Talk:Sally Bercow

Details

Age? DOB? Fig (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think she's 40. On the link attached it states that they met in 1989 when she was 19. http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/06/woman-with-past.html Mrpops2ko (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Politician?

I don't think so. Failed Labour candidate for a Council. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sally Bercow on a possible peerage for John Bercow

Currently, the article contains the following assertion:

"On 1 February 2011, she revealed on the PM programme on BBC Radio 4 that she didn't think that her husband, the Speaker John Bercow, was fit to go to the House of Lords after he stops being the Speaker."

Her actual statement (available in the last ten minutes of PM on iPlayer until 8 Feb 2012 (UK only)), made while arguing in favour of scrapping the current honours system, was this:

"I think it's absolutely ludicrous that my husband will be elevated to the peerage, but I must say that he doesn't share my point of view."

In context, it seems to me that her words were part of a theme that people shouldn't automatically be given such honours, but the current version of the article suggests that she thinks her husband lacks sufficient merit. I was therefore of a mind to adjust the wording or remove the paragraph. However, as there has already been a small edit war over this, I thought I'd ask for input from other editors before taking any action, preferably from people who've listened to the programme. Thanks. --Several Pending (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is Sally Bercow?

Can someone please explain to me why this person deserves an article on Wikipedia. This person fails to meet even the most basic of criteria as per WP:ANYBIO, and should therefore be deleted. As far as I can see, she is famous for being married to a politician. IMO, that does not make someone notable. Cassianto (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You may not think she's famous for a good reason, but she does clearly pass our notability guidelines. The references, and the 'Publicity' section in particular, are evidence of that. If you disagree, feel free to nominate this article for deletion. Robofish (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed this article already was discussed at AFD back in August 2011, and the result was an overwhelming consensus for 'keep'. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone who is "wife of her husband" is notabile?! --Mezze stagioni (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Alumnus of Keble College?

It's not clear from Category:Alumni of Keble College, Oxford what the inclusion criteria are. Does alumnus include a student who dropped out after 2 years without graduating or should it include graduates only--ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Alumni of a university are those who GRADUATED. Those who fail to graduate are not alumni they only attended until (usually asked) to leave often during their second year as they find it hard to get to grips with real studying after going to play group, bigger play group and then super-play group. Then they go to "uni" and suddenly find that all that time in play groups was wasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.59.71 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sued by Lord McAlpine

Sally Bercow is to be sued for £50,000 for an alleged libel. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9743114/Sally-Bercow-facing-50000-High-Court-battle-over-Lord-McAlpine-tweet.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachtripfan (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care how much compensation she has to pay, but she should shut up permanently and her husband resign as she and he have exploited his position of Speaker. They are both FIRST CLASS arrogant twonks.

Not sure why Lord McAlpine would allow her to accept the £15k offer that was made back in January, before she forced him to drag her to court, but it's looking a little like he might have. The Express quotes his solicitor talking as if the offer has been accepted by both sides,[1] but then goes on to contradict itself the following day by saying she's facing £50k damages.[2] The Independent mentions £15k and also talks of some of the £100k legal bill being offset by insurance.[3] Bromley86 (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth

Likely this is a nearly-pointless argument, as Sutton likely includes Carshalton. Nevertheless.

Recent edits by an IP editor have added the Carshalton place of birth with 2 cites. One of those cites is no good; it's a comment to an article rather than anything published itself. The other is a link to a paywalled site, where I assume birth records can be viewed? That's fine, as payalled!=invalid, but it is less useful as it makes fact-checking harder. There's IMDB,[4] but that's a poor reference as it's user-editable (like WP).

On the side of Sutton, we have the BBC[5] and the Observer[6]. Doesn't mean they're correct, but it does mean there's solid support for Sutton.

I've reset it to Sutton for the moment. Please discuss here before changing it to Carshalton. Also, please keep the references out of the Lead, if possible.Bromley86 (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Thoughts of Our Glorious and Hallowed Leader

The Daily Mail is of frightfully low quality most of the time...I'm not comfortable with us using them as a source for anything, other than in some very very specific circumstances.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BAN THIS SICK FILTH

The circulation levels and length of publication of this trashy unreliable paper is irrelevant. It's still trashy and unreliable and should treated with grave caution in all cases - and generally discouraged as a source. Political or editorial stance is irrelevant, too. It's about the quality - which is too low for encyclopedic work.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is definitely not a respected, nor a reliable source, and I am especially concerned to see it cited in a BLP. It is not at all petty to remove such links. I was considering removing the actual information as well, but I've stuck on some {(cn)} tags instead.

Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. -- From WP:BLP

I don't wish to get into an edit war with you, ‎Obscurasky; but if it's ok with you, I will revert to my original edit. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see someone explain why the Scotsman, Evening Standard, The Argus are okay, but The Mail isn't. I had a similar problem recently with someone blindly taking exception to a Mail article whilst being fine with a local rag cite that I used to replace it. The WP:BLP guidance seems, to me, to be deliberately vague on the issue of whether or not The Mail is a problem. Surely all sources should be assessed on their merits and, where the article says something like, "A spokesman gave details of her failed career at Oxford. Mrs Bercow studied theology for her first two terms and scored an upper-second-class degree in her honour moderations or 'mods', which is Oxford jargon for first-year exams", then the information is solid.

