Talk:Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox/Archive 1

Why are you removing valid criticisms ?--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Clash of civilizations"

"aiming to bring about a 'Clash of civilizations'" -is pretty specific. I think we need a cite here. Armon 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is a fellow "moderate" Canadian attacking a 69 year old lady. I think you overestimate her powers. I think many other people could take credit for that and I can assure you that is not her intention. Read Samuel Huntington and get back to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.72.56 (talk • contribs)

Funniest book I've read since The Stones of Venice, why? Septentrionalis 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of this article

In response to a mediation request from User:Irishpunktom I have received comments from both sides of the discussion about this article (here). Please refrain from any of the article until these have been considered and we can have an adult discussion about matters on this talk page. Kcordina ^Talk 13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues to resolve

Below are my comments on some parts of the disputed section. This is aimed to form into a discussion of the parts of the section. Please join in and add your thoughts on each part.

Her books have been republished on the British National Party website [2] - As per hale-Byrne, the books are not published by the BNP, but rather are available via the BNP website. This sentance is misleading, and, I think, mentioning that the books are available on the BNP is not necessary, as it carries with it some unwritten implication that the book endorses the BNP. I'd suggest leaving this statement out.

She is a member of the Jerusalem Summit - Irishpunktom says she is, Hale-Byrne says she isn't. This reference [1] (the website of the summit), supplied by Irishpunktom, clearly states that Caroline Cox is a co-president of the summit, which sounds like being a member to me. This statement therefore seems fine (with the insertion of the reference).

The issue of the description of the Jerusalem summit can be addressed when we draft a new article.

he had endorsed a book written by The reference cited for this part seems to support the paragraph, and has not been disputed. I see no reason for it not to be included, it certainly seems relevent.

Cox is a patron of the Christian Institute Could do with a reference for this, but sounds like relevent information if sourced.

Cox relinquishing the Conservative whip in the Lords This seems at odds with Hale-Byrnes view of Caroline's involvement in the Lords. A cite would be useful (have asked dbiv for one). Kcordina ^Talk 13:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've investigated and the loss of the whip was actually unconnected - explanation and source added. David | Talk 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the BNP bit. On investigation the Christian Institute mention appears to be a bit off. The only 'Patron of the Christian Institute' was Janet Young, Baroness Young who died a few years ago. Perhaps the two have been confused? Baroness Cox is a Director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, but this is a separate organisation; she does not seem to have any formal links with the Christian Institute although she has spoken at some of their meetings. For example AR1999-2000_backup_web.pdf here it is said "We were pleased to invite Baroness Cox to Tyneside to speak about her work with Christian Solidarity Worldwide" and this report seems to indicate her general agreement with the Christian Institute. Perhaps the article should be worded "Cox is close to the Christian Institute, having spoken at events they have organised". David | Talk 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

I have just reverted Hale-Byrne again who clearly does not understand the British Peerage and how titles work. Baroness Cox has the life Barony of Cox. Her title is not 'Baroness Cox of Queensbury'. Queensbury is a territorial designation and not part of the title. (See Baroness Thatcher - she is not 'Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven') The good people over at Wikiproject Peerage will say the same thing.

As a Baroness she would often be referred to as "Lady Cox" but that is not an additional title. The only way she would get to be 'Lady Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox' would be if she was the daughter of a Duke or Marquess, which she isn't. See the Manual of Style on naming. David | Talk 15:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Councillor David Boothroyd does not understand the British Peerage, but this is not a major point and I can not believe he is behaving like this. Please check this out. She is The Baroness Cox, of Queensbury, I have the Register of Lords Interests in my lap at this very moment. But why is David editing the page at this time of mediation? Also, do we need this page? Why was this created in the first place? What is the motive? Thank you, Andrew

Come on folks, please stop making edits to the article. I know it's now not in the form everyone agrees on, but for the sake of being able to have a sensible discussion, leave it be for now. On the subject of titles, I have found this reasonably authoritative source, which would appear to suggest the title is THE BARONESS COX, of Queensbury, Greater London (Caroline Anne Love), OR The Rt Hon The Baroness Cox. Comments?

I am happy with this list. Thank you, Hale-Byrne.

On the subject of why this page is here; it is here because wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles on subjects of interest to people. The fact that this subject is of interest is clearly shown by the level of discussion here. If you don't think the page should be here, then put it up on Articles for deletion and see what the result of that discussion is. Kcordina ^Talk 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I will take it up on Articles for deletion. Thank you, Hale-Byrne.

