Talk:Louise Haigh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:20, 30 November 2024 editRachelTensions (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,429 edits →Category:British politicians convicted of fraud: rm unnecessary/uncivil comment← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:11, 2 December 2024 edit undoDrSchrodi (talk \| contribs)19 edits →Category:British politicians convicted of fraud: ReplyTag: Reply
(14 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 19:		Line 19:

	:Recommend locking page as it pertains to current event. ] (]) 08:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)		:Recommend locking page as it pertains to current event. ] (]) 08:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm puzzled that the current version says LH "pleaded guilty to making a false report to police at magistrates' court". Guardian and other sources state that she actually pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation, a significantly more serious offence. ] (]) 17:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

	The first sentence of the article contains mention of the conviction. I removed it and was reverted - I have given that user a warning under ] as that was their third revert on this article today. To talk about the general principle it seems we generally only mention convictions in the first sentence for very serious offences. I am unable to find anything immediately in BLP specifically about this, but ] says		The first sentence of the article contains mention of the conviction. I removed it and was reverted - I have given that user a warning under ] as that was their third revert on this article today. To talk about the general principle it seems we generally only mention convictions in the first sentence for very serious offences. I am unable to find anything immediately in BLP specifically about this, but ] says
Line 30:		Line 31:
	:: ] (]) 00:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)		:: ] (]) 00:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::I wasnt suggesting that, I was responding to the point above ] (]) 00:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)		:::I wasnt suggesting that, I was responding to the point above ] (]) 00:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::For what it’s worth, I think it’s incredibly relevant to her notability, and probably the only reason we’re having this discussion. The crime is not insignificant in my opinion, with fraud being on the rise and significantly affecting large sections of the population, often with catastrophic consequences. ] (]) 16:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Soapboxing to make an example out of the subject of this article because you think incidences of fraud are on the rise isn't an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::This is verbatim the definition of notability in Misplaced Pages : Notability is demonstrated using reliable sourcesaccording to the corresponding Misplaced Pages guideline. Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that credible sources "exercise some form of editorial control."
			::::::given this news store and her conviction have been reported by almost all major trustworthy news publications in the UK, how is this not notable? ] (]) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't think anyone is saying the incident is not notable; if it weren't notable then it wouldn't be included in the article at all. What we're saying is putting the fact that she's a "convicted criminal" within the first 3 lines of her biography because of a fraud conviction 10 years ago for which she received a conditional discharge gives the incident undue weight.{{pb}}The incident ''is'' included and ''should'' be included, but not as prominently as you're trying to make it. ] (]) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I’m happy with that explanation. Thank you for taking the time to explain. ] (]) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

	== Subtitles ==		== Subtitles ==
Line 49:		Line 56:
	:@], those requirements are needed to qualify category inclusion for an {{tq\|q=y\|incident that is relevant to the person's notability}}. Well she was notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article long ''before'' that incident became widely known, so that would suggest that that incident is ''not'' relevant to her notability, so that category should not be added. -- ] (]). 17:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)		:@], those requirements are needed to qualify category inclusion for an {{tq\|q=y\|incident that is relevant to the person's notability}}. Well she was notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article long ''before'' that incident became widely known, so that would suggest that that incident is ''not'' relevant to her notability, so that category should not be added. -- ] (]). 17:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	::I'd argue that most of the people in that category would be notable without their convictions given that members of parliament qualify as notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article under ], based on the simple fact that they've held national office.{{pb}}If "the conviction must be the sole reason for establishing notability for a Misplaced Pages article" is where we we're drawing the line then that category should be almost empty. ] (]) 17:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)		::I'd argue that most of the people in that category would be notable without their convictions given that members of parliament qualify as notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article under ], based on the simple fact that they've held national office.{{pb}}If "the conviction must be the sole reason for establishing notability for a Misplaced Pages article" is where we we're drawing the line then that category should be almost empty. ] (]) 17:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::What happens in other articles is the responsibility of their editors, and no matter what they choose to do, it has no bearing on this article. -- ] (]). 17:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::So I guess by the standard you're applying here then no national politicians should ever be included in any criminal categories? ] (]) 17:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::We'd need to weigh each case individually. The conviction here though, I would say, has hardly any significance at all. If she wasn't a government minister, it would probably have remained forgotten forever. -- ] (]). 17:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I agree, but surely that is the same for all
			::::::Those convicted during the expenses scandal? ] (]) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I would suggest that perhaps the difference is that the expenses scandal was malfeasance -in- office; which this is not. I checked every page in the category and they did all seem to be either malfeasance in office, or resulted in custodial sentences so it seems like that's where we've been placing the bar. ] (]) 19:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Thank you, I think that’s a fair and valid rule (only criminal acts during or after office), unless maybe resulting in a sentence (suspended or not) of over a year? If so, I’ll add this to the wp:criminal ] (]) 19:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Protection level ==

			Can we further protect this page? A certain user is persistently inserting the same unhelpful and libellous sentence in the lead. ] (]) 11:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Had a look at this and found that the user has not even been warned as yet! ] (]) 21:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:11, 2 December 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Louise Haigh is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

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.

