Talk:Georgina Downs

Proposed merge

I would like to propose that UK Pesticides Campaign be merged into this article. The subject of this article has revived most of the coverage regarding her campaign, and any mentions of the organisation are either trivial or made by here if made in any detail. I am not convinced that the Campaign passes WP:GNG, however, I do think it is worthy of coverage in this article at least. I will proceed with this merge if no objections are received in 7 days from the time stamp of this notice. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Triptothecottage (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

2016 petition

Is there any WP:RS secondary source for the petition and its signatories? If not, all mention of it should be removed. Has it yet been presented to Theresa May, or to whom? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the petition on change.org and the information and signatories appears to check out, but the site is blacklisted as generally considered a self published source as anyone can start a petition about anything. If it's been discussed in Parliament it'll be logged on the Hansard somewhere. There's some stuff on my talk page from Ms Downs - here it is, verbatim :

Anyway in response to your message to me, as you said in an earlier message that the Ecologist articles would be okay then in the absence of having in the actual petition link then there are at least 2 articles ::that have referred to it one is in the Ecologist here http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988609/pesticide_deregulation_the_real_reason_for_myron_ebells_number_10_meeting.html and the other is the same article in Counterpunch ::in the US.

Alternatively there is the same references to all that text in the Wikipedia entry (regarding the current and live petition) in the House of Lords committee written evidence (at paras 1.45 to 1.51) and that was ::published on the House of Lords committee website here http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-energy-and-environment-subcommittee/brexit-agriculture/written/47151.html

Incidentally I note that in your previous message you said the name of the petition could be put in quote marks with the word “poisonous” put back in seeing as that is the correct title.

On a separate note can I just ask what was the problem with the bit about the RSA, especially as you have it as a strap link at the bottom but then no mention of it in the page as it was removed (although not ::sure who removed it as lost track). It is factually correct I am a fellow of the RSA and in fact if you click on that link at the bottom and go to the separate Wikipedia page you will see me there under D for ::Downs. Therefore would be clearer to people reading it if the line about the RSA was back in otherwise surely they won’t get why it is linked at the bottom. As said it is factually correct, I am a fellow! I can take ::a pic of my fellows card and send it on if that helps to confirm it even further…

Hopefully that's something to go on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. The first source is a part of a self-written blog, at theecologist.org. The second source has exactly the same material, but as part of written evidence to a Parliamentary Committee (see paras 1.45 - 1.51). So I would suggest that the second source has adequate status, but that the first source is redundant. Happy for the second source, which says "Rural residents ... in their thousands", to be added (although the dates for start and end of the petition (has it yet concluded?) are not given). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Description as an "environmental activist"

Georgina Downs apparently does not like to be referred to as an "environmental activist". Although we don't always let subjects of articles choose how they are described, on this occasion I don't see any strong reason not to change the description to suit her preference. Also, it seems that very few sources refer to her as "an environmental activist", and so it is questionable whether that should be the in the lead. I am therefore going to change the description in the lead to "a health and anti-pesticide campaigner". If anyone has any strong reason to think that the words "environmental activist" really need to be included, I will be grateful if they will explain what that reason is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

No objection. That seems perfectly fair. It might be an alternative to add a statement, lower down, such as "Downs has been described by faminguk.com as an environmental activist." But that might also be judged to fall foul of WP:WEIGHT and might rub salt into poor Ms Downs evidently raw wounds. Even if some might see that description as a compliment. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Martin, you seem to be intent on trying to wind things up again with the sarcastic comments you keep making. I do not understand why you feel the need to do this. In all the years 16 years I have worked with the media and publications I am not sure I have ever had such great difficulties as I have had in the last 3 days dealing with Wikipedia and it has raised serious concerns as to how this site operates. I am quite right to have pointed out inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

Anyway, James said on his message to me earlier that this will all now be finished and I am really hoping that it is. Obviously if I can work out how to put in the 2 links for the citations that are missing (Cosmo and IFAJ and BGAJ references bits) then I will.

