Talk:Katie Hopkins/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Note

Just to say that this article is in its VERY EARLY STAGES and is being expanded as we speak. Please do not link this from any articles YET. Thanks, happy editing. Dalejenkins 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Doesn't anyone check spelling on here? "Seperated"????


Or grammar? Semantics? It's English, but not as we know it, Jim.

E.gs

"... joined a business consultancy and migrated to Manhattan, New York"

"... In 2015, she purposefully put on weight"

"... business execution company"

For Wikipedia "editors" who might not understand: emigrated; purposely / intentionally / deliberately; "Kill all the businesses" (*).

(*) cf. "Clean all the Things" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole_and_a_Half — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.102.202 (talk)

"E.gs"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of "migrated to Manhattan" I think of a flock of passenger pigeons. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Article

I seriously question whether Hopkins is worthy of an article to herself - Should this not simply be incorporated into the Apprentice series 3 article? Or has someone done this on her behalf as part of an effort to launch her as a brand, because that's what it smells like?


Worth of an article - yes, probably. Worthy of quite as much as was in there when I saw it today, no. A full run down on every affair someone has ever supposedly had is not really appropriate even with article links for all of them. I have cleaned it up to a more encyclopedic entry - who she is, why she's famous, why she's controversial. It's MUCH easier to read now and still keeps in all the important bits as well as plenty of links to gossip for those who are interested. 85.211.140.130 18:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's got out of hand again - this person doesn't warrant an article (IMHO) but if she has to, then this is many time too long. Can someone remove the crap and keep it removed? --C Hawke 12:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. There's far too much rubbish from the News of the World and other tabloid newspapers here. It reads like a gossip column, not some kind of serious biography. It really needs condensing and pruning down. I don't know who is leading this article, but the quality of information within is really suspect and full of a lot of tabloid crap that isn't necessarily true even if sourced. Can someone please get it sorted? 88.104.202.193 12:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Made some grammatical corrections. Skyclown 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

She, if you can call her a person, does 'deserve' an article because of how controversial she was in the programme. Plus this is also about personal stuff to which has nothing to do with the apprentice. Lots of people will come on to wikipedia (as they know it as a good biography website) and type in Katie Hopkins more than any other apprentice candidate.

I also belive that the article needs expanding too. As you can see from the Apprentice template she is one of the notable candidates from the series. Pafcool2 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the apprentice:you're hired. Sir Alan said that if he has seen all those bad things she said about the contestants during the course of the show she would have been fired a long time ago

Katie's Current Job

If anyone wants to take a look at this article and go to pages 7/8, there is an article of what Katie is doing now, which tellingly reveals that Katie "joined the met office in late 2006 to head up its climate change consultancy service" - ie., shortly after The Apprentice finished filming:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/barometer/barometer6.pdf

Add it into the main body of the article if you think it relevent, though I also question whether she is worthy of a page to herself. It is at least a better source than Sunday Mirror, Tabloid speculation and gossip. 88.104.213.104 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that there's no referece to katie in the PDF above, but a whole article on her in this HTML version retrieved from Google: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:v86w3E3_prcJ:www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/barometer/barometer6.pdf+joined+the+met+office+in+late+2006+to+head+up+its+climate+change+consultancy+service&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2 Looks like they've already airbrushed her out of their history. --88.111.54.115 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right and all!! She was a two page spread with pictures when I published that link just a few days ago, and now the article has been deleted and the whole document altered! Whoah! Conspiracy theories or what? What did she do to deserve that? 88.104.135.223 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fired from Met Office

Katie has been fired from her job at the Met Office.... can somone add it to the article?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=461361&in_page_id=1773

Also they have denied she was earning 90K. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6743877.stm --88.111.54.115 11:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

no-one ever said they paid her £90K - that was what she was supposed to be earning prior to filming, the met office job was got post filming--C Hawke 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits; RE: Katie's romance

There has been discussion as to whether or not this section should be included. The reasons that I find it acceptable for the article is that a large part of Katie's "appeal", if you will", is her various romantice relations. These have been well documented in the press and other media, especially in The Apprentice Episode 11, where Katie said "The most ruthless thing i've ever done is take someone else's husband because I wanted him". You could compare Katie to Russell Brand. Also, the recent pictures of Katie having sex outdoors has raised he public profile considerably.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT trying to turn the article into a gossip rag. If you feel that the wording or phrasing is too extreme, please go ahead and make those more than necessary changes.

On the other hand, not ALL of the infomation needs to be moved. Paragraphs about the births of Katie's children are very important, but I feel that the relationships are important also.

Thanks, please post here if you have any views or queries. Dalejenkins 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one is saying that the "Katie Brand" should not be included in the article. Her relationships have been well-documented, but the point is that we don't really need to include all of them word-for-word in the article, no matter how well-sourced. It just seems to go ON and ON and ON. There must be some way of condensing the article down to who she is, why she's famous and touch on the controversies without going too far into the realm of the tabloids. It needs to be a lot more objective. For example, a whole sentence says that she met work collegue Mark Cross at Exeter Train Station on 25th May and went to a pub. Do we really need to know all that extra info? Can't we just say that Katie was pictured in the national press making love to a married work colleague in a field and leave it at that without reporting all the extra stuff from the tabloids? I just can't help feeling the whole thing can be trimmed a bit 88.104.247.154 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an expansionary edit war: fans keep putting in accomplishments (such as they are) and non-fans respond by filling in the gory details. Fighting TMI with TMI, as it were...137.205.183.109 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

noteable?

Does this woman really pass the notability test? Sparkyboi 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not in another fifteen minutes, she won't. 98.248.220.168 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Does this woman really deserve such a long page of info, she's only a contestant from a reality show after all!

I must agree with the above comments, this entry reads like a love-letter to a woman determined that we take her at her own - much inflated - estimation. I am will add it to my watch list so that I can follow this burgeoning affair.

--MJB 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Contentants on reality shows are what pass for celebrity these days. Jooler 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

but SEVENTY TWO references? When the wikipedia guidelines specifically say not to include this sort of tabloid trash?

I agree with the users above. I'm tempted to nominate this article for deletion. She is only famous because of her appearance on The Apprentice. She has become a media darling, but has done nothing remotely notable outside that show to merit her own article. All reality television stars feature in the press, but they are only given their own page on Wikipedia if they go on to sustain a media career. If she does go on to have her a media career outside tabloid interviews, then she may merit her own article. Until then this article should be merged and redirected to the Apprentice page.Legalbeaver 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
There are now 81 references! Certainly Wikipedia likes citations, but I found the article almost difficult to read in places due to the high number of them. Hogyn Lleol 09:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is trash and nonsense, but no one seems willing to stand up to the rabid fans willing to copy and paste every single tabloid article ever written about her into it... 85.211.75.49 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As of 2015, the media are still trotting her out at every turn as the dial-a-you name it-phobic.137.205.183.109 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review comments

I'm concerned over the notability of the subject of this article. However, despite that (and until someone feels strongly enough to take it to AFD), here are my comments I have after reviewing the article against the WP:GA criteria.

  • No fair use rationale for the screenshots. I'm not really sure they would qualify under fair use anyway as they seem to be purely illustrative.
  • While not absolutely essential for GA, the citations need to be checked for positioning against WP:CITE.
  • Poor grammar - the prose doesn't read that fluently, e.g. "It was at university which she....", "It is here that she met ..." etc.
  • WP:MOS should be followed for date formats.
  • Too many short paragraphs, makes reading a bit too choppy.

The Rambling Man 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ageist row

unsure how to verify this because the bbc player link will expire within a week and the comments made by tony blackburn on his twitter feed will also vanish..but at time of writing bith exisitToyahfan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Kaul.JPG

Image:Kaul.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Katiehopkinsvmichellemone.JPG

Image:Katiehopkinsvmichellemone.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Katie Apprentice.JPG

Image:Katie Apprentice.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Katie Hopkins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I am reviewing this article - details comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are my detailed comments.

In reviewing this article my standpoint has been that, for better or worse, Katie Hopkins is of sufficient note or notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article, and that the normal GA criteria should be applied.