This is a settled matter of Wikipedia style. Territorial designations are never used. See Margaret Thatcher and the commented out instructions to editors at the top for a firm instruction. See List of Life Peerages under January 24, 1983 to see that "of Queensbury" is a territorial designation AND NOT PART OF THE TITLE. I don't give a toss what she puts on her business card, and Burkes Peerage has a different style to Wikipedia. Please stop wrecking the article this way. Incidentally I edit Wikipedia as an individual, not a councillor. I consider your reference to my real life status threatening and request you not to do so. David | Talk 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the list of peers at the House of Lords website [2]. It clearly says just Cox, while for some other peers it says X of Y. The biography at DodOnline confirms this (it's linked from there - I can't link directly from here). I've added her title including territotial qualification to the "House of Lords" section of the article. JRawle (Talk) 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Burke's is not really a reliable source; it should not be relied on when other references are available. Septentrionalis 02:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox Mtiedemann 08:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Burkes Peerage is clearly a the difinitive source. Any statement to the contrary is absurd. Caroline goes simply by Baroness Cox and the longer form. Both are correct. She was created the Baroness Cox, of Queensbury. Just contact the Garter King-of-Arms. Hale-Byrne.

Without wishing to be provocative, do you consider Burkes Peerage to be the definitive source or a defintive source? There is a difference. In either case, Burkes contrasts with the (seemingly) official list here, which means we have to pick a source. I'm inclined to suspect the page published by a part of the UK government is more definitive than the other one.

On a different note, Hale-Brye, _please_ consider the comment I left on your talk page and sign your comments. It really does make it a lot easier to follow. Kcordina ^Talk 10:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the situation

Currently, there are two opinions here -

• Hale-Byrne, supports the use of THE BARONESS COX, of Queensbury, Greater London (Caroline Anne Love). Hale-Byrne has not supplied references in support of this, other than to claim that is what is used on her business card. Burkes peerage does support this name, but Septentrionalis says this isn't a reliable source.

• Dbiv, supports the use of Caroline Ann Cox, Baroness Cox. He has supplied List of Life Peerages as a reference which supports this. Talk also supplied a reference to the official House of Lords list, which supports the view that of Queensbury is not part of her title. This is further confirmed by these biographies [3] and [4] which support the presence of a place in some cases, but show it not used in the current case. There is also the fact that the wikipedia style is not to use designations (see Margaret Thatcher's article).

I am here as an impartial mediator so am going to try to not come down on either side of the argument, but would council both parties to review the above, in an impartial, open mind, without being influenced by the history of this article, and provide what comments.

Hale-Byrne, please see some additional comments on your talk page. Kcordina ^Talk 08:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I am beginning to understand naming now. Caroline Cox has the title of Baroness Cox, with a Territorial designation of Queensbury, and a possible full title is thus Baroness Cox, of Queensbury. This contrasts with the case where the title includes a place - for example Lord Cope of Berkeley. (see Territorial_designation for good details on use of Territorial designations). It is then wikipedia style not to use the Territorial designation when naming people (I can't find a policy page, but it seems widely accepted (see eg. Margaret Thatcher and an interesting highlighting of this same problem here). Wikipedia policy would therefore suggest that the title used in the article be Baroness Cox. Information on the territorial designation can then be included elsewhere. Kcordina ^Talk 10:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are almost there, Kcordina, except that the territorial qualification is "of Queensbury in Greater London". They always include a county name (or often a London borough, although Lady Cox seems to have chosen Greater London instead). All the official sources just call her Baroness Cox. See any page in Hansard where she speaks, e.g. [5] - there you'll see Baroness Cox, but on the same page Baroness Massey of Darwen, Baroness Williams of Crosby, etc. The only place in Hansard that it'll mention Queensbury is when the baroness what first "introduced" into the house.

If you want another reason why using the territorial qualification when it isn't part of the title is a bad idea, consider for example Virginia Bottomley. She is Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone, of St Helens in the County of Isle of Wight. If you are going to write "Baroness Cox of Queensbury", for consistency you have to write "Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone of St Helens", which is obviously ridiculous.

Many people do not understand peerage titles and territotial qualifications. This means you will often see peers' titles quoted incorrectly, for example by universities where they are chancellor; when they are appearing as a speaker; etc. People "know" lords are often "someone of something", so they assume they have to look up and use the "something" for it to be correct.