Many thanks, Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Georgina, you seem to be able to take offence, at the drop of a hat, where none is intended. I've made what I consider to be useful attempts to improve this article. If you feel otherwise, you are welcome to request that they are undone and discussed with other editors. I'm trying to wind up nothing, thanks. I'll try and reserve the misplaced sarcasm for my own Talk page. In my experience Wikipedia articles are often forgotten about, but rarely, if ever, "finished." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: You still have COI issues and should not be editing the article at all. The issues you had with the article and the issues we had with your changes seem fine now. I'm not sure about the references you're referring to, but if they were removed, it's likely the information they supported was also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm I just typed a response to Martin and its not here so will try and remember what I said. Martin, I know Wikipedia pages are not finished as such as they get updated when anything significant happens to the person or their work. I think James was referring to it being finished for now, aside from the 2 remaining citations for Cosmo and the journos ref link. As said I shall try and put them in myself and M1pearc there are of course no COI in relation to adding in the citation reference links! I sent them to other editors including Martin to add in and he suggested I just add them in myself. He also said there was no policy about editors making amendments on their own pages, especially if it improves the page. Not that I intend to do that at this time as I have had quite enough of Wikipedia for now, no offence!

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: Yes there is, "Should not be editing the article at all" means Should not be editing the article at all. Any changes or additions have to be requested by you and made by other editors. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistaken advice, Georgina. I was wrong. You can "make amendments on your own pages" i.e. your own User page and your own Talk page, but not to the mainspace Wikipedia article(s) which are about you. But please don't send me anything else to add in. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Martin and others, I repeat this is adding in reference links to the 2 remaining citations. I did ask others and sent the 2 related weblinks and it was suggested I just do it myself. In any event I am not intending on doing anything else for now except to go to sleep!! Thefactcorrecter (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

For reference these are the 2 reference links I am referring to:

the Cosmopolitan award that still required citation, here is a link to pics of the award winners (I think it is already set on my one) http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/the-cosmopolitan-fun-fearless-female-awards-with-olay-75223619?#georgina-downs-winner-of-the-heroine-award-picture-id83734675 If getty images is not acceptable then there are articles too if that is required for citation but I would need to go back through to dig out the links.

and the link to an IFAJ article that refers to me and which shows I am a registered journalist under IFAJ and BGAJ see http://ifaj.org/ifaj/eco-award-uk-writer/

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: I don't know about IFAJ and BGAJ, but Wikipedia does not link to external images and I don't think images can be used as a reference either. I suggest you not make changes to the article yourself as the only thing that will lead to is getting yourself blocked for doing so, yes there are policies for that also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you might need to explain how that link "shows you are a registered journalist under IFAJ and BGAJ". It seems to just say "UK guild member Georgina Downs"? The piece also appears to be undated. But it does mention theDaily Mail’s Inspirational Women of the Year Awards and the fact you had tea at 10 Downing Street with Sarah Brown. Perhaps these facts might also merit inclusion in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Martin, to clarify firstly on your last point, there are all sorts of additional awards and nominations that were in the original Wikipedia page (see for example the April 2016 version) but they were then all deleted when it was completely rewritten and that any are actually in now is due to my raising the fact that it is quite right and proper for them to be in. I note that the pages of others continue to include all the awards and nominations they have had so not sure why its one rule for one and one for another again, but anyway if you see that April 2016 list of awards and nominations you will see how many there have been. Any that needed references I could have just sent on.

In response to your first point. Yes it does. That article is on the International Federation of Agricultural JOURNALISTS website. It refers to the Guild member (ie. British Guild of Agricultural JOURNALISTS) at the beginning of it and the article is about how I am one of its writers. This article is absolutely fine for the citation but as I offered earlier if I need to take a picture of my IFAJ/BGAJ press card to prove I am under both then I can do that and send it on, just let me know, thanks. Incidentally if the article is undated I can confirm it would have been immediately after I won the Daily Mail award which was in May 2008 considering the articles content.