Does the photograph need updating? The picture on her website is almost unrecognisable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.101.76 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

014 louise haigh.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Resignation over stolen mobile phone

Topic to discuss latest events under Star-one (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Recommend locking page as it pertains to current event. 86.10.36.86 (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that the current version says LH "pleaded guilty to making a false report to police at magistrates' court". Guardian and other sources state that she actually pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation, a significantly more serious offence. 88.97.32.239 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article contains mention of the conviction. I removed it and was reverted - I have given that user a warning under WP:3RR as that was their third revert on this article today. To talk about the general principle it seems we generally only mention convictions in the first sentence for very serious offences. I am unable to find anything immediately in BLP specifically about this, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL says

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability

which I think is some guidance about this should be handled - especially the actual inclusion in the category. Morwen (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering she quit from her high profile job for being a convicted fraudster, id say that she now has a "poor reputation" lol 2A00:23C4:B938:F501:386D:8B9F:247:2A0D (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to her notability though - the incident was 10 years ago and she was notable before knowledge of it became public.

RachelTensions (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasnt suggesting that, I was responding to the point above 2A00:23C4:B938:F501:386D:8B9F:247:2A0D (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I think it’s incredibly relevant to her notability, and probably the only reason we’re having this discussion. The crime is not insignificant in my opinion, with fraud being on the rise and significantly affecting large sections of the population, often with catastrophic consequences. DrSchrodi (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Soapboxing to make an example out of the subject of this article because you think incidences of fraud are on the rise isn't an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages. RachelTensions (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is verbatim the definition of notability in Misplaced Pages : Notability is demonstrated using reliable sourcesaccording to the corresponding Misplaced Pages guideline. Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that credible sources "exercise some form of editorial control."

given this news store and her conviction have been reported by almost all major trustworthy news publications in the UK, how is this not notable? DrSchrodi (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying the incident is not notable; if it weren't notable then it wouldn't be included in the article at all. What we're saying is putting the fact that she's a "convicted criminal" within the first 3 lines of her biography because of a fraud conviction 10 years ago for which she received a conditional discharge gives the incident undue weight.The incident is included and should be included, but not as prominently as you're trying to make it. RachelTensions (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy with that explanation. Thank you for taking the time to explain. DrSchrodi (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Subtitles

Our assertion regarding Haigh's involvement with a subtitling amendment is not supported by the source, which doesn't even mention her. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of fraud

Can we get a quick consensus over whether Ms. Haigh should be included in Category:British politicians convicted of fraud? It was added at some point over the last few days, and then recently removed citing WP:BLPCRIMINAL.

Ms. Haigh is a British politician who, according to reliable sources (and Ms. Haigh herself), has been convicted of fraud, so she fits the category. A passage of WP:BLPCRIMINAL that comes into play is:

Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal

In this case, I believe we can all agree that the second, third, and fourth requirements are all met in this case; the only one that is up for debate is if the incident is "relevant to the person's notability". I would say that Ms. Haigh is very obviously independently notable regardless of the fraud case, however the fraud conviction and her resignation over its existence has now become part of her notability (at least insofar as qualifying for inclusion in the category).

Thoughts? RachelTensions (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@RachelTensions, those requirements are needed to qualify category inclusion for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability. Well she was notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article long before that incident became widely known, so that would suggest that that incident is not relevant to her notability, so that category should not be added. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that most of the people in that category would be notable without their convictions given that members of parliament qualify as notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article under WP:POLITICIAN, based on the simple fact that they've held national office.If "the conviction must be the sole reason for establishing notability for a Misplaced Pages article" is where we we're drawing the line then that category should be almost empty. RachelTensions (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens in other articles is the responsibility of their editors, and no matter what they choose to do, it has no bearing on this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

So I guess by the standard you're applying here then no national politicians should ever be included in any criminal categories? RachelTensions (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We'd need to weigh each case individually. The conviction here though, I would say, has hardly any significance at all. If she wasn't a government minister, it would probably have remained forgotten forever. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but surely that is the same for all

Those convicted during the expenses scandal? DrSchrodi (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that perhaps the difference is that the expenses scandal was malfeasance -in- office; which this is not. I checked every page in the category and they did all seem to be either malfeasance in office, or resulted in custodial sentences so it seems like that's where we've been placing the bar. Morwen (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that’s a fair and valid rule (only criminal acts during or after office), unless maybe resulting in a sentence (suspended or not) of over a year? If so, I’ll add this to the wp:criminal DrSchrodi (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Protection level

Can we further protect this page? A certain user is persistently inserting the same unhelpful and libellous sentence in the lead. Quickenedeasy (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Had a look at this and found that the user has not even been warned as yet! Keith D (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: