Jump to content

Talk:Emily Thornberry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo

[edit]

This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Controversy Section ‎

[edit]

Would the editor(s) who are removing cited content on this page please explain their position. Possible concerns may be;

  • it is factually incorrect - although cites seem to indicate otherwise.
  • it is not neutrally presented - if so, please suggest different wording.
  • it is giving undue weight to events - if so, please elaborate.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The content gives undue weight to events, by giving a section entitled “Controversy”. The description of this section as “Controversy”, and the section’s equal length to rest of the article, both mean the article structure is implicitly negative. The language (e.g. “doctored press release” and “recent political propaganda”) further undermines the neutrality of this section, resulting in a partisan commentary.

Wikipedia NPOV guidelines state that even though a matter may be cited, it “might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.”

FabFood (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have some valid points, but these are not reasons for wholesale removal of content, but improving it to be more in line with guidelines. What do you suggest the section could be otherwise titled?
I have re-phrased the 'doctored' phrase; that probably was not entirely neutral.
The Communications Workers Union section is on shaky ground. I removed a long-term uncited bit. But the rest of it is reliant on a Private Eye cite, which is valid but not the most reliable of sources, especially if no others of a similar vein can be cited.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The presence of the "Controversy" section gives disporptionate weight to the points it refers to. The points are either poorly sourced, or their inclusion violates the wikipedia principle of neutrality (which, it is accepted in NPOV guidelines, is more important than strict citation). The section should be removed, since the undue weight comes primarily from its presence, and only secondarily from its content. For instance it is not clear why the Communications Workers Union section should be included in an article. It conjects that “Thornberry was also criticised...”. This creates the impression that the issue deserves more weight than it is due.

FabFood (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A controversy section is not unusual. You'll find them in many Bios on Wikipedia. We are in agreement about the Communications Workers Union section, I'll remove that. But you'll have to explain what is wrong, specifically, with the others. They are generally negative, but the article otherwise has a great number of positives reported.
As I said, if you feel the naming of the section is not neutral I'm happy to hear alternatives. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snobbery (and resignation, Dec 2014)

[edit]

Could somebody explain the background to the charge of "snobbery"? The picture shows a white van, English flags, and is subtitled "Rochester". (No actual person is shown.)

What was the objection to this picture?

  • that it equates English nationalism (symbolised by the flag), a positive concept, with the negative stereotype of the white van man ("selfish, inconsiderate, mostly working class and aggressive", according to wikipedia's article)
  • that it equates the white van, symbolising the positive idea of an "independent tradesperson, such as a plumber or locksmith" (again according to wikipedia), with the Flag of England, considered a symbol for the far right, and therefore negative?
  • that it says "all people in Rochester (at least those not voting for my party) are like this white van person" (selfish, working class etc, see above)
  • that it says "all people in Rochester (at least those not voting for my party) are right wing nationalists"
  • that Thornberry wrote Rochester even though it was Strood. (Only about 2 km away, but on the other side of the river. Is there a rivalry between the two cities?)

I am not taking sides here. Apparently everybody agrees that the picture was offensive. But as a non-British person I am confused and would like to understand. Thank you.

(Ideally, do not answer here; rather, add a sentence or two to the article itself.)

--Austrian (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a British person, I found it as baffling as you, and an entirely manufactured controversy. But I guess out of the options you listed, the third and fourth come closest to the substance of the complaints. It wasn't that the picture itself was directly offensive, so much that it was thought to represent a stereotyped view of the 'working class' and the type of person who votes for UKIP. (Despite the fact that it was a real house, and the owner wasn't a UKIP voter.) The media response itself arguably represented a stereotyped view of politicians (and Labour politicians in particular) as out-of-touch elitists who look down on 'ordinary people'. Robofish (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the first and third reasons. -- TrottieTrue (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of senior military rank

[edit]

I have again reverted the addition of this. The difficulty with including it is that it is largely original synthesis. That means a source is being cited where Thornberry is making a claim, and then a separate unsourced counter-claim is made that disputes it. This is then headed as a "Controversy".

