Talk:Jess Phillips

Creation of a controversy section.

She is a very outspoken and in a lot of cases vulgar MP. this usually means she makes outlandish comments for which she receives huge backlashes and criticism. that warrants a controversy section. VC19 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

no, that labelling and name calling is to be avoided in biographies of living persons. --ℕ ℱ 16:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

you take this way to personally. making a controversy section for controversial statements is not name calling. check your neutrality. VC19 (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

here is the relevant guidance which clearly sets out that what you are attempting to do is not appropriate - WP:CSECTION. In addition the way you are going about it is edit warring, which is in itself inappropriate regardless of the lack of merit of your argument, see WP:BRD for how things should go. If your addition of a title is reverted, then your only option is to discuss it and seek consensus. It is not ok just to keep trying to make the same change. --ℕ ℱ 10:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:ReusGang

This user keeps adding material antagonistic to the subject which is heavily point of view. In addition to rather commonplace comments by the Conservative MP Philip Davies, this user added "Phillips sparked a social media storm after she mocked" her Conservative opponent. While this is true to a degree, and is an unatrributed direct quote from the BBC News source, the social media response largely consisted of threats of violence to Phillips, as is established by other sources which are cited. That Phillips laughed at Davies is not especially notable and the member for Shipley has a reputation for rather far-out opinions. I considered the material added by ReusGang to be undue.

The two paragraphs this user insists on adding also seem unnecessary. The first, about passport gender identification in a Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC) report, has received fairly limited coverage. In any case, articles from national sources about the WESC report concentrate on comments from committee chair Maria Miller, and only to Jess Phillips in passing. Citations from any MPs local press, as here, can lead to an emphasis on minor issues, and the passage as it is inadequately explains the gender issue. It is questionable whether the tabloid Birmingham Mail is a reliable source. The other passage is cited to a Standard article from October 2016 about Phillips' comments advocating Labour should not stand male candidates at by-elections while there is a gender imbalance has also received limited coverage. Corbyn has dismissed the idea, according to another source, so it is effectively dead. One suspects it has just been added to make an anti-Jess Phillips point.

Phillips has only been in parliament for 18 months and this article has already grown to 24kb. The need for selectivity ought to be obvious. Philip Cross (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on their talkpage asking them to post here about their changes and also reminded them about WP:EW/WP:3RR. Thanks for your hard work on this article too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This user keeps adding material antagonistic to the subject which is heavily point of view.

This coming from you? Have you seen, Lugnuts, his pathetic handiwork on Seamus Milne? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: - my answers below. I have also pinged {{ping|Lugnuts} and @BowlAndSpoon: as they commented previously.

You claim that: This user keeps adding material antagonistic to the subject which is heavily point of view.

No, I added material that is neutral and relevant to the subject and fulfills WP:RS. You seem to be removing this material simply because you don't like it. I added the fact that Jess Philips "sparked a social media storm after she mocked Philip Davies for trying to get a debate about International Men's Day.". This is sourced from the BBC website here. How is this "antagonistic" and how is this my "point of view" when it is coming directly from the BBC? You also suggest that this phrase is WP:UNDUE. How so? A simple, google search returns a significant number of mainstream newspapers, media agencies and opinion pieces including the BBC and Daily Telegraph that directly report on the issue in the way described above. Adding this information is helpful for the reader to understand the context of this entire episode. To simply use the phrase Phillips objected to... as you suggest, conceals too much detail and smacks on censorship.

You next claim that: The two paragraphs this user insists on adding also seem unnecessary.

The first paragraph wasn't added by me. It was added almost a year ago and has been accepted by numerous editors since. I added it back again as your edit summary for it's removal (negligible national citations relating to this point) seemed a poor reason.

You also removed the second paragraph because "...Corbyn has dismissed the idea, according to another source, so it is effectively dead."

The article is not about Corbyn, but is about Jess Philips and her views. What policy reason do you have for the removal of this view of Philips?