The standard of prose remains well below that expected of a good article. The general tone is often unencyclopedic and "magaziney", and presentation is frequently slipshod. Here are some examples of what I mean.

  • Prose: There are many poorly worded and/or punctuated sentences. Samples follow – there are plenty more:-
    • "It is only after, contrary to popular belief, that she met fellow co-worker Paul Collins…"
    • "Although these comments might have been offensive to some, she insisted in her You're Fired Show, that it was only in the name of comedy, and suggested she 'just needed to vent a bit'"
    • "Reports originally suggested that the couple romped in the attic of the house in which the candidates were living, however Callagahan vehemently denied this".
    • "Hopkins wrote a column for the Express and Echo newspaper in Exeter, much to the criticism of its readers, but was eventually asked to leave after a poll was put onto the publication's website asking if she should continue with the post".
    • The word "whilst" also appears.
  • Tone: Expressions like "dumped", "took up a job", "Met Office", and the frequent references to her as "Katie" (and a reference to her one-time lover as "Damien") are not suitable for an encyclopaedia, nor is a sentence ending "dependent on your opinion". The general tone is that of a gossipy magazine column, without encylopedic objectivity; the presentation of Ms Hopkins is almost uniformly negative.
  • Slipshod - again, examples:-
    • The article says: "After filming The Apprentice Hopkins took a job with the Met Office in Exeter." Citation [2] takes us to an on-line article that makes it clear she was working for the Met Office in January 2006. So either The Apprentice was filmed before January 2006, or the statement in the article is wrong.
    • She appeared "in", not "on", the third series of The Apprentice
    • It would surely have been possible to have included dates for such events as her time at Exeter University, her time at RMA Sandhurst, and her Big Brother pilot, since these events are all cited to sources.
    • The Apprentice is sometimes italicized in the article, sometimes not
    • The magazine is Heat, not "heat".

Part of the problem with the article is the number of contributors, some of whom are clearly better with words than others. Nothing can be done about that, until Ms Hopkins’s notoriety abates somewhat and more stability is achieved. Also, far too many references are to sources that an encyclopaedia would not judge reliable (blogs, tabloid gossip). [38] is broken; [69] seems to have been put in for its obscenity value rather than its relevance to the article. Also, the "I’m a Celebrity" image lacks a fair use rationale.

I think at present the article is very far removed from GA status, with inconsistent prose quality, questionable sources and lack of objectivity as its chief flaws. I'm sorry, but I don't think that these are short term issues that can be fixed quickly. A summary of this review is as follows:

  • Prose quality: Fail
  • Accurate and verifiable: Fail
  • Breadth of coverage: Pass
  • Neutral: Marginal
  • Stability: Marginal/fail
  • Images: Marginal

Overall: Fail

Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Source

Source for info I added to the article regarding her childrens' birthdates:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1164879/I-cost-married-lovers-3m-Does-Apprentice-husband-stealer-Katie-Hopkins-REAL-regrets.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.17.189 (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns

The assertion being repeatedly added to this biography that "She also enjoys having affairs with married men, so far she has had sex with three married men" should be removed per WP:BLP. The Daily Mail source says nothing about her enjoying having affairs with married men. The rest is undue weight for the lead. Gobōnobō + c 22:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. User Boy2013 has been repeatedly reverting your (and my) efforts to remove that section without explanation. Hopefully he will be blocked from editing in the near future. Blckmgc (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


2013 Deletion Request

Requested deletion. Reasons given in deletion codebox. 2dFx (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the proposed deletion template because I don't think this is an obvious case. Feel free to nominate this for deletion through Articles for Deletion though. Gobōnobō + c 22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


This 'woman' is an old-fashioned snob who doesn't need an article. However she is a controversial figure who is representative of an extremist group in britain

Being an 'old-fashioned snob' is not a good reason to delete an article. On Wikipedia, people should have an article when they meet the notability requirements, and she arguably does, whatever people's opinion of her might be. Robofish (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Businesswoman"

Hopkins is described as a "businesswoman" - citation needed here? She was on The Apprentice but nothing in the article confirms that she's a businesswoman.

