed the tag, I did specify the problem, which is still unresolved. You can review WP policy concerning article improvement tags if this is of further concern to you, but please restore the tag and let's work on finding better-sourced and more specific content cited to better sources. Ms. Mensch is a flamboyant figure and an avid blogger, but the content I removed was not informative and has the character of weasel-worded non-specific smear. If you feel that better article text can be cited to that Taibbi piece, please propose it and perhaps the issue can be resolved that way. I do happen to disagree with you about Taibbi. He is not widely respected as a journalist despite a few famous sayings and a relatively small output of high quality writing among a lot of lesser stuff. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I'm looking over some of Taibbi's recent work in that publication. Would you put this Taibbi description of Pres. Trump's cabinet in a WP article: "the most fantastic collection of creeps since the "Thriller" video. Many were blunderers and conspiracists whose sole qualification for office appeared to be their open hostility to the missions of the agencies they were tapped to run"? I wouldn't but I think it's in the same tone as much of his writing - possibly entertaining, occasionally on point, but not encyclopedic. It's a genre of punditry and pop-opinion writing that's become widespread in the last decade, but it rarely provides good sources for WP article text. If the material is noteworthy, there will be better sources that can be cited regarding the underlying facts and issues. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"the most fantastic collection of creeps since the "Thriller" video. Many were blunderers and conspiracists whose sole qualification for office appeared to be their open hostility to the missions of the agencies they were tapped to run". Perfectly accurate and direct statement, backed by FACTS. It merely proves that Taibbi is a journalist who is willing to hold all feet to the fire. But regardless of whether it's the Trumpkins or Mensch, nobody is taking about labeling anybody a "creep" on Misplaced Pages. We are only citing the notable and uncontroversial FACTS. They are notable because the most prominent reliable sources on this topic say they are. They are uncontroversial because they are her OWN PUBLIC STATEMENTS. If the facts make someone look insane or creepy, that's not Misplaced Pages's problem. This discussion is totally exhausted and you lost. You should have WP:DROPPEDTHESTICK weeks ago. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While articles should not denigrate people, they should present them as they are perceived in reliable sources. Mensch has made claims that go beyond what the mainstream media has found credible and characterizes Trump and others in an extemely negative light again, even by the standards of mainstream media. Readers should know that. TFD (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sweetheart, I know you don't respect Taibbi anywhere near enough to cite his opinion as a noteworthy fact relating to Ms. Mensch. Any more than we'd cite her opinion of Taibbi. As I've repeatedly said, her tweets and blog writings are distinctive and should be covered as they're covered in RS mainstream literature. Rock n' Roll mag snark-style essay copy? Not so good. Maybe there's even a grain of WP article content in that tabloid article? If so The WP:BURDEN to craft policy compliant text is on those who wish to insert. That would be far easier than wasting time defending a blatant weasel-worded BLP smear. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"anywhere near enough to cite his opinion". Sweetheart, it's not his fucking "opinion" — it's an easily verifiable FACT. Drawing any kind of equivalence between Mensch and Taibbi is completely absurd. Finally Taibbi in Rolling Stone is probably the most notable "commentator" (i.e. journalist) cited in the whole stupid article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're still going on about "smears" and "opinions". As has been pointed out several times now, the material taken from the Taibbi piece is not his commentary, but an account of Mensch's own comments, explicitly cited and referenced to her own writings by Taibbi. This really isn't a complicated or obscure distinction, generally speaking or in this case. And why bother asking me whether I would include his commentary on Trump's cabinet, when I *explicitly* said, in the comments you were purporting to respond to, that I would not include the "polemical" elements of the piece or indeed any "empty critical commentary" on Mensch? I spend my life here trying to stop people dumping things like that into pages. And fine, you don't rate Taibbi and think Rolling Stone is and always has been simply a "rock and roll" magazine. You're entitled to your opinions. N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article content makes overly general "weasel" comments. As I've repeatedly stated, if there is more encyclopedic text that can be verified by the Taibbi piece, it should be proposed here. I think Taibbi is roughly in a category with, say Keith Oblermann at "GQ Magazine" and its web content, although Oblermann has been presented by well-regarded news organizations in the past. Taibbi is not RS for anything more than his personal opinion, which we could consider if specific well-formulated article text were to be proposed. I have no opinion of him but by his own admission he is erratic and sometimes irresponsible and unduly dramatic. Where there's important material, there's always more than a single questionable source. That's kinda the first rule of due weight and WP sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of artists and entertainers
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of politicians and government-people
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Women writers articles
• Mid-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• Start-Class University of Oxford articles
• Low-importance University of Oxford articles
• Start-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing images
• Start-Class Northamptonshire articles
• Unknown-importance Northamptonshire articles