Martin, update to the previous message.

I deleted the last para of my previous message above purely because I looked around but cannot see any source that covered it. I think there was one but cannot remember where now.

Anyway, following an earlier message from another editor that said the Getty image is not usable as a reference for the Cosmopolitan award then I have now found a source that confirms that award referred to in the text of the Wikipedia page see Metro article at: http://metro.co.uk/2006/11/08/fun-fearless-females-the-winners-343750/ and scroll down through the names til you get to mine.

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone has put an inaccuracy back in - please amend!

Hi Martin, James, et al,

Just as I thought things might be settling down on this I see someone (who I don't think is anyone I have already been in contact with as they have done it via an IP address rather than a screen name) has put back in the inaccurate 11 years old when we moved to the house. This is factually inaccurate and if I am not able to amend this then I would ask that someone else does as this is not acceptable. I can find an article with the 10 in if required but it is a bit ridiculous that someone has changed this as basic maths confirms this in any event. I was born on 13th July 1973. This should be publicly visible on my Facebook page settings. We moved to the house here referred to on the Wikipedia page in May 1983. That is clearly when I was 10 years old. I would ask that this be changed back to the correct age please and then there is no need for the additional reference. Good to see it there though as Christopher Booker I know writes for the Daily Mail often and hopefully this means that Wikipedia is reconsidering its position regarding the Daily Mail as there are a number of really good articles in the Mail that currently cannot be used in any references due to the apparent Wikipedia ban on the Mail as a source. And in fact as far as I recall (as I don't think it is online unless paid for as it was a special feature but I have it in hard copy somewhere) there is one article from the Mail that does correctly say both that we moved here in 1983 and that I was 10 years old at the time! Anyway, I shall try and seek out another source for the 10 age and send it on unless Wikipedia has now since changed its Mail source situation, not sure?

Many thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. Also meant to say about the Christopher Booker book in case anyone doesn't know it has a brilliant final chapter about genuine and serious public health scandals (as opposed to the rest of the chapters in the book which is about various scare stories deemed by the book's authors) and so the end chapter is the opposite of the rest of the book. There was a small bit in that end chapter about my work and campaign regarding the public health scandal over the failure to protect residents from pesticides!

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: There are formats that must be used if you want changes made to an article, please see and use this request format. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

M1pearc, I have repeatedly been told to make requests here on the article's talk page. My patience really is running thin now with the conflicting information I continue to be given by various editors. Don't worry I shall contact Ritchie next week to ask about this. And I would ask that you cease saying COI when we are talking about the AGE I was when I moved to the house. I know that, my parents know that, anyone that knows me knows that but of course you and others wouldn't as all I know about any of you is the screen names. In fact in relation to COI how do I know whether you or anyone else who has made changes on the page doesn't have COI? Again seemingly one rule for one and one for another. As said, don't worry I will take it up next week seeing as I am now being told its not right to raise it here when I was repeatedly told yesterday to raise anything here!!

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: You were told correctly, edit requests for this article should be made here, but they need to be in the format I linked you to and not a wall of text you expect editors to read, your continued refusal to work with the SOP here is taxing our "patience" trying to deal with your concerns. This page is about you, how could you not have a conflict of interest ? (and it's a lowercase L not a 1) - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

' My only interest is facts being right which it appears from the responses I am getting Wikipedia does not if you are happy for things to be on there incorrect. The amount of conflicting comments from editors is extraordinary and Ritchie made comments about you yesterday on his talk page and so I am being told a whole raft of different things by different people. For example, aside from the conflicting information I keep being told, many editors keep insisting what is a reliable source and what isn't. They then put those sources there. Yet someone has now deleted large chunks of the text saying it is not sourced in the references. It is! Has the person who has just deleted that text read the references that editors yesterday insisted were reliable sources? For example, the acute symptoms listed have been detailed in most articles about me and the campaign. Those symptoms that were listed were all in the Hickman Independent article that is in the references, amongst other articles referenced at the bottom. So I can only presume the person who has just removed those sections didn't read them.