Well noted, anonymous commentator, and I've removed the category. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2013

Sir Alan's quote was "Sort yourself out. You do not need to do this." 86.21.17.138 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.- Happysailor (Talk) 17:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013

Can we change the "tabloid press" criticism to encompass the broadsheets as well. As she has now been roundly criticised on all media formats. 110.32.162.20 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This page is not protected, so I closed the edit request. Any interested editor can make the changes. RudolfRed (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Is the Digital Spy a good enough source to use in a BLP? I'm guessing it might be okay for non-contentious stuff like TV appearances, but I don't know much about this site. Any thoughts? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

checking own edit.

Just making it known here that I accidentally verified my own edit, rather than Unreal's that went before it. Woops - my bad. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain the notability here?

She was on the Apprentice – once – and pissed off a host on This Morning. How is she notable enough for a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microphonics (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


Agreed - what is the historic or cultural interest here? Does Wikipedia have to have an article on everyone who has ever appeared on TV?90.192.171.118 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, but in this case, she's been the subject of enough media attention since appearing on The Apprentice that she passes our notability guidelines. If you disagree, you can take it to articles for deletion. Robofish (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2013

Birth:

Katie Olivia Hopkins born in 1975, Barnstaple, not 1968 as cited.

Parents Roy Hopkins and Anona C O Crowle

From FreeBMD, Ancestry.co.uk

England & Wales, Birth Index, 1916-2005 about Katie Olivia Hopkins Name:Katie Olivia Hopkins Mother's Maiden Surname:Crowle Date of Registration:Jan-Feb-Mar 1975 Registration District:Barnstaple Inferred County:Devon, Cornwall, Scilly Volume Number:21 Page Number:0568

According to her Company's (Katie Hopkins Limited) Annual Return AR01 for the year ending Jun 2012, Katie Hopkins' date of birth is 13 February 1975, not 31 May 1975 as cited.

Enviria (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. -Ryan 05:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 2 November 2013

"Although these comments might have been offensive to some" under "Comments and views" - these smell like weasel words. Her comments have been widely reported as offensive ([1], for example).

Please change "Although these comments might have been offensive to some, she insisted in her You're Fired! interview that it was only in the name of comedy, and suggested that she "just needed to vent a bit".<ref...>" to "Her comments have been reported as offensive[1]. She insisted in her You're Fired! interview that they were only in the name of comedy.<ref...>"

Not done: Neither of these sources characterize her comments as offensive, although one commenter does use that term. I don't disagree about the weasel words, but you need a better source. Regards, Celestra (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

At least one article removed now in any case. I still propose re-writing the sentence to remove weasel words: "Katie Hopkins defended her comments after leaving the show.<ref...>" Jupiterberry (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/08/katie-hopkins-quotes_n_3560383.html

Her "personal blog"

I initially reverted the removal of a link to this, however on second thought and upon reading through the few entries there I realized that it suffers the same problem all other non-reliable sources suffer from - there is no way to truly associate Mrs. Hopkins with that blog. We don't even accept "verified" twitter accounts as reliable, but we accept a blog on a service where anyone can create a blog named anything and write anything about anyone? More to the point, it's also a primary source and we're using it to support something about the subject that looks inherently negative. I'd prefer if we can find a secondary source that mentions the article on the blog, and use that instead. And ideally not include it in the lede. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

