Jump to content

Talk:Sistah Space

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

Royal racism incident

[edit]

User:HguIEff added content about this incident, I deleted it, they reverted the deletion. Here is the diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sistah_Space&diff=prev&oldid=1125340545&diffmode=source

I think this incident is about Ngozi Fulani and should mostly be on the page about her. I can see it being relevant to mention it here, but not necessary to include all the speculation from unconnected people about her motivations etc etc.

So it seems that User:HguIEff and I disagree. Seeking more input. I will cross post to Ngozi Fulani talk page too, to get wider input, noting this is a new article that probably very few people watch. CT55555(talk) 14:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is about the individual not the organisation; the latter only came up as Fulani's initial answer to the question. Almost half the article is devoted to this rather than things the organisation does, a sign of serious imbalance. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The additions I have made to the article are relevant to Sistah Space in the following ways. 1/ The incident described by Fulani occurred in the specific context of her representing Sistah Space, as the founder and only employee of Sistah Space. 2/ Fulani's claims regarding the alleged racist incident were made using the Sistah Space Twitter account, as referenced. 3/ Fulani has expressly linked her specific experience in this incidence to domestic violence, which is at the core of Sister Space's remit. As the only employee and founder of Sistah Space, this episode as Fulani herself describes it is entirely pertinent to the Sistah Space cause. HguIEff (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 - it still happened to her, not the org
2 - it does seems a lot like she uses the Twitter account as a personal account, either way, that doesn't change #1
3 - as above
But I still think we can mention it here, just not in this much detail, the details from reliable sources can be added at the article about her. CT55555(talk) 15:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Fulani is the face of the organization. Have undone removal. HguIEff (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is disagreement on this talk page, then there is not a consensus on removing the paragraph. This is the information I was searching for when I looked up Sistah Space, so other people will likely be looking for it too. Everything stated is expressly pertinent to Sistah Space. HguIEff (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information remains on the page per my edit, but in a more neutral form and at an appropriate level of detail. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or forum for minute analysis, it's an encyclopedia. The topic of this article is the charity, and this incident is only related to the charity itself through its founder. More detail, at an appropriate level, can be added to her page, but it does not belong on this one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit removes most of the information where other editors have only tweaked it-clearly they feel differently to you. Find your use of force and threats troubling. HguIEff (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus develops from other editors that the expanded material should be re-added, that would be fine. But for now, the expanded material should stay off the article per WP:ONUS. I do not believe I have threatened you; you are new to Wikipedia, so I am trying to explain our policies re: WP:ONUS and edit warring. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you believe some very interesting things, such as your own authority. I do not appreciate being threatened with Wikipedia policy or the use of force. But if anything I do find the pile-on and presumptions very interesting here, if not wholly unexpected, so thanks for that. HguIEff (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Your edit removes most of the information where other editors have only tweaked it ..."
I "tweaked" the text yesterday, mostly for formatting, punctuation, tone, and WP:NPOV. Having slept on the matter, I agree with the suggestions above that the treatment on this page should probably be kept brief and factual, with a fuller account at Ngozi Fulani. I do think Hussey's resignation should be mentioned here though. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the GB News quote, which is from an unreliable source. I recognise you are new to Wikipedia, this is the only topic you've ever worked on, and I urge you to disc discuss the agreements we're having and learn what is a reliable source and what is not. CT55555(talk) 17:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) scored out my mistaken statement, apologies below[reply]
A tad condescending, and presumptuous, don't you think? Added to which is that fact that another user, not me, added the GB news citation. Would you like to apologise for implicating me? HguIEff (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, indeed I just recognised it was someone else who added the unreliable source. My bad, I though you were saying you had reverted and put that back in. I take that back. I'll score that out. CT55555(talk) 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should think so. HguIEff (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I think this incident is about Ngozi Fulani and should mostly be on the page about her. I can see it being relevant to mention it here, but not necessary to include all the speculation from unconnected people about her motivations etc etc."
I largely agree with this point of view. It's certainly relevant to this page - and the fact that this page was only created in the wake of these events suggests that Sistah Space is largely notable because of these events. However, I think it would make sense to keep the treatment here brief, and treat the subject in more detail on Fulani's page. Perhaps the mention here could be expanded slightly to include Hussey's resignation. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of founder

[edit]

(I merged two sections into this one, after someone started a new section 4 hours after me on the same topic CT55555(talk) 01:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)) [reply]

I think we must use her name and stop changing it to her former name. All sources on the org use her current/actual name. It's strange to keep adding in her former name. If anyone can justify doing so, please say so here.

Despite the IP editor's pleas to not revert, I have done so, being mindful of the need to keep WP:BLP details accurate. CT55555(talk) 17:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted about this at the BLP notice board. CT55555(talk) 22:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both myself and other users have tried to add Ngozi Fulani's birth name, but this has been repeatedly removed. We have her birth name-Marlene Headley-cited in the Ngozi Fulani page, with a reliable citation from the Telegraph (I have checked the source, and it does indeed cite Headley as Ms Fulani's birth name). Why is this being denied on this page when, at time of writing, it seems to be common knowledge to those with in an interest and, more importantly, has been documented? Can't we cite it as has been done elsewhere? HguIEff (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did start a conversation about that 4 hours ago above, see above. I removed it because her naming history is well documented at her biographical article. This is an article about the organization. It seems absurd to me that her former name is relevant information to an organization, noting that reliable sources when talking about the organization all refer to her by her name, none (that I've seen so far) refer to her by her former name.
The question is not if her former name is true, but if it is relevant information for an encyclopedic article about the organization. If you think it is, then please say why. CT55555(talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first reason is that people are clearly looking for both names (hence users other than myself repeatedly trying to add it here). More specifically however, I would say that the birth name is highly pertinent to this article because it is a reflection of Ms Fulani's stated charitable aims within Sistah Space, which is to say to offer aid to women of Afro-Caribbean and African descent. Marlene is a common name in the West Indies, where Ms Fulani was born; Ngozi and Fulani, the adopted names, each reference parts of Nigeria (or, rather, tribal peoples of Nigeria). Both names speak to the African diaspora Sistah Space addresses, and British Africans are talking about this a lot at the moment. A third point would be that Ms Fulani may still be known by her former name by those involved in her former work in Hackney, for example, Marlene and Maxine's (a shop on Chatsworth road where Marlene and her sister sold African artifacts). I appreciate that this is an encyclopaedia page about the charity. Nonetheless, it does seem to me that the founder and CEO's personal identity is deeply bound with the specific purpose and aims of Sistah Space. It's such a small thing, really, but I feel there is a strong case for including it in the Sistah Space page. HguIEff (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. That does help me understand the efforts to edit it in. When people change their names, there is often a low desire from that person to use their old name. But I take from your close knowledge of the subject that this is not the case here?
Again, I'm not disputing it is her old name, I'm just keen to avoid using a name that someone deliberately moved away from themselves. CT55555(talk) 23:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I feel the record is the most important thing here, perhaps as a second Ms Ngozi's long history of activism in Hackney. From what I know, it wasn't so much the dropping of her old name that was an act of activism (she is quite proud of that side of her heritage), so much as adopting a the new name. I don't think I can add very much more to this so it's up to the community now, suffice to say I am sure others will keep trying to add it because both names have powerful cultural resonance, certainly in Hackney anyway. HguIEff (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also refer those unsure about this to another page that seems to suggest to me that Ngozi is also known by her former name. https://www.geni.com/people/Ngozi-Fulani/6000000189470666838 HguIEff (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Birth name relevant in her own article but not here. If "people are clearly looking for both names", they should end up at her biog article not here. Also shouldn't be used at Lady Hussey page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging User:Ganesha811 who just edited out the name, not sure if you saw this chat. CT55555(talk) 01:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't! Thanks for pinging me. I would say that the founder's former/birth name is irrelevant on this page, and possibly relevant on her own biographical page. I do not support its inclusion here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also tagging User:Morbidthoughts who made connected edits elsewhere. CT55555(talk) 02:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After being notified at the BLP Noticeboard, I checked the Telegraph article and noticed it only confirmed her birth family name; it doesn't verify her actual place of birth, birth year, or her full birth name. Geni is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. I removed the full name, birth date, and birthplace from Ngozi Fulani due to WP:BLPPRIVACY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally reviewed an archived copy of the Telegraph article from the day it was published. I reviewed a later copy and found that it did confirm the first name so I have reinstated it on her bio page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in removing it from the Ngozi Fulani page when it is common knowledge and has valid sources. Privacy-wise this is no big reveal. Why so insistent? HguIEff (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be that her former name isn't so relevant to the organisation. CT55555(talk) 13:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the name is really pertinent or WP:DUE to this page or Susan Hussey's page either.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Both this article and that of Ngozi Fulani should be deleted - they are both only notable for this single racist incident at the Palace. I have seen far more interesting and useful articles quickly deleted (not sure if "speedily" or not). If you look at the references on the two articles, almost all the sources were written following the incident on the 29 - there are only a couple of exceptions, basically a couple of local newspaper articles and the charities own website. I gather Ms Fulani has faced much more severe attacks from racists after publicising the incident and that's terrible, but it doesn't make her notable. 87.196.73.215 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC) — User contributions for 87.196.73.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Interesting" is your opinion. Notability is what matters. As you note, most of the coverage is recent, but then it follows logically that some isn't. For example this. or this. WP:GNG guides is about what is sufficiently notable, which I would summaries as needing significant coverage in several reliable and independent sources. The organization has that. It is notable. If you want to share your opinions on the notability of Ngozi Fulani, you can do so at Talk:Ngozi Fulani although I suggest that it might not be a good use your time, as she is also clearly notable. CT55555(talk) 01:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously your hobby-horse, mate, so I'll butt out now but those two sources don't make the charity notable. If I wanted to spend my time editing articles then I could find hundreds of non-notable subjects that have been mentioned once by a national newspaper and a few times in their local rag. People making hobby-horses and acting like they own pages is why I no longer use my wikipedia account, by the way. 87.196.73.215 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll butt out now An agreeable outcome, thanks. CT55555(talk) 01:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue this is not an agreeable outcome. Dominant voices are constantly pushing others out here and it seriously affects balance. HguIEff (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you no longer have an account because you have your own agenda that was being rebuffed and you constantly ignored reliable sources given to you by people actually here to build an encyclopedia? On the subject of notability and coverage, there's a ton available on Sistah Space.
And those were just in the first two pages of search results. I didn't have to dig at all. SilverserenC 01:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop attacking the messenger - will you delete this article if I log into my account and prove to you that I have a history of good faith submissions and have never been banned? No, of course you won't, so it's pointless bickering over who I am. My agenda was to improve wikipedia, but it was people like you who drove me away.
If the subjects themselves are actually notable, it's pretty curious that these two pages were only created after the Royal Lady-in-waiting Racism Scandal. I'll grant you the scandal itself is notable - all this should be confined to a single page about the incident. I could easily find as many pages about Irene Reid, Britain's longest-serving lollipop lady who got an MBE from the queen, but she's not really notable either. In a year's time these two pages will be dead and no-one will be updating them. 87.196.73.215 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a terrible thing you said about Irene Reid. CT55555(talk) 02:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I've given you something to have fun with, anyway. 87.196.73.215 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sincerely. I do enjoy working to tilt the gender imbalance scales of Wikipedia's biographies. If you have any more examples, I welcome them. CT55555(talk) 03:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

We wouldn't normally include this sort of thing in external links - see WP:ELYES. Is it really justified? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite me making this edit, I agree. It was originally in the main body of the article and there was a content dispute going on and I moved it here as some sort of compromise move, but you are correct. @User:Silver_seren already deleted it, which I think is a good outcome. CT55555(talk) 14:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have re-instated it. Fail to see why it's irrelevant or in the wrong place. Can anyone explain why? HguIEff (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have objected to this already. You must obtain consensus before it can be reinstated. I also don't believe it is appropriate to link primary documents WP:BLPPRIMARY where the issue has already been discussed in the article. See WP:ELYES criteria 3 under "What can normally be linked". Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Morbidthoughts. @HgulElf you seem to be at odds with the consensus so far. Please pause. CT55555(talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sistah_Space&oldid=1208418109"