For this to be included a reliable source is needed that discusses the controversy itself. i.e. where Thornberry's claim is discussed, along side the counter claim, and an explanation of why this has resulted in controversy. The controversy itself cannot be "constructed" on this Wikipedia page, the sources must do that.

I know that previously these was a Daily Mail cite that discussed this. But it is generally accepted that the Daily Mail, a tabloid, is not a reliable source for controversial biographical information. (Basically, it makes stuff up.) This is particularly the case in an article where it can't produce a named source for its information. If this was a genuine "controversy" then other sources discussing it should be available and it can be included. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail, for all it's failings, did not make up the BFBS video. The London Gazette is particularly good at keeping records of these promotions and appointments. One of the given links is from the BBC, showing the BFBS video of Emily Thornberry herself claiming the rank of honorary Lt Col. This alleged colonelcy is not gazetted and therefore did not occur. The MoD has explained that such colonelcies are not given in respect of the work of any person acting in a legal capacity.
While not Wiki 'evidence,' neither I nor any of my comrades, colleagues or acquaintances have ever heard of this happening because it is not MoD policy to do so. If a politician makes a claim to something and that claim is untrue, it is controversial and deserves mentioning in the Wiki. Emily Thornberry has, on video, made a claim of an appointment to which she has none. If you do not wish it to come under this section I'm sure another can be inserted to accommodate it. Tiredcleangate3 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the BBC video, you can clearly hear her say what is stated (at about 1.05 onwards). However, we do not have any reliable sources to show that she was not made an honorary lieutenant-colonel and so we can't really put it in on just your word (or the Daily Mail). If you can find a link to where the MoD stated this, or someone reporting on them saying it, then we can definitely put it in. Until then however, I think it should stay out. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the section a less dramatic heading, and removed the unreferenced bit see here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed this section, for the same reasons I gave above. Please do not re-insert it until there is consensus. To emphasis a few points;

  • A single article in the Daily Mail is not sufficient to add controversial information for a Biography, which requires the very best of reliable sources. I have had a look and can find no mention of this supposed controversy anywhere else. Where is it? Is it on the pages of the Daily Mail alone?
  • The Daily Mail itself is unable to quote a source for their information. So we only have this tabloid's word on it.
  • It does not matter what you can cite from the BBC interview. That is only half of the story and merely verification that she made this claim. It does not provide verification that her claim is wrong, it does not provide verification that there was any controversy as a result.
  • Personal knowledge of individual editors counts for nothing.
  • The controversy can not be constructed here on Wikipedia. It must be found elsewhere.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article as I left it did not make any suggestion that the claim was false - perhaps you forgot to actually read before reverting? It is not a BLP violation to report what she has said about herself. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You left it under the "Controversies" section, that alone was enough to suggest to the reader that some questioned it. Of course we can report what politicians say about themselves. But politicians say a lot of things about themselves. What makes this particularly worth mentioning? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An interview by BFBS of a politician with a new responsibility for the armed forces seems relevant to me. Thanks for pointing out that it was in the wrong section - I've moved it to a more relevant one. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent. As mentioned in my last this can alo be moved to a different section.

However, let's take each piece in small bites.

Is there ANY doubt, in anyone's mind, that Emily Thornberry said, " I was actually made an honorary lieutenant colonel when I was doing court-martials [sic] when I was a barrister and so I have a certain amount of experience of the military there" ?

Tiredcleangate3 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. However, we do not have any reliable sources to show that she was not made an honorary lieutenant-colonel and so we can't really put it in on just your word (or the Daily Mail). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

Of course you can't take me at my word, this is a fairly anonymous site which has from time to time been visited by people who wish to promote a particular agenda.

As far as reliable sources go, the Gazette is one of the very best, and is an official public record. All British military commissions, promotions and appointments are published therein.

If someone claims a rank, medal or appointment one only has to search these records to find all the relevant information. If Emily Thornberry had been appointed an honorary colonel it would be gazetted. There is no such record.