If the noble baroness does use the longer version on her business card, it's slightly puzzling as she could have chosen the title "Baroness Cox of Queensbury" if she had so wished. But even peers aren't infallible. JRawle (Talk) 10:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed the only correct form, for wiki use, is Baroness Cox. JRawle, if anything life peers are more often wong than right in their usage. Looking at the article I fancy it needs some gentle smoothing as it reads a touch like a list atmAlci12 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More often they tend to miss the "of Somewhere" off when it is part of their title. Baroness Cox seems to do the opposite. Of course, the worse thing is when they call themselves "Baroness Jane Smith" (as if it's a prefix to their name). Media sources such as BBC News don't help here either. The point is, the title is created by the Queen by letters patent, and that's how it has to be used. One can argue that they are entitled to call themselves what they like, but that's only true insofar as you or I can call ourselves Lord Jrawle or Lord Alci. JRawle (Talk) 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just scanning quickly I think the maiden name should removed from the inline. If there is a need for it at all it usually goes on the second para which usually covers birth/parents/school where interesting/relevent or notable. the opening section should be cut right down. We need Name/Title/dates/peerage and some simple statement of what she does; Not a list, as now, of various things unwikied - it's just cluttering up the starting paragraph atm. I won't carve it up until this bun fight is settled - though I don't see any but one conclusion. [Re the title as there has been no previous Baron Cox she had no need for a qualifier so presumably thats why it is as it is. Alci12 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Baroness Cox and Wale Babatunde's book

What exactly is under dispute here? Baroness Cox' sponsorship of the House of Lords launch party of the book is referred to in numerous sources. The material she wrote to promote the book is still circulating (she's not withdrawn it or disputed its authorship). The contents of the book are readily confirmable if you read it. That she was criticised for it is equally indisputable. So where is the problem? David | Talk 15:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My absence

Folks, apologies for my absence from the discussion - I'm taking a break following the birth of my child. I shall return in a couple of weeks, but hopefully everything will be sorted by then. If you would like someone else to help out in the meantime, please drop a note over on the mediation request page. Kcordina ^Talk 20:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So are we any nearer a solution?

I have now returned to wikipedia after my brief break, and unfortunately I note from the edit history of the article, and the lack of comments on the talk page, that the dispute is still ongoing and that discussion seems to have stopped. From a personal viewpoint, I think the article as at 9:25GMT on 15 May 2006 is a fair and balanced. If there is not now agreement (which from the edit history it seems there isn't), I think it may be time to step up to some more enforceable dispute resolution as we have tried and failed on the discussion front and it seems to have deteriorated into a revert war again. Kcordina ^Talk 08:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• As I understand him, one of Hale-Byrne's reasons for objecting to the Wale Babatunde reference in the article is that it does not provide a balanced picture of Baroness Cox' parliamentary activity. Now strictly speaking, that is true - but the way to get around it is to expand the general history so that more information is given about her other activities. I would also like to see a better-organised and expanded article on her activities in Africa and Asia, as what is there at the moment is unstructured. The two links at the bottom of the article perhaps should be explained because they are not really relevant to anything in the text at the moment. David | Talk 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems things have now settled down, and from my view the article has arrived at a good conclusion, which can now be built upon. Unless anyone objects I'm going to close the mediation case. Good luck to you all, I hope I've been helpful. Kcordina ^Talk 08:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on Israel etc

With one exception, I do not understand Justif's objections. This article has never been to arbitration. I presume he/she means mediation, which has been attempted, but which was inconclusive because Hale-Byrne went away.