er the page about the sociopath and others in the blog i have looked at all say "Posted by Katie Hopkins", the blog is identified by her name as being her blog and there is a picture of her at the top of each page. I dont know what more you could have to indicate origination by Katie Hopkins. "Personal blog" reinforces it even more, only she could say she is a sociopath as it could well be libelous for somebody else to say that about her. --Penbat(talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FWIW, from an argument I had (and lost) over at Top Gear, it seems that verified Twitter accounts are considered reliable? (Even when they're wrong.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
also it seems incredibly unlikely that http://katiehopkins-apprentice.blogspot.co.uk/ is done by a third party without Katies consent or knowledge. She is constantly in the media and tweets dozens of times daily. Its beyond the bounds of credibility that she doesnt know about the blog in which case if it were fake she obviously wouldnt permit it. Also it does have a ring of authenticity about it rather than being a parody blog. Also the subject matter of the blog "The Apprentice" strongly suggests that the blog has been up for years as she appeared on The Apprentice years ago. --Penbat (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that I can go to blogspot and create a "penbat.blogspot.com" and write whatever I want to write. There is no verification service by Google that resembles what twitter does (assuming that we do accept twitter verification at this point, but that's irrelevant). I can get a photograph of Penbat as well, and say "posted by Penbat" all I want, it doesn't mean that it's you. Quite frankly all that seems to me like a forced parody, but our perception and gut feeling of a subject doesn't matter here - what matters is what we can actually verify. Unless we can verify that Mrs. Hopkins actually wrote all that, we should keep it off the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

Hopkins was born in St Kevern Cornwall, Source herself BBC radio Cornwall 7/5/14 Goballa (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We need better information on the source of this information than that. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

Katie Hopkins has taken to Twitter to support the brutal 7-inch metal spikes which have been installed to stop homeless people sleeping in doorways

Metal spikes, which many believe have been installed to deter homeless people from sleeping in an alcove outside a block of luxury flats in London, have sparked outrage on Twitter, after pictures of the building went viral.

The image of the 17-inch long "anti-homeless spikes" has been circulating rapidly across social media, with many expressing their disgust and outrage at the "brutal" plan. 174.29.77.33 (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested an actual change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Deletion nomination

This articles notability has been questioned several times (here, here, here early on, and here and here more recently), with the closing suggestion it be taken to AfD, though this has not so far been done. To test the issue I have opened an AfD discussion, if anyone wishes to comment. Swanny18 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Struck; seems we already had one...Swanny18 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: Found another! OldAfD templates added. Swanny18 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

please add info regards comments, petition and possible prosecution for racism concerning Glasgow bin lorry crykash and Glasgow ebola case 86.163.132.204 (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How about http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-racist-glasgow-ebola-tweet-examined-by-police-9951781.html or http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30641705 - Seem like reliable sources. rturus (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Additional information needed@Rturus: "please add info..." is not very clear. "Please provide a specific description of the edit request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not helpful and will often be rejected; the request should be of the form "please change X to Y because..."."  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, if you want to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template, you need to tell us exactly what you want to add or change to the article, along with a reliable source which supports the change if it isn't a small copyediting fix, and we'll implement it for you. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015

Page states that Katie Hopkins won "Dick of the Year" award. This is wrong. Should be changed to: 'accumulated the most votes in The Last Leg's "Dick of the Year 2014" award, as voted for by members of the public via Twitter during the live show. However, the presenters declined to grant her this award on the grounds that she is a "dick for hire", would enjoy being described as a "dick" and could benefit from receiving the award. During the show, Last Leg presenter Adam Hills made an impassioned speech to Katie Hopkins to "stop being a dick" in 2015. The award was eventually awarded to Nigel Farage, who received the second most votes.

Ref: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Leg#Dick_of_the_Year

www.youtube.com/embed/e7xE6ByD5pU

Channel 4 media archive of "The Last Leg of the Year 2014" is also a reputable source for this whole edit.

Jwddixon (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Journalist?

Is it really fair to classify her as a journalist? She identifies as a columnist and her work seems to consist of opinion, not fact. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call her a columnist instead of a journalist? Janers0217 (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Where I have mentioned her on other articles, I have gone with "media celebrity", which seems to sum up what sources make of her - how does that sound to you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed "journalist" and replaced it with "columnist." There is no evidence she's ever done any journalism. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Television stuff