As said conflicting information from various editors, conflicting statements from various editors, no way of checking the conflicts of interest with the farming and pesticide industry of any editor changing things. Always one rule for one and one for another. I did not know before all of this how Wikipedia worked but I do now and as a journalist who feels strongly about factual accuracy it has raised very serious concerns about how anyone can just go on and do anything to anyone's page with no responsibility, accountability or liability being taken.

This is all rather disconcerting, especially as I thought it was all drawing to a close for now.

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with your cause, I'm done with you. It's not one rule for one and one for another when you admit a conflict of interest, lastly, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi removed the large chunks of the text, have you thought of asking them why ? Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, alas. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I would have done but was told yesterday to put anything on THIS page rather than the editor's talk pages! What has been removed was in the various sources at the bottom so no reason for it. Don't worry I have enough to go on!

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well; firstly, thanks for the ping, Mlpearc- I didn't realise there was so much... activity?! on the talk page. Well, Thefactcorrecter, I can understand that this might be slightly disconcerting for you, but really, it's very simple. The 'large chunks' (?) of text I removed was one totally unsourced paragraph which made some quite detailed claims, and the second was purely removing some overly detailed text (one sentence, I believe), which added little to the general story. I haven't read everything on this page- nor do I need to, as Mlpearce and Martinevans123 are extremely experienced editors and their word is, as they say, good. But I must say that it, in general, it is counterproductive to answer simple points with walls of text (please see WP:TLDR for why!), and as you are writing about yourself, both the conflict of interest and the autobiography guidelines apply. As for the Daily Mail- no, in the interests of a quiet weekend, we needn't discuss it. As for the specific matter you seem concerned about- your age in 1983- there are two alteratives really; one, remove it, as it's not really directly germaine to the subject in any case ('when she was young' might do equally as well, perhaps?), and two, you address your criticisms to The Independent, to whom the factoid is sourced. As you know, WP relies on reliable, third-party, secondary sources, and the Indie is, for the most part, definitely considered such. Therefore, what they say, we say, generally; if they alter an interpretaion, then it's very likely that we (eventually) will. Sorry if this is either everything you've already been told or not quite what you want to hear- but when it comes to biographies, we have to be very strict with ourselves. Take care! — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 16:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, had just left you a message on your talk page.

You have removed a large portion of text including about the fact that in 2001 I launched the campaign which is of course referred to in all the sources I think! It is rather curious that you have removed some of the health problems that are in the various references as there is no reason to do so, especially as that section in early life is giving the background as to why I started to campaign in the first place! Just because an article has an age wrong doesn't mean everything in it is wrong.

Anyway, as said in the previous message I do now have enough to go on to know exactly how Wikipedia works which I am sorry is really of great concern for the reasons already given in my previous messages.

As a journalist who has worked with the media for many years I can tell you now that if print or broadcast journalists want to check the facts with the subject of an article to ensure it is factually correct then the most important person to tell them whether it is factually correct is the person concerned. The fact that it is not seemingly accepted that I was 10 when moving here has myself and my parents sat here bewildered quite frankly! Is a birth certificate a 'reliable source' maybe for Wikipedia!! I realize in this day and age not everyone does but I for one feel strongly indeed about factual accuracy however small or insignificant those facts may seem to others.

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have broken off a busy day decorating to have a quick look at this. I have added the sources discussed earlier, and added a bunch of others. I am tired and slightly cranky, so please check for errors.

I ran this feud by my other half, and our conversation was basically:

"This article has got a bunch of errors and sources that need adding; I'd better go and fix"

"Why can't she fix them herself?"