There is an anomaly. Emily Thornberry says she "was made an honorary colonel." The public record says this is not so. One of these views must be incorrect.

Tiredcleangate3 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you going to cite? Every issue of the Gazette since her alleged appointment? AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trawling through all these listed appointments to find out what they don't say would be clear original research. Wikipedia does not contain original research. You are free to go and do that research for your own information. But no matter what conclusion you reach from it, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. You'd have to find some other place interested in publishing your research. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Orbit, just to make sure we're all singing from the same song sheet, should I assume that you agree that information contained within the Wikipedia should be substantiated by information other than statements from tabloid newspapers ? Tiredcleangate3 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a general and sweeping rule is practical or useful. But it should certainly be the case that content that suggests the subject is a liar (and therefore possibly libellous), or is otherwise disparaging, cannot rely on one tabloid piece quoting an anonymous source. And indeed that's what Wikipedia's policy on bios enforces. But other than that, yes, naturally, sources that are better than tabloid papers should get preference. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of hypothetical married name in lead

[edit]

The article starts in bold Emily Anne, Lady Nugee as if that is the name of the subject of the article. There is a citation link to the Times where the article says she does not use this name.

We (quite rightly) do not have "Yvette Balls" or "Harriet, Mrs Dromey" or "Priti Patel, Mrs Sawyer", because they don't use those names. Their spouses' names are contained in the article and that is sufficient. Even the Royal Household no longer insists on calling a married woman by a name she does not use and there is no reason other than making a WP:POINT for a Wikipedia article to do this. 4shires (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@4shires: You are right. I see no reason this is being done. I have removed it. AusLondonder (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But it doesn't take much to guess why some editors want this on the article. Don't be surprised when it reappears. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there it is. All of two days.. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely names include those commonly used and as she was referred as Lady Nugee today in the house of Commons, it would appear appropriate to reflect this name as one also commonly used. If an individual chooses to be referred to by a different name that their official title, it does not remove the official title... Even searching for Lord Benn links to Tony Benn's page even though he had renounced his title. Another example is Timothy Melgund who does not use his title on a day to day basis but the wiki page includes his hereditary title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negztem (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Negztem: Could you link me that from Hansard? AusLondonder (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that we have a cited source that specifically states she does not use the title, ever. While being married into this title worthy of mention under her personal life, it doesn't serve to identify or name her.
Who referred to her as "Lady Nugee" in the House of Commons? I suspect it was intended as a jibe. (See Dennis Skinner's recent reference in Parliament to "Dodgy Dave". That isn't going into his lead paragraph either.) We generally don't include names in BLPs lead paragraphs that are intended to belittle/insult/embarrass. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw my hat into the ring. The fact she doesn't use it doesn't warrant removal from the sidebar, surely there ought to be a stylized section here. A lot of people don't use their honorary titles. 86.157.37.61 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't use it, she is not commonly (if at all) referred to by it, and as it is merely a title by courtesy we should have the courtesy of using the name she prefers to be, and is generally, known by. I see no reason to force a name onto someone against their will, especially when to do so would be to make Wikipedia less accurate. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Even if she doesn't use it, it should still be mentioned in the article for educational purposes. Maybe not in the lede but in the wider content of the article itself. Its removal suggests some sort of bias against honorary titles, which by the way I think are outdated and silly, but they shouldn't be erased from an article for that reason if we are going to claim to be unbiased. The fact she does or doesn't use it is immaterial. 109.145.151.143 (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned already, in the Personal Life section, as has been pointed out above, which is the appropriate place and with the appropriate weight, if it is to be here at all. Your edit has added it for a second time, into the lead, and has done so in a way that makes no sense as it starts off by referring to "Nugee", ie her husband, when he has not been mentioned yet at that point. Hence, I'm removing that bit. Can we move on now? N-HH talk/edits 13:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

controversy section

[edit]