@Qed237:, @Getrwuegyweh: - you were reverting too much last night and should have come here to discuss things (that's the "D" in "BRD"!) I've had a look at the area of contention (Qed237 thinks the prose should remain, Getrwuegyweh wants it as a list), and my thoughts are, like Old El Paso tacos, "why not both?" Keep the prose (though copyedit and resource to taste) and put the list at the bottom. That seems to be reasonably consistent with the way biographies are done from my experience. Incidentally in regard the table being "unsourced" - the requirement is that encyclopedic content is verifiable, but when information in the prose with inline citations is repeated as a list, there is no immediate requirement to repeat the citation, particularly if it can make the appearance cluttered. "Verifiable" does not mean "full of little blue numbers all over the place". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I looked at the list and saw no reason to move around the section, also I took a look at the list and took a random entry (in this case "sunday night" show) and did not see any source or mentioning anywere in article, thus reverting as unsourced. If all titles can be read in the prose I guess the list can stay but the prose shpould be there and title must be source somewhere. QED237 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think "Sunday" was a typo for "Friday", which is mentioned in the prose. Unless I've made a mistake (possible I know!) then the other entries should be repeated in the body, with sources. If not, flag 'em up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015

"Journalist" should be changed for "Columnist". As referred to in the Sun, for whomn she writes a column; Katie Hopkins Columnist http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/katiehopkins/6287882/Sun-columnist-Katie-Hopkins-reveals-what-she-really-thinks-of-CBB-housemates-writing-from-inside-the-house.html

Columnists write opinion pieces, usually a mix of opinion and loose unverified 'facts'. Journalism is a profession. 86.149.88.25 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done There are plenty of references to her being a journalist. -- haminoon (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done There is no evidence she's ever done any journalism. The reference to her being a journalist is simply that someone believes her opinion columns "count" as journalism. That doesn't make it so. You have to look at the source and reliability. I looked through The Times - many articles about her, always calling her "Sun columnist" or "television personality" - no reference to her being a journalist. And The Times and The Sun are both owned by Rupert Murdoch. And many of the articles OUTSIDE Great Britain are written by people who have never heard of her and neither have their readers (one of them said something like, "Who is Katie Hopkins, you ask?"), and they are simply re-reporting, or they read it on Wikipedia when they looked her up to find out who this woman is. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"rochdale sex trafficking gang" link

Hi all,

I find the section "Pakistani men and Rochdale" to be inaccurately (that is, too generally) titled. more importantly, I can't see how linking the "rochdale sex trafficking gang" article (in the second sentence of the "Pakistani men and Rochdale" section) is significant to the article's content, as it does not provide any information on a) Katie Rochdale, b) her being reported because of the hate crime accusion. (logically, i cannot follow why this sentence would be of any significance, unless its motivation was to "justify" her actions/utterances concerning people with Pakistani heritage/ancestry and/or to ridicule Simon Danczuk as he reported her.)

I rly hope i put this in the right section, and if not, i'd be grateful if someone pointed out the way to go to me :))

no offense intended, Happy Holidays to all of you, K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:0:F247:94A9:2C6D:A668:4B37 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence and linked article do not appear to have anything to do with Hopkins. -- GB fan 18:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This line's been rewritten and I think it's now OK. The 'Rochdale sex trafficking' article should be linked, as it is plainly what Hopkins was referring to. Robofish (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
This is probably the most daft suggestion I've ever heard. She even put a picture up of the people convicted of that case. Why can't we link to it? Can we not link people talking about the Holocaust because they weren't involved in it? '''tAD''' (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
At the time of my comment above, this is what it said, "In 2012, nine men from Rochdale (the constituency Danczuk represents), eight of whom were of Pakistani origin, were jailed for their part in a child sexual exploitation ring." Linked exactly like that. This does not explain at all how this relates Katie Hopkins or to the paragraph. The linked article does not explain how it relates to Katie Hopkins. Since then the paragraph has changed to "On 29 March 2015, Hopkins was reported to the police by Labour MP Simon Danczuk for possible race hate crimes after being accused of equating men of Pakistani origin with child abusers when commenting on a case involving mainly Pakistani men and white victims which happened in Rochdale." It now explains how that case relates to Katie Hopkins. When information about sex trafficking is introduced into an article about a living person it needs to explain how it relates to that living person. To answer your question yes we can link to people talking about the holocaust or the Rochdale case as long as it explains they were discussing it. -- GB fan 12:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"She revealed a particular dislike for the names Tyler and Chardonnay, which met with disapproval from host Holly Willoughby." This could mean anything. Was it the names which met with HW's disapproval, or was it KH's dislike for them which met with HW's disapproval? 81.151.45.17 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