"Well apparently there's some conflict of interest policy"

<pause> "That's stupid!"

The conflict of interest policy was designed to stop people who'd got up to round 3 in The X Factor, creating a Wikipedia article about themselves, and then proclaiming them to be bigger than The Beatles. It wasn't designed to stop subject experts being able to fix articles where consensus had been established that there were errors.

Now I'm off to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you probably should. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How utterly ridiculous. Everyone knows they were never even on The X Factor. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, you will see in previous messages I didn't want to bother you over the weekend as I noted in your message to me yesterday that you were not working this weekend. That is why I said I would just follow up with you next week. Therefore I am sorry you felt the need to break off from decorating and as I continued to suggest throughout I could have easily just done the few things myself as your other half also suggested! Thus thank you for again clarifying the COI.

For avoidance of doubt I confirm that I have neither been in the X Factor nor in the Beatles :o)

Anyway, I have spotted just a couple of things all in the para re Cosmo and DM award. The Cosmo award wording was slightly wrong in its order (and the date was 2006), as was the DM/No 10 award as the latters awards were given out on an awards night and then No 10 visit was the next day as part of the award prize. Therefore would propose the following amended para to make the wording correct (and have added in the "then" before PM's wife):

"Downs won a British Environment and Media Awards (BEMA) in 2006,[13] and was one of the winners at the inaugural Cosmopolitan Awards also in 2006 winning the Heroine award.[14] She was awarded the Daily Mail's first "Inspirational Eco Woman of the Year" and as part of the prize went to 10 Downing Street to meet with the then Prime Minister's wife Sarah Brown.[10]"

I can easily just add this in myself but if that is going to cause more problems then I will just leave the suggested amended para with you but PLEASE enjoy your tea, your sit down, remaining decorating as it can wait til next week, as can anything else.

THANK YOU!

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 says that the conflict of interest policy "wasn't designed to stop subject experts being able to fix articles where consensus had been established that there were errors." Thank you, Ritchie333. So there is at least one Wikipedia editor with some common sense. To object to the subject of an article editing the article to say how wonderful he or she is, or to remove content revealing how dishonest they have been, is reasonable. To object to them editing to correct a trivial factual error such as whether they were 10 or 11 at the time of a particular occasion, is absurd. What earthly motive could Georgina Downs have for misrepresenting that? And which is more likely to be a reliable source on a question of that kind, the person involved, or a newspaper? There are very good reasons for not accepting the unsubstantiated word of the subject of an article for anything where they might either have a motive for deliberately misrepresenting facts or else have an unintentional bias because their perspective is not an objective one. However, there is no such good reason for doubting the word of someone on a simple matter of fact where there would be no conceivable motive for misrepresentation just because she is the subject of the article. To mechanically apply the mantra anyone connected to the topic of an article can't be trusted about the contents of that article without intelligent consideration of the particular facts of each case is crazy. I see that the mention of her age has gone from the article, but it is ridiculous that it has come to this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest a (urgent) RfC/AN-discussion to reiterate that, and copper-fasten it for good- the other (current, laxer) interpretation- suffering from mission creep as it seems to have been- is far to entrenched to be overturned in this small corner of a foreign field :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Much as I dislike the Daily Mail, they are not wrong 100% of the time (and I can count at least one occasion since the "ban" where sourcing something totally uncontroversial to it would have been helpful to finish off a GA) and they have made the point James made above about how silly it is for editors to claim to know more about a BLP than that very person (albeit with the typical Mail hyperbole and hidden agenda of course). Downs is not the sort of person to give up a fight easily, and I was mindful that I was talking to somebody who had taken on the British Government and won (at least for a bit), and was far more qualified on paper to write a featured article than I ever will be, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a wonderful British newspaper and has always struck me as being terrifically generous, even if it did have the reckless temerity, in 2008, to brand poor Ms Downs as an "ECO WARRIOR". M. Grabbit & Runne 123 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)