We have a controversy section so this why should not the controversy about her tweet go there? If you are going to be consistent remove the entire controversy section. Just removing one particular controversy seems inconsistent. Please explain if rereverting 9and50swans (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy sections are regarded as bad practice despite being quite common on not-unusually-controversial politicians' pages, and integrating this one into the main article (the "campaigns" section should go too) is on my to-do list. Repeating stuff that's already in the main article in a section which shouldn't really exist isn't really helpful I'm afraid. Ultimately the objective of a Wikipedia article is to provide a biography of the subject, not a readily accessible list of criticisms (or indeed campaigns) Dtellett (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady Nugee

[edit]

Emily Thornberry is officially Emily, Lady Nugee. That is a fact and it is her name. It should say "Emily Anne, Lady Nugee" known as "Emily Thornberry". Difference with other female politicians such as as Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper, Priti Patel etc is that their husbands do not have honorific titles and therefore using Mrs John Dromey or Mrs Edward Balls would be wrong. Any spouse of a knight, life peer, earl, duke, prince or whatever would be addressed in the same way. Saying that she's known as 'Emily Thornberry' and not 'Lady Nugee' (just as Boris Johnson goes by Boris Johnson not Alexander Johnson) is the correct way forward.--109.156.134.58 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. N-HH talk/edits 16:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the conclusion was wrong. It is Lady Nugee.--109.156.134.58 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We work by consensus. See also WP:POINT. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it is still wrong. You wouldn't put 'Kate Middleton' on the Duchess of Cambridge's page. Or Boris Johnson. It is factually inaccurate to put Emily Thornberry and not Emily, Lady Nugee. Inaccurate.--109.156.134.58 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should like reiterate the point made by Ghmyrtle. Consensus against this change has been established. Please do not engage in continuously reverting to reinstate your edits, this is a live article, and doing so is seen as edit warring. We would very much like to make the live article as best as possible, so instead, if you wish to pursue this, discuss the change on this talk page to understand why there is opposition to what you are trying to achieve. Rather than reverting edits, please seek to find a resolution which works toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 22:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other editors. A consensus has been established on this. If you keep reverting without changing the consensus to favour your argument you will face sanction for edit-warring and vandalism AusLondonder (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, it's a consensus based on solid reasoning, before we all get told we're colluding to unfairly suppress information. She does not use the formal title "Lady Nugee". I'm not sure I've ever seen a third-party source refer to her as such. Hence this page does not at the top; although it does, correctly, mention the existence of the title in the main body. A WP page is not going to set out as a main form of address a name that is virtually never used, just to allow some people to try and make a rather silly political point. N-HH talk/edits 11:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove 'Lady Major' from Norma Major's profile. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Her title is Lady Nugee and she has a title due to her marriage to Sir Christopher Nugee. It's not a political point, it's about accuracy.--109.157.2.197 (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@109.157.2.197: Please do not re-insert that information against consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's shown that no one ever calls Norma Major by her "Lady Major" courtesy title – which, like this one, she only acquired, nominally, through marriage rather than it being something formally bestowed on her and accepted by her as an individual – it should be removed from the opening sentence there too, rather than that page being treated as an example to emulate. And even that page doesn't use the title as the very first name mentioned, before suggesting her actual name is some sort of pseudonymn that she is "known as", which is what you are trying to do here. And you know full well it's a political point being made here about perceived snobbery. Please don't plead innocence quite so disingenuously. N-HH talk/edits 10:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a political point about snobbery. She is Lady Nugee. How people percieve that is for them but it's the truth. It should clearly what her full anme is which is 'Emily, Lady Nugee' and then known as 'Emily Thornberry'. --109.156.133.176 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I talked about perceived snobbery, I was referring to your perception of her, and the fact that you rather transparently want to make her look like a posh snob by highlighting a formal title neither she nor anyone else ever uses, and which she only has due to her marriage. By definition, if you're not ever called something by anyone, it's not a name. Please return to the Guido Fawkes comment boards. N-HH talk/edits 11:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this infobox dispute seems to be continually ongoing, I have semi-protected the article for a week. I'm sure there are other bits of the article that can be worked on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to have re-emerged. If the disruption continues, a return to page protection might be necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and, two years later, here we go again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to protect this page indefinitely. Lots of people absolutely loathe ET - conservatives think she's a hypocritical virtue signaller, leftists think she's a metropolitan snob contemptuous of Labour voters, Corbynistas think her Brexit positioning cost Labour the 2019 general election, etc etc. There is bound to be further questionable editing and downright vandalism for the forseeable future given her continuing high profile. --Ef80 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bollocks"