The sources given are hardly 'reprobate' - they are primary sources, that is to say, it is the organisations themselves who are providing the fact that Baroness Cox is associated with them. The one exception is something I'm not quite sure about. The linked paper advocating that a Palestinian state be 'removed from the international agenda' appears to be something presented at the Jerusalem Conference, rather than a formal position paper of the body as a whole, and so we don't have a source which says clearly whether Baroness Cox endorses the paper or refutes it. David | Talk 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this situation. Most of the edits in that section are highly problematic, given WP:BLP. Cherry-picking controversial theses of papers given at a conference she chaired is innuendo at best, and in any event not about Cox. Also, LaRouche publications are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, nor are LaRouche activists (e.g. Muriel Mirak-Weißbach), nor is criticism from a partisan group like http://www.aqsa.org.uk. WP:BLP is very strong for good reason; I recommend removing the offending material immediately, before Wikipedia is put in further danger. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of Muriel Mirak-Weißbach and the Friends of Al-Aqsa isn't being cited to substantiate some opinion alleged to be held by Baroness Cox, but to substantiate the fact that they have criticised her. The problem here is that the whole section keeps getting removed. The first part, which deals with the Jerusalem Summit, is surely adequately sourced from the organisation itself. David | Talk 16:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The position of the Jerusalem summit was not cherry picked. Indeed, it was only found via an Ad on Haaretz where in the middle of an article the ad proclaimed "Jerusalem Summit - A NeoZionist answer to post zionist appeasment". I've seen it a few times since, and will take a screenshot if you want, but it was not cherry-picked, it was found via an advertisment, which is surely the opposite of chery-picking? --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that this is a Biography of a Living Person, we should *not* be quoting either of these sources when criticizing her, but rather be relying on top-notch reliable sources instead. In addition, we should not be smearing by innuendo; cherrypicking an idea from a paper that was given at a conference she happened to chair, in order to associate her with that idea. Have any reliable sources specifically stated that Baroness Cox holds this idea? Clearly not. The other material seems fine to me. I urge you to act with haste in removing the policy-violating material you have added, before the danger to Wikipedia is exacerbated. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The source provided is a synopsis of the Jerusalem Summits "Humanitarian regional solution the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". The view is given as that of the Jerusalem Summit, of which Cox is co-president. The image linking to it is displayed at the top of the front page (http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/images/banner_humanitarian_solutio.gif). This is not cherrypicking! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. First, LaRouche publications and activists are not allowed to be used as sources, no matter whether it's for or against, except in articles about the LaRouche movement, and even then with caution; the ArbCom has twice upheld that position. Secondly, any point of view we attribute to Cox must be a point of view she has personally expressed. We can't say: "She founded an organization that organized a conference at which a speaker argued in favor of Arabs being removed from Israel." If she said it, fine; if not, there's no reason or need to add it to her article. The point of the BLP policy is to stress that the core content policies — NPOV, NOR, and V — be closely adhered to, even more so than usual. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a danger of losing sight of the aim here, which is a fully comprehensive article. As we all know, there is a spectrum of views on the Israel-Palestine issue, and Baroness Cox appears (judging from her participation in the Jerusalem Summit) to have adopted a position which is unusually close to one of the extreme ends of it. That fact is worth recording in her biography. We have unchallenged evidence from the Jerusalem Summit itself of the fact of her involvement, and we also know from their own statement of aims and objectives where it is they stand: both of those pass the WP:RS and WP:BLP tests for inclusion, because it's not critical material merely to record her stance, and the material is sourced to a primary source within the organisation in question.

Where it gets more murky is first in the inclusion of the paper presented at the Jerusalem Summit, which we don't know for certain represents the opinion of Baroness Cox. So let us leave that out of the article. Secondly, in the two items of criticism, both of which comes from organisations which are towards the other extreme on the spectrum. We could remove the criticisms entirely and just give a neutral statement of Baroness Cox' involvement in the Jerusalem Summit and of that organisation's approach. How about that for now? David | Talk 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, so long as the point isn't labored and there's no sign of LaRouche input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been saying from the start. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem for me was that Justif's edits threw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm glad we've come to consensus on which bit was baby and which was bathwater. Will fillet the paragraph and put in the acceptable information. David | Talk 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Baroness Cox is not a founder or Co-Founder of the Jerusalem Summit. She did receive an award from a member of the Summit. I spoke to Baroness Cox about this last week and she assures me that she is not a Zionist and does not hold the views that have been attributed to her. The views of the Jarusalem Summit have all been attibuted to her and indeed the founding the very organization. Baroness Cox is also not opposed to the Oslo Accords Justif 01:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Baroness Cox did not ask for this web page and is keen to know the motives the the editors.Justif 01:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC) This matter was resolved in mediation last May. Why are we revisiting it yet again?12.6.155.125 02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard." Quite simply, Dbiv and Irishpunktom do not like Baroness Cox, as is evident from there long history in creating and editing this page. I challenge them to write anything positive about her. They should be banned from editing this page any further.Justif 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand you. The article does not say she is "a founder or Co-Founder of the Jerusalem Summit". It says she is a co-founder of the One Jerusalem organisation, a fact that is sourced to this page on that organisation's website which says in terms: "Founding Members: ... The Baroness Cox". She is also stated to be Co-President of the Jerusalem Summit (not co-Founder), and that fact is sourced to this news release from that organisation's website which says in terms: "Lady Baroness Caroline Cox ... today became a Co-President of The Jerusalem Summit."