The other issue is BLPs of people who are famous for being tabloid celebs (not that I'm saying that's necessarily the case here). For example, there's surely nothing wrong with citing The Mail when it comes to participation in crap like Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity. . ., etc.

From my relatively limited time on WP, I'm certain that the biggest problem WP has is not a bio where every statement is cited to a published source with editorial control in a country famous for libel tourism. In case it's not clear, I'd object to removal of the cites, not least because without cites the information itself must be removed immediately per WP:BLP. Bromley86 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I started going through you recent mass removal of cites in other articles, but thought I'd better hold off until we resolve it here. One thing I did notice; in the first article I looked at, the James Caan one, you'd removed a Daily Mail Article that was actually written by Caan himself and was used to support his birth name. That's crazy, no? Bromley86 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I obviously wasn't looking hard enough because I didn't spot that one! Still, I don't think the Mail or any tabloid source should be used in a BLP. I have asked User:John (who has dealt with this very issue numerous times) to take a look into it. Until I get further clarification I will cease my 'Mail-obliteration spree'. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSOURCES is the place to look for guidance. --John (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is something that happens to other people John? Again, please explain why you've got a hard-on for The Mail with a link that says categorically not to use it. Given the rather scary "This is your only warning" stick you've chosen to beat me with, I'll refrain from reverting your revert.

In this particular case, you've removed:

• Uncontentious information (x2) as to her well-known Conservative leanings in early life. This is on a BLP of someone who is now a Labour candidate (or was until fairly recently); there's nothing derogatory about it and it is of interest.
• Uncontentious information as to why she might be a patron of an Autism charity.
• Grammar school. Direct quote from a 1 on 1 interview. Fair enough, perhaps it should be under Politics, but then Tony Blair's similar point isn't.
• When Paddy Met Sally. Of interest, surely?
• That she was a columnist for the Daily Star becomes hard to report if we can't refer to the Daily Star.
• TV appearances. I'm aware that IMDB isn't an excellent source, given that it's similar in nature to WP. However it's fine for supporting a totally neutral point about shows that she's been on. Presumably you'd argue, if you ever did anything other than single line responses and threats, that those shows are not notable enough to be in her bio?
• I'll give you the CV one. However, by deleting that reference, we now have no source for her dropping out of university (or even where she went). In the source, we have (had) a direct quote from her spokesman that confirmed it. Bromley86 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to enforce WP:BLP: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. If it's important, find better sources for it. --John (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Still failing to see the reason for the blanket ban of all things Maily. Two issues:

1. You've yet to show that all Mail articles are tabloid articles; assuming that they are (they probably are, realistically, but it's interesting to note that the quote & embedded link are vague), tabloid journalism is a vague term. In the absence of any further guidance, I fail to see why a few people are removing all mention of The Mail, even when the actual part of the article being used is a direct quote, an original interview or a statement from a spokesperson (or, as we saw above, the article itself is actually written by the BLP person). I.e. I'm making (or trying to) the case that tabloid journalism, as defined in WP:BLP, does not refer to the publication, but to the information. Although I do evaluate the sources I use for bios etc, I'm sure I've been guilty in the past of using stuff from The Mail that I can see, now, I shouldn't have. That doesn't mean it's all crap though and there are a number of examples of solid material being removed from this article (see above).
2. So, what about non-contentious material? There will always be items in bios that are not contentious (again, above). Per the first part of your quote, such items do not require support. So what's the problem with using The Mail to support it? Your current zero-tolerance position leads to the crazy situation where I might add a Mail cite for the OUCA point (which is notable in a potential politician and which, despite being currently uncited, you presumably have no problem with), only to have you come by and remove the point because it's only source is tabloid. Likewise, it's plainly insane to remove a link to a bio page or list of article on The Star that supports the fact that she wrote there. I'd say the same for her TV appearances; they're certainly notable. So here I'm asking to see guidance that says specifically "Thou shalt not use Tabloids, even when they agree with information that all agree should be included."

I'm not trying to be a dick; point me to the discussion that shows why The Mail is so toxic that it should be ignored (in favour of august entities such as my local, The Argus, or my old local, The Shropshire Star (that was famous (then) for a sensational car crash or similar every day). If the issue is important enough that an administrator (a class I found out about today :) ) is mass-deleting references, then I assume there's a recent consensus somewhere that addresses these two points. Bromley86 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've looked at several threads in WP:RSN and the consensus seems to be that while the Daily Mail is not the best choice for a reliable source, it should be evaluated on a case by case basis. See for example:

1. "I think we still need to judge case by case." Itsmejudith [7]
2. "It's true Daily Mail should be avoided if better sources are available, but it's a RS on a case by case basis." Brmull [8]
3. "It's not categortically unreliable, but should definitely be taken with a grain of salt and vetted on a case-by-case basis. I would be very hesitant to use it as the sole source for tabloid-like claims in a WP:BLP - after all, Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a tabloid." MastCell [9]
4. "Besides, the consensus on the Daily Mail is that it's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, a far cry from "generally reliable"." Sceptre [10]
5. "Publications are not inherently reliable, the discussion about the Mirror cf others being a reasonable example of that. Personally I wouldn't trust it to tell me the date without some form of corroboration. Individual items of product within newspaper have differing levels of reliability and should be assessed on a case by case basis. As with any publication it has items of content that would be considered reasonably accurate, as well as a lot of noise." ALR [11]
6. "Daily Mail has come up before and has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It's a mid-market paper and RS refers to "especially newspapers at the quality end of the market". I don't see any reason to doubt its reliability on everyday news." Itsmejudith [12]

If you guys still can't agree on this, then you should try the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

True, each instance should be handled on a case-by-case basis. In this case, we're dealing with the BLP of a rather contentious public figure. Note MastCell's point (quoted above) about tabloid sources in BLPs. If the information is important enough to be included, it will almost certainly have been covered by more respectable sources. I'm putting together a page to go through popular BLPs at the moment (HERE). I really want to address the problems with using tabloid journalism in articles. Any help would be much appreciated. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you're clearly involved in a witchhunt against certain sources which has little to do with considering them on a case-by-case basis; when quickly reviewing just a couple of your edits to BLPs I found one where you removed an source article written by the subject (I know you've admitted that was an error, but it does indicate you're just blanket-deleting). What's more, whilst you're sufficiently interested in the subject to start that Tabloid Terminator page, you've admitted that you don't know why you're removing The Mail references: "Also, can you point me to where it says for definite that the Daily Mail is not acceptable for BLPs?"

With reference to MastCell's point, they actually say, "I would be very hesitant to use it as the sole source for tabloid-like claims in a WP:BLP." I.e. they appear to to be happy to use tabloids for non-contentious issues that are notable. And I know the counter to that is that all notable issues will have been mentioned in a non-tabloid source, but that's plainly not the case from just this bio.

The links that Mohamed kindly supplied are dated 2008-2011. I don't know the ins-and-outs of the behind-the-scenes management/politics of WP, but there doesn't appear to be a consensus in those links for blindly removing all use of The Mail in BLPs (I'd assume, but don't know, the same is true for the other publications you list on your TT page). Bromley86 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Hillbillyholiday81: I can see that you have the interests of Wikipedia at heart and I think your efforts are a net positive. However, this case appears to be concerned with material that is not covered by more respectable sources, yet doesn't fall under tabloid journalism or contentious/controversial information (please correct me if I'm wrong on this matter as I didn't look into details). I encourage you to discuss each use on its own with Bromley and then try to agree if the source/information should stay or not. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to note my concern over Hillbillyholiday81's similar editing on the Andy Murray article, where he removed Daily Mail cites to such uncontentious material as his date of birth, his British ranking, his awarded OBE, and the breed of his pet dogs. It wouldn't have mattered if these had been replaced by better cites (no argument that the Daily Mail isn't brilliant) but to strip these out, replace them with cns, and ask some other editor to do the work of sourcing them again, doesn't seem like productive editing to me. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to the Murray stuff on my talkpage. I agree, I should probably just add the better sources myself, and I have been doing that with many articles. The slapping-on of {(cn)} tags is just the first stage. I've checked maybe fifty BLPs in the last couple of days, and every one I edit is added to my watchlist, and also to this list -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"It's really really really bad" In his own polite way, I think what he's saying here is that the Fail is a fucking monstrosity. I agree that Mr Wales' thoughts are neither here nor there! Just wanted to show that I wasn't the only one with a hard-on for that particular rag.. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am minded to agree with Hillbillyholiday81, that consensus supports stripping out references from the Daily Mail on BLPs. That Jimbo agrees is indicative rather than definitive, but it carries some weight with me. Dates of birth and nationality can be highly contentious so I would very much support the removal of references to the Daily Mail which support such, but as Escape Orbit says, stuff like that should be better sourced rather than just tagging. For a wider discussion of the DM we should perhaps have a further meta-discussion at WP:BLPN, but on this article I am happy that removal of frothy tabloid material sourced only to tabloids is in accordance with a properly conservative interpretation of our norms. As Hillbillyholiday81 says, if there is anything there worth saying, it will be possible to find better sources for it. On this article, we are comfortably within the existing BLPSOURCES consensus. --John (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus on stripping out Daily Mail references. I suggest that John reads and addresses the previous discussion. 217.40.202.110 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Tattoo

Is that permanent tattoo on her left shoulder???: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11611277/Speaker-John-Bercow-prepares-to-divorce-wife-Sally-over-affair.html Even if it isn't, what is it?, what does it say?/mean?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sally Bercow. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140317115636/https://twitter.com/MsSallyBercow to https://twitter.com/MsSallyBercow

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)