2013 Glasgow helicopter crash remarks

It is difficult to know what the 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash remarks fuss is all about without the text of the tweet being reproduced in the article. Could someone do that please? 109.149.208.29 (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversial

The article must somehow describe how Hopkins has made a career for herself on outspoken opinions, but in a sourced and objective way. I take issue with the opening sentence calling her "controversial", as it is a loaded word and rather weaselly. For example, all British political parties are controversial because large numbers of people support and oppose them. I also note that people from all walks of life who have "put their foot in it" (Jeremy Clarkson, Diane Abbott, Zlatan Ibrahimović etc.) do not have the qualifier "controversial" put in their opening sentence (although Clarkson's is mentioned in a balanced way later on in the lead). Instead, all three of said articles simply leave a "Controversies" section. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: I'm sorry to be late to this conversation, but I had a go at fixing this article a while back, removing lots of bad tabloid sources, and found it to be as fun as wading through thick tar. At the moment, I think either lead needs to mention the "controversies" section more (without necessarily using the term "controversial"; rather just summarising the incidents), or the "controversies" section, which is taking up a substantial amount of the article, needs to be trimmed down. As it is, I read the lead and get the conclusion she's a minor, barely notable journalist, which certainly isn't the opinion I get from anywhere else. She is probably most notable these days for engaging mouth before brain - how we get that in an article while keeping close to BLP policy, who knows? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a snippet of the kind you require: in the matter of the Trump debate, she describes the balance between "trying to be supportive of minorities" and "trying to do the right thing" - that these two should be opposed in her mind tells you all you need to know, really.137.205.183.109 (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

Please change 'Hopkins sympathised with "British truckers and taxpayers" instead.' to 'Hopkins claimed she sympathised with "British truckers and taxpayers" instead.' (or similar) as otherwise it suggests an objective truth in the idea that 'truckers and taxpayers' exist in opposition to immigrants.

2.96.46.76 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence to more closely agree with what the source says. -- GB fan 23:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Newsthump Article

On the 21st of April, following her 'controversial' statements comparing the hundreds of human beings who had died in the Mediterranean, whilst fleeing Libya, to vermin and cockroaches, Katie Hopkins was the subject of a Newthump spoof article claiming that a recent study by 'awfulness expert, Simon Williams' had revealed that she was now 'more awful than diarrhoea'. Large sections of the British public didn't believe the article was a joke.[1] 81.155.223.222 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Migrants

The Migrants section does not make it clear that the Sun article was written and published before the disaster in the Mediterranean.(ref) Also, the way the first paragraph of that section is structured makes it seem that the quote beginning "No, I don't care." is in response to the disaster, when it was the first paragraph of the Sun article, which was again published before the disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.188.207 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Pishcal — ♣ 15:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Fuck it then, clearly you don't care about blatant violations of BLP policy. 137.43.188.137 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have trimmed this section down - we can do better than the London Evening Standard as a source I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

This line:

In a statement released on 24 April 2014, High Commissioner...

Should be:

In a statement released on 24 April 2015, High Commissioner...


2.29.24.78 (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015

Please add a Extra Section to controversy about Autism and ADHD, stating this

In wake of the 2015 General Election, she stated that Ed Milliband is on the Autism Spectrum, and so a Change.org petition was created and she was put under fire by Various Autism Groups. and tweeted along with Born Naughty, which she stated that it is not ADHD that causes People to become Naughty, its the Irresponsible Parents. She then later went on LBC Radio to launch another attack on the parents of children with ADHD, blaming them for their childrens’ behaviour. Hopkins had said: ‘You have to point the finger of blame. That is your mother, that is your father that is responsible for that behaviour. Not ADHD. I don’t think kids are born naughty. I think some kids are just born with bad parents. A mother phoned the show to pull Hopkins up on her comments, and was clearly tearful as she spoke. She said: ‘I’ve got three children, one with ADHD, does that make me a bad parent? To judge and say that they are naughty children is just unfair.’ Katie Hopkins was then Sympathetic to the Mum and Congratulated her on her courage, She said to her: ‘It takes a lot of courage to come on here and tell me I’m wrong. It’s easy for me to point the finger.’ Pcfantask (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: You need to provide WP:RS for these quotes Cannolis (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

Katie Hopkins has been a regular contributor in the online satirical magazine, Vive Charlie, since 2015. [2] Nial Slain (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Neither of the sources supplied are what I would consider quality sources for a biography of a living person. Please supply a better source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

Subsection Controversies- Subsection Migrants Last sentence: "...50,000 Syrian refugees gained gained more than 20,000 signatures..." Extra gained. Avirotofficial (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oxford

"She passed the Oxford University entrance exam, but was rejected at the interview stage." That is not how it works. Getting called for interview does not mean that you "passed". I can't fix it. Could someone change the word "passed" to "took"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Caius G. (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

"Sugar was criticised over questioning of Hopkins about her childcare arrangements."

should either be: Sugar was criticised over questioning Hopkins about her childcare arrangements. Or Sugar was critised over his questioning of Hopkins about her childcare arrangements 81.132.58.135 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Katie Hopkins. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katie Hopkins. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katie Hopkins. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2018

Much of the information presented is horribly biased and needs to be corrected. Information presented here must only be factual and not speculative. Hackerculture1986 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bradv 19:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is rightly held to a higher standard than Hopkins, but to complain that information about her here is "horribly biased" and should be "factual and not speculative" is the height of satire, surely? JezGrove (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Please remove Question Time from the lead (or amend) as it is not a reality TV show as described. 84.92.90.18 (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

On the 19th of June 2020, her Twitter account was permanently banned "for hateful conduct". 82.31.186.77 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This has already been included in the 'Print and Websites' section. Thanks, Darren-M talk 17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Years Active: 2007 - 2020 49.184.43.233 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This edit would suggest she is no longer active in any form as a "Media personality, columnist, social critic, businesswoman" which I think is presumptuous. Darren-M talk 23:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Non sequitur

and states that the comments she makes fall under freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

And? The preceding sentence did not indicate that anyone claimed she did not have those freedoms, so why is this part even there? 72.200.151.15 (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hopkins suffers from epilepsy

Shouldn't that read suffered now she's cured?--82.19.19.125 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed. Philip Cross (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Final solution"

How about we attach Category:English neo-Nazis to this article? Someone who calls for a "final solution" is nothing short of a neo-Nazi. Steinbach (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not unless you can find reliable sources that say she is. See WP:BLPCAT for further information. ~ GB fan 13:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we not take her word for it? 199.76.15.139 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Where are we on this? 12.197.55.217 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously BS suggestion to fill up the text pile. --105.8.0.117 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if it would be possible to upload a section covering some of the harassment that Katie Hopkins has suffered in her public profile, I have lots of verifiable sources to reference the information and think it could really add to the page. Here are some I was thinking of including to reference:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-hopkins-malicious-death-threats-6080830

http://www.irishmirror.ie/showbiz/celebrity-news/katie-hopkins-hit-barrage-abuse-9249362

http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/12/death-threat-fears-katie-hopkins-installs-panic-button-in-home-5146784

http://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/569956/Katie-Hopkins-panic-button-home-fears-murdered

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/17/katie-hopkins-death-threats-anoymous-group_n_7816430.html

I am aware that there are rules on tabloid journalism, so I didn't want to wade in with any heavy-handed edits, but I really think that a section on the levels of harassment and threats directed at Katie Hopkins by (quite often) online misogynists warrant an inclusion in the article.

Would love to hear everybody's thoughts on this.

Barackaddict (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Of the sources you list, only The Huffington Post would be considered as an admissible reliable source here. No doubt the abuse is distressing for Hopkins, her family and those close to her, but notability is required for the content of any article on Wikipedia and is dependent on predominantly third-party sources. Philip Cross (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why the Huffington Post should be considered more reliable than the other publications listed. Your statement lends credence to the view that Wikipedia is not to be trusted