You next state that "Phillips has only been in parliament for 18 months and this article has already grown to 24kb."

The size of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily related to the age of the article. e.g. an older article need not be larger than a newer one. This should be obvious so your point is irrelevant.

To summarise, you seem to want to remove well-sourced material from this article because you believe that it is a "point of view". I have shown above that all the material that I added is from reliable sources and has been phrased in a way that is absolutely consistent with these sources such as the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. It is therefore not my point of view.

You also feel that the material should be removed because the page size is big. This is not a valid reason to remove well sourced content, unless you can provide a policy to show that it is.

You also claim that the material is "undue" despite the fact that numerous RS's have mentioned the incident between Philips and the "member for Shipley". It is therefore very much relevant. ReusGang (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of a response for over a week I have reinserted the material I originally added. ReusGang (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that no one has chosen to agree with you in the last week. You cherry pick material to suit your own point of view. The supposed "social media storm" is from one source, while you choose to downplay the rape threats Phillips received on social; media, which is mentioned in multiple sources. The same goes for the passport gender identification issue which, as it involves Phillips, is largely only cited by the one source. And the by-election candidates issue too. The amount of reliable sources on an issue indicates whether it should be included. Both of these fail.

The Philip Davies quote you insist on including here ignores how unseriously his advocacy of International Men's Day and other issues are taken. His opinions on the issue are pretty much dismissed across the board, even in his own party, and his comments are dismissed by experts in the various fields too. Unlike Jess Phillips, with Davies we are dealing with someone who is rather marginal at best. Philip Cross (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of the points I made a week ago. I asked for policy reasons for your stance and you haven't given any. So I'll ask them again:

1) I added the fact that Jess Philips "sparked a social media storm after she mocked Philip Davies for trying to get a debate about International Men's Day.". This is sourced from the BBC website here. How is this "antagonistic" and how is this my "point of view" when it is coming directly from the BBC?

2) You also suggest that this phrase is WP:UNDUE. How so? A simple, google search returns a significant number of mainstream newspapers, media agencies and opinion pieces including the BBC and Daily Telegraph that directly report on the issue in the way described above. Adding this information is helpful for the reader to understand the context of this entire episode.

3) You also removed the second paragraph because in your view "...Corbyn has dismissed the idea, according to another source, so it is effectively dead." The article is not about Corbyn, but is about Jess Philips and her views. What policy reason do you have for the removal of this view of Philips?

4) You next state that "Phillips has only been in parliament for 18 months and this article has already grown to 24kb." The size of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily related to the age of the article. e.g. an older article need not be larger than a newer one. This should be obvious so your point is irrelevant. What policy states that a recently created article should necessarily be a certain size.

In addition to not answering any of the points I made earlier with actual policy justifications you have also now added some false allegations against me. You falsely claim that I "downplay the rape threats Phillips received on social media". How exactly have I down-plaid this? Feel free to add additional material about the threats - I have no problem with you doing so.

You also claim that, "The Philip Davies quote you insist on including here ignores how unseriously his advocacy of International Men's Day and other issues are taken. His opinions on the issue are pretty much dismissed across the board, even in his own party, and his comments are dismissed by experts in the various fields too." Where is your evidence for this? Otherwise it is simply WP:OR and your point of view. Neutral reporters seem to contradict your position. This article in the Independent newspaper states the opposite of what you claim. It states that "A Conservative MP has won his battle for Parliament to hold a debate to mark International Men's Day." If his views were "dismissed across the board" then he would not have won the battle.

I have reinserted the changes I made, as you only respond to the discussion when I do so. Until, I made the changes to the article you did not respond to the discussion despite giving you an entire week and despite you making well over 100 edits during that time. ReusGang (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As one of the early editors of the article, agree completely that it has become far too long in parts and there is undue weight to minor and unnotable events. It needs a thorough edit. The International Men's Day in particular could easily be summarised in a sentence rather than the entire quotes used. SocialDem (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

ReusGang, you pick out a source to begin the passage which leads with "sparked a social media storm" while others lead with the large number of rape threats Phillips received. That is more notable, and more precise. Very many such storms occur on twitter, so vagueness is not desirable, and the criticism passed way beyond anything which is tolerable. The issue of threats of violence on twitter is gaining much coverage at the moment, you tried to bury it later in the passage, out of sequence. The comments about Phillips laughing after Davies spoke at the Business Committee meeting, which you think valid, are a deviation from the immediate issues. A comment from Phillips I use ("When I've got parity, when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate") is clearly ill-judged and arrogant, so I am not suppressing negative material. I have now added comments from Davies which show him in a rather better light than the previous version which is rather over the top and speculative with leaps in reasoning ("If a male MP had reacted in that way about the need for debate on International Women’s Day, there would have been hell to pay. It’s entirely possible you’d be removed from Chambers or have the Whip removed. I’m surprised she finds that a laughing matter").

On the point about women-only candidates at by-elections, the Standard article is the principal source, unless one counts a Breitbart piece which most editors probably would not. Suggestions which gain no traction are not usually notable, especially if they are not well covered in the media. Philip Cross (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of the points I made 3 moths ago. I asked for policy reasons for your stance and you haven't given any. So I'll ask them again:

1) I added the fact that Jess Philips "sparked a social media storm after she mocked Philip Davies for trying to get a debate about International Men's Day.". This is sourced from the BBC website here. How is this "antagonistic" and how is this my "point of view" when it is coming directly from the BBC?

2) You also suggest that this phrase is WP:UNDUE. How so? A simple, google search returns a significant number of mainstream newspapers, media agencies and opinion pieces including the BBC and Daily Telegraph that directly report on the issue in the way described above. Adding this information is helpful for the reader to understand the context of this entire episode.

3) You also removed the second paragraph because in your view "...Corbyn has dismissed the idea, according to another source, so it is effectively dead." The article is not about Corbyn, but is about Jess Philips and her views. What policy reason do you have for the removal of this view of Philips?

4) You next state that "Phillips has only been in parliament for 18 months and this article has already grown to 24kb." The size of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily related to the age of the article. e.g. an older article need not be larger than a newer one. This should be obvious so your point is irrelevant. What policy states that a recently created article should necessarily be a certain size.

In addition to not answering any of the points I made earlier with actual policy justifications you have also now added some false allegations against me. You falsely claim that I "downplay the rape threats Phillips received on social media". How exactly have I down-plaid this? Feel free to add additional material about the threats - I have no problem with you doing so.

You also claim that, "The Philip Davies quote you insist on including here ignores how unseriously his advocacy of International Men's Day and other issues are taken. His opinions on the issue are pretty much dismissed across the board, even in his own party, and his comments are dismissed by experts in the various fields too." Where is your evidence for this? Otherwise it is simply WP:OR and your point of view. Neutral reporters seem to contradict your position. This article in the Independent newspaper states the opposite of what you claim. It states that "A Conservative MP has won his battle for Parliament to hold a debate to mark International Men's Day." If his views were "dismissed across the board" then he would not have won the battle.

I have reinserted the changes I made, as you only respond to the discussion when I do so. Until, I made the changes to the article you did not respond to the discussion despite giving you an entire week and despite you making well over 100 edits during that time. ReusGang (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Plenty of sources lead with the rape threats Phillips received on Twitter, not the "social media storm" you insist on. You keep mentioning the BBC source as though it is holy writ, yet it gives the briefest mention to the claim of "a social media storm". No more details are in this article, although you are beginning a paragraph with this which is a curious slant in the when their are other sources which go into more detail. Given the other sources go into the rape threats, you seem to be deliberately avoiding mentioning an issue which would gain unavoidable sympathy for Jess Phillips. So you are avoiding a neutral point of view in not following the emphasis of sources.

2. As I say above in earlier postings, the rape threats gain plenty of coverage.You moved them to later in the passage where they are less conspicuous. I meant the media when I said Davies' attitudes are not shared, and permission for a debate does not mean opinions are shared. I did not cut permission for the 2015 debate being granted. Again a neutral point of view is avoided, as you emphasis trivial details which show Jess Phillips in a bad light. As I say above, some of her comments at the business committee meeting do this, but my version implies, whereas your version seems to stress it.

3. I don't consider female-only candidates at by-elections proposed by Jess Philips as very notable because of the limited sourcing and its rejection by Corbyn. Notability is another policy requirement.

4. Many Wikipedia articles retain material which might have seemed potentially significant at the time they were posted online and then quickly added here. The material cited in 3. is an example of this. It is clutter. Philip Cross (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Plenty of sources exist for both the social media storm and rape threats. A simple, google search returns a significant number of mainstream newspapers, media agencies and opinion pieces including the BBC and Daily Telegraph that directly report on the issue. Also, the BBC is absolutely reliable per WP:IRS so your criticism of this source is unwarranted. You have provided no reason why this reliable source is not acceptable.

2. I moved the rape threats to later in the paragraph since that is the chronological order of events. She received the rape threats after mocking Davies and International Men's Day. It does not make the threats any less relevant.

3. I do consider this notable, and evidently at least one major newspaper does also. Corbyn's views on the matter are irrelevant since this is an article about Jess Philips, not an article about Corbyn.

4. That is your personal point of view and you are entitled to it. However, Wikipedia should not censor information related to an individual simply because one editor considers it irrelevant. Let the reader decide whether it is useful or not. ReusGang (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

On-going edit-war

@Philip Cross: and @Jojogungun:. Please bring your disagreements to the talkpage, instead of simply reverting each other. You are both edit-warring. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought I had said enough in the edit summaries about what is wrong about Jojogungun's edits not to need to respond on the talk page.

The other editor seems to have ignored the links I have provided. None of the sources the other editor insists on adding connect Jessica Rose Trainor (now known as Jess Phillips) to someone who is only assumed to be her mother, rather than demonstrated to be so in an admissible source. (See the No original research article, especially the section on Synthesis (WP:SYNTH). While The Independent is a reliable source, the Birmingham Evening Mail, described in the Wikipedia article as a tabloid (as opposed to "compact" like the defunct print Independent), probably is not. Company records are also frowned upon too because they invade privacy and are primary; they are not published third-party sources.

Her father's occupation is legitimately sourced, hence it is perfectly acceptable to include it. Philip Cross (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Philip. Hopefully the other editor will contribute here too. I've not paid too much attention to what's been added (or how valid it is), but I do see this going back-and-fourth on my watchlist! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts. Philip Cross (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe we should cherrypick aspects of early life and work history. Her father's career as a teacher and Jess Phillip's commendable work for Women's Aid are already listed. However, her mother was Deputy Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation and at times Acting Chief Executive (source - The Independent), this was a very high profile national job, and her parents owned 2 companies who were contracted to provide training and event management to the NHS and to which Jess Phillips worked before becoming an MP. I believe all added content are correctly sourced.

Many thanks

Jojogungun (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I also add the article which refers to her father as a teacher also refers to her mother 'working in the NHS'. I am simply expanding on her mother's important and prominent role in the NHS, which surely is relevant given Jess Phillips is an MP.

Jojogungun (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to demonstrate the two women are connected by using an appropriate source. This is vital, and you have not done this. Apparent cherrypicking is always unfortunate, but editors can only follow sources without any interpretation. Disruptive editing, for example, by ignoring Wikipedia policies, can lead to blocks. Again, I am referring to policy rather than threatening you. Philip Cross (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see This is a moving article about Jess Phillips and her mother Jean Trainor who died of cancer.

Jojogungun (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit, predating your account's edits, mentions Jean Trainor's connection to the NHS. It also mentions Jess Phillips, directly identifying her as Trainor's daughter. Not drawn from an ideal source, for reasons I have already specificed, but acceptable. So there has been no cherrypicking at all. Philip Cross (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Independent article would be worth adding, but it does not resolve the problem. It mentions nothing which confirms the details which are in dispute. Out of a city of more than a million inhabitants like Birmingham, it is impossible to rule out two women called Jean Trainor having a connection with the NHS. Of course, that is an assumption, but the article is currently making one too. Philip Cross (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you need evidence Jess Phillip's mother is the Jean Trainor who was Chief Executive of NHS Confederation refer to her own blog which described her battle with cancer . It is a moving account, featuring her children, and notably Jess Phillips, her husband Tom, & Jess's children.

Jojogungun (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not the point. Blogs fail WP:RS, unless they are by the subject of the article, so the issue, as far as editing this article is concerned, still remains unresolved. This is still WP:SYNTH, no matter how many pieces fit together, and anyway "Jess" is not identified as Jess Phillips. Philip Cross (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is getting rather ridiculous now.

Jess Phillips is from Birmingham - postcode B14 and her mother Jean Trainor worked in the NHS. Jess Phillips worked in Healthlinks and had a mother who died of cancer, a father called Stewart and she is the youngest of 4 children. She has a husband called Tom and 2 children.

Jean Trainor of Healthlinks and Deputy Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation has a husband called Stewart, 4 children - the youngest called Jess who has a husband called Tom, and she died from cancer.

There is only 1 Jean Trainor in Birmingham (B14) listed on the electoral role - living along with a Jessica R Trainor Jean Trainor's address for Healthlinks is Birmingham, notably B14

It is therefore beyond doubt that the Jean Trainor who was Deputy Chief Exec of NHS Confederation and Director of Healthlinks is the mother of Jess Phillips.

Jojogungun (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I know it seems ridiculous, but it is best to stick to the rules about sourcing if you don't want admins or others to come down on you. Incidentally, I cannot find myself on the 192.com website, undoubtledly because I am absent from the unedited publicly available electoral register and am ex-directory. A surprisingly sizable minority of people are for good reasons. An earlier edit was perfectly acceptable (see above), but you chose to go on a Jess Phillips is not working class trip as if a) it matters or b) you have a source where she claims to be. Even if b) you need to find a source where she is accused of being a hypocrite for reasons which ought to be clear by now. Philip Cross (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I fear you are not objective. Can we just stick to the facts about her background and interests in the NHS. Are you seriously suggesting Jean Trainor of Healthlinks is not Jess Phillip's mother? Aspects of background and previous work should not be cherry picked and sites should not be used for self promotion.

Jojogungun (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, which is why using talk pages becomes tiresome. It needs to 100% certain from published sources with editorial oversight, especially in a Biography of Living Persons, not forms sent to public bodies which are WP:PRIMARY. "No matter how many pieces fit together", to quote myself above, reliable sources should themselves indicate 2=2=4, not multiple sources from which a conclusion can be derived, that's original research. Remain in the habit of breaking rules around here means you can get banned or blocked. By the way, if you already have a Wikipedia account, ticking the box on the log in page keeps you logged in. (The user first posted with an IP address when submitting the above.) Philip Cross (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It does look like overemphasis -- particularly as it's not the primary focus of the article. Mother also fails to be particularly notable, and doesn't appear to merit this unusually determined original research. Support editing to a sentence about mother and father's occupations. SocialDem (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If none of the reliable secondary sources we're actually supposed to use say anything more about her mother than she "worked for the NHS", then the additional detail editors think they may have found is either insufficiently certain or insufficiently significant to include. That's policy.

There's particularly good reason not to stitch together primary sources in lieu of none of the many articles on Jess Phillips mentioning anything about family companies in this instance: the Companies House records we're not supposed to be using show that people that were probably Jess Phillips parents were named as directors of companies few people have ever heard of for just four months nearly two decades ago, with no evidence to suggest they have had any involvement since.

The stuff I'm removing is misleading rubbish inserted by a partisan editorDtellett (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Add: the job titles are less in need of immediate removal since they're likely correct - but we're probably better off sticking with the Guardian's "her mother, a healthcare manager" [1] Dtellett (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your contributions on this issue. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I came to this article after hearing Jess Phillips' controversies referenced on BBC R4 - it's disappointing that there's no information here. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Social life

One editor (‎User:Impsfan) keeps adding a section about Jess Phillips cited to The Canary website, and an article by Phillips for the tabloid newspaper The Sun about Jacob Rees-Mogg. Her friendship with the Conservative politician is covered in far better sources, and this item about the recent fracas involving Rees-Mogg has no urgent reason to be included. It is done so on the basis of allowing The Canary and the Zelo Street blog, both non-RS, to be included. The two good sources are Total Politics and the London Evening Standard, but the content is trivial in the extreme and has an element of synthesis.

The Standard: "But did the real power lie in Mayfair? Media mogul Rupert Murdoch invited MPs and editors out to play at his pad. Combative Labour MP Jess Phillips was there too, alongside Grayson Perry and Bob Geldof". Total Politics: "The POLITICO Playbook memo offers a list of MPs at the Murdoch bash that 'reads like a who’s who of parliament’s rising stars'. According to the memo, Jess Phillips, Tom Tugendhat , Dominic Raab, Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch were all there - along with the likes of Bill Wyman and Grayson Perry".

That's it! Two passing mentions to Jess Phillips in gossip columns which are too insubstantial for inclusion. Philip Cross (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear from Philip Cross' twitter feed why he is so keen to delete anything critical of MPs like Jess Phillips (lots of stuff critical of Momentum etc). As i'm concerned about aspects of what Momentum and their allies stand for I am sympathetic to this position, but it does not make for balanced editing. For a Labour MP to be writing regularly for the Sun newspaper, given its record on events like Hillsborough, is noteworthy; as is being the only Labour MP to attend a private party with the owner. Nevertheless, I accept that this is more appropriate for a medium like Private Eye, rather than an encyclopedia, so I will leave it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impsfan (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness you did. Philip Cross (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Requested move 14 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus is that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• Jess Phillips (politician) → Jess Phillips
• Jess Phillips → Jess Phillips (disambiguation)

– The politician has received 380,000 views in the last 3 years, with just 3,765 for the American football player.[2] Unreal7 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Primary topic and per WP:ASTONISH. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A very clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Station1 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are five entries at the Jess Phillips disambiguation page, only two of whom are named "Jess", therefore the choice is not simply between the politician and the football player, but also involves three other figures. The name "Jess" may also apply to "Jesse" or "Jessica", but those names cannot be used as the dab page's main title header, because they are not gender neutral. Therefore, indicating as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC a relatively new legislator who has been in office for barely three years and is not known internationally, does not appear warranted.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The other three articles are all stubs, so a hatnote to a disambig page would be enough here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is seems like a crystal clear primary topic to me. The other three articles pointed out by Roman Spinner are all sparsely viewed (about as much as the American football player), and there's no evidence they're primarily known as Jess Phillips, so I don't believe they hinder the primary topic claim for this page. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Clear primary topic with sustained and substantial reliable source coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Jess is unusually high profile for a relatively new MP and the others are evidently not and in most cases probably aren't even most commonly known as Jess Dtellett (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia article mentioned by subject

See [3], 21 May 2023. “My eldest son recently altered my Wikipedia page to say I liked to eat Quavers in the bath…” No sign of this when checking the diffs back to the start of 2022, unless that particular edit has been removed from the page history. I wonder if her son was teasing her, and hadn’t actually made the change. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)