These facts are therefore well-sourced. They are also not negative. Supporting a unified Jerusalem under Israeli control is not a disreputable stance to take. I happen to take a stance not a million miles away from it myself. You are right that I do not like Baroness Cox overmuch, but that is for her approach on social issues within the United Kingdom. Wikipedia welcomes all contributors regardless of their point of view, so long as they write neutrally. The section you are attempting to delete is written neutrally, in a way which does not endorse or criticise the views reported. It is not pejorative. There was no mediation finding against the inclusion of this reference. I am therefore restoring it. David | Talk 08:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The source you quote is not reliable and it is wrong for reasons I have already stated! The statements you are posting are wrong. Baroness Cox rejects them and this matter is now being monitored very closely. Your motives are clear.Justif 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly saying that we cannot trust the One Jerusalem organisation to tell us the truth about who founded it? That we cannot trust the Jerusalem Summit to tell us the truth about who it has appointed as its Co-President? David | Talk 12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard."Justif 12:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you can quote policy. But it clearly does not apply here. The paragraph you removed is not "negative material". It is adequately sourced. It is not even potentially libellous. David | Talk 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This was decided in mediation last May. "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard."Justif 18:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already told you that the information you're removing is not potentially libellous, is not negative, and is well sourced. Do not remove it. David | Talk 20:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This was decided in mediation last May. This is libel - very serioous indeed. You are not being nuetral and you have already said so. "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard."12.6.155.125 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This was decided in mediation last May. This is libel - very serious indeed. You are not being neutral and you have already said so. "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard." The information is not true and the website is wrong. I have checked with her office. It is an unreliable source and it must go. People of varying opinions speak at many different think tanks. That is how debate is stimulated. It is not the aim of Baroness Cox of "maintaining a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel", and you are inferring that.Justif 19:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

On looking through the article again I think the coverage of Baroness Cox' campaigns on contemporary slavery is wayyyyy too short. Let me try to search out some more sourced information. David | Talk 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Baroness Cox is not currently involved with CSI, CSI or redeeming slaves. She was not the founder of CSI or CSW. One could stake the statement about contemporary slavery out entirely. The Wilberforce award is a human rights award and was given for her human rights work in general.Justif 18:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have ownership problems with this article. The section you removed does not say that Baroness Cox is currently involved with CSI. I am happy to make it clear that CSW is no longer buying slaves' freedom, but to do so would need to explain the circumstances in which they stopped (which was the criticism by the UN and several other international bodies) - are you happy for that to happen? I am quite surprised you think that mentioning Baroness Cox' involvement in campaigning against slavery should be removed from her biography. She is quite famous for it, and it has occupied a large part of her life. You are surely not suggesting it's "potentially libellous" to accuse someone of opposing slavery? David | Talk 20:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lies, Lies, Lies, and more Lies. She did not set up CSW at all. She did not break from CSI. That was an action between the management of CSI and CSW. CSW and CSI still redeem slaves, but Baroness Cox left CSW years ago for unrelated reasons. Baroness Cox left the board of CSW spend more time with HART and the World Committee on Disability. The redeeming of slaves was not cited as the reason behind her selection for the Wilberforce Award. It was awarded to her for her many years of human rights work.12.6.155.125 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC) This is biased, false and Libel. The three revert rule does not apply.12.6.155.125 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If I have been mistaken, it is not because I was lying (deliberately telling an untruth) but because I have not found a source to update the position. How about updating the article yourself, if you know better? David | Talk 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This does not merit a separate section. Baroness Cox is no longer active in this field and was only involved in this field for a couple of years. Therefore it is no longer at the forefront of her activity. It is simply another past activity to be listed. I will put it back where it belongs.Justif 19:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

She is famous for it. As a matter of fact Peter Sutcliffe is no longer active in the field of murdering women - do you want that part deleted from his biography? (Not that I am comparing campaigning against slavery with murdering women, but you get the point). David | Talk 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)