[edit]
NAY
Rough consensus against including. Many of the yay arguments did not address concerns about weight - instead simply asserting that it is sourced, and were well-rebutted. While both yays and nays had many bare assertions, the nays had the most explanation for their position. (There could be too issues with SYNTH in connecting the two incidents unless RS do so.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, do we have a consensus about the paragraph about Thornberry saying "bollocks" a few times (cited to The Guardian and The Independent, also the New Statesman, The Times, so it's covered right across the political spectrum). Yay or nay? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know why AusLondonder think this is "synthesis" (off-topic for an article or violating due weight, as discussed below, fair comment, but it's all reliably sourced). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that news media report a comment does not necessarily make it sufficiently notable to appear in an encyclopedia article, which should be focused on the long term. Linking to a Google search does not help your case - I can't find any source there for your suggestion that she "has gained quite a reputation for claiming people are talking bollocks" - it seems to be several media reporting the same comment, which is just what news media do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's two bits of media coverage, spaced a year apart. Anyway, these things are a judgement call - today there's been a rash of Trump tweeting over Britain First's article, but that surely comes under the umbrella of a story reported by 109 newspapers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two bits of coverage focused on specific interviews a year apart is usually an indication that a person doesn't have "quite a reputation" for anything Dtellett (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Persistent"...?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er no, synthesis is taking a source that says "red meat has been linked to fatal diseases" and another one that says "cancer is a fatal disease" and coming up with "red meat causes cancer" - this is just taking what sources say and reporting it. That's why the article doesn't say "Thornberry is reported to have eaten 24 Weetabix for breakfast" (source), which is synthesis. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck? You have threatened to take me to WP:AN3 for edit warring. I have reverted your inclusion once. You have engaged in two reverts here today. Should you not be the one reported? There is a content dispute and this content should not remain while it is in dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only ironically. I assumed you'd come to the talk page and discuss, as you have done, so chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for self-reverting for now, as we await consensus on the matter. AusLondonder (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Emily Thornberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Foreign Secretary

[edit]

The box in the top right-hand corner says that Emily Thornberry is shadowing Damian Green. Many apologies if something has been lost on me which is obvious to other people, but since Emily Thornberry is Shadow Foreign Secretary at the time of typing, should this article say that she is shadowing Boris Johnson?Vorbee (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the infobox is about her being Shadow First Secretary of State. This was previously Damien Green but the position is currently vacant, as the infobox says. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive or independent education?

[edit]

Please clarify.

Eliminated from Labour leadership campaign

[edit]

This article could mention how Emily Thornberry stood for the Labour leadership campaign in 2020, but was eliminated from the race after failing to secure enough nominations (see www.bbc.co.uk/news/ - politics). Vorbee (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish citizenship and holder of an Irish passport

[edit]

In her very own words as recorded in Hansard, she is an Irish citizen and holder of an Irish passport. On first reading the second part of that sentence may seem superfluous, however there are perhaps many Members of Parliament that have dual or multiple citizenships, but do not necessarily hold additional passports. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090714/debtext/90714-0014.htm 90.242.58.56 (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? If she is legally an Irish citizen by virtue of her father's birthplace, she is entitled to an Irish passport. It's not noteworthy that she has claimed one. It's certainly not sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned in the lead, where, without some form of clarification, a casual reader might interpret it as in some way unpatriotic for a British politician - which would be completely unwarranted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really for you to unilaterally declare? You're quite right there are millions in Great Britain alone that can avail Irish citizenship yet most do not (the Irish Govt estimates 1:10 in GB so 6.7 million). For a shadow foreign secretary to be a citizen of another country is not for me or you to judge. The facts are that her father was born in Belfast, she was an Irish citizen pre the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Irish constitutional and legislative changes. Her own words in Hansard show she is proud, and has no intention to hide it. I agree that it should follow the sentence about her father. I'm not sure you should be so judgemental nor jump to conclusion about an editor's intentions. I think you've also misunderstood the point of "holding a passport" as Emily Thornberry had no choice whatsoever where her father was born, nor the laws of citizenship in the Republic of Ireland, but she did choose to register her intent to be an Irish citizen and to hold an Irish passport whilst a Member of Parliament and shadowing one of the "Great Offices of State". 90.242.58.56 (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is factually incorrect. Anyone with a parent born in Ireland - any part of the island - is automatically an Irish citizen. "If you were born outside of Ireland, you are automatically an Irish citizen by birth if either one of your parents was born in Ireland and was entitled to Irish citizenship.". There is nothing odd, or noteworthy, about such a citizen applying for an Irish passport. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire Sir, she became an Irish citizen under the original principal act, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1956/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec7; not the 2001 amending act that you quote. My original statement is thus factually correct, save she is no longer the current Shadow Foreign Secretary. If pedantry is the order of the day then I also see in Wikipedia's own style guide regarding biographies that it is valid to mention nationality in the lead section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies'_first_sentence Given the context of the original reference, in that she was in Parliament supporting a Labour colleague attempting to bring parity for post-1949 Irish citizens born in the Republic to access British citizenship - I would surmise that is noteworthy, and not the least bit trivial! For the avoidance of doubt, she and/or her late father took active steps for her to become an Irish citizen and to possess a passport hence the original phrasing to set her apart from the estimated 6.7million people in GB who are also entitled to Irish citizenship but for whatever reason do not avail. 90.242.58.56 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The legislation that you quote states "Every person is an Irish citizen if his father or mother was an Irish citizen at the time of that person's birth". So, where is your evidence that "she and/or her late father took active steps for her to become an Irish citizen"? She would have applied for a passport, but there was no need for her to "apply" for citizenship - it was an automatic entitlement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted section 7 whereas you have chosen to quote section 6 paragraph 2 in isolation. "7.—(1) Pending the re-integration of the national territory, subsection (1) of section 6 shall not apply to a person, not otherwise an Irish citizen, born in Northern Ireland on or after the 6th December, 1922, unless, in the prescribed manner, that person, if of full age, declares himself to be an Irish citizen or, if he is not of full age, his parent or guardian declares him to be an Irish citizen. In any such case, the subsection shall be deemed to apply to him from birth." We seem to have gone done a rabbit hole where you have unilaterally decided that there is something negative and improper which could be misconstrued by a "casual reader". In her own words she is of dual heritage, and proud of it and at the time she applied it was not merely an automatic entitlement. 90.242.58.56 (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 7 (1) does not make any reference to paragraph 6 (2), which is what applies in her case. She was born in Surrey, not Northern Ireland, so paragraph 6 (1) does not apply. It applied to her father, Cedric Thornberry (born in Belfast in 1936), but whether that is worthy of note on his page is not a matter for this discussion. I'm sure she is proud of her "background of dual heritage", as she said, but that does not mean that it needs to be mentioned in the lead section here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly and for more context, her father became an Irish citizen in 1967 https://www.dib.ie/biography/thornberry-cedric-henry-reid-a10202, after his daughter's birth in Guildford in 1960. Logical reasoning would surmise that if he were subject to "Formalities to be complied with in certain cases", by virtue of his birth in Northern Ireland; then his daughter born outwith Ireland would be subject to formalities rather than simple application. If anything this shows that Emily has tried to continue her father's work in civil rights vis-a-vis Irish, Commonwealth and other settled residents. Probably more worthy than the short sentence mentioning her membership of a trade union. 90.242.58.56 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of original research (= guesswork) in that. The key point is whether her Irish citizenship is sufficiently noteworthy for the lead, and I doubt that it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emily_Thornberry&oldid=1256333726"