Talk:Jane Pilgrim

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

NPOV issues

This article was written by one person who clearly has an agenda against the trade unions, and is completely one sided as a result, portraying an entirely negative image of Jane Pilgrim. Almost all of the References are links to Pro-Conservative websites, including Order-Order (a political gossip blog currently campaigning against Jane Pilgrim) or the Daily Mail (a right-wing tabloid). 129.67.50.144 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't accuse people of 'clearly having an agenda', as Wikipedians' should assume good faith on the part of others. I would, however, ask for the editor, User:Leviathant11, to answer here. Since this is the only article he or she has ever edited, you may very well be correct.

On the substantive points, there's nothing inherently wrong with citing news articles from the Daily Mail. That it is a Conservative-supporting newspaper (with idiotic views on most things) does not detract from the fact that it is still the UK's second most-read newspaper, a middle-market newspaper, and a reliable source.

To maintain a neutral point of view, Wikipedia articles must represent the balance of opinion from across all reliable sources. If the only reliable sources that discuss the subject are pro-Conservative, that's kinda tough; Wikipedia should reflect them. Nonetheless, I doubt that that has been the case. If you can, please look for other reliable sources – I will endeavour to do the same – that will allow us to cite a broader range of sources. Bastin 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the Daily Mail is considered RS, but what about Guido Fawkes's blog and ConservativeHome? They're blogs and are not considered RS. As such, they should be removed. Dominic (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since this is a biography of a living person, the standards for verifiability are considerably higher than for other articles, so making this article conform to WP:NPOV is crucial. Bastin 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Pilgrim. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414015651/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23940223-nursing-union-attacks-catastrophic-cuts-to-nhs.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23940223-nursing-union-attacks-catastrophic-cuts-to-nhs.do

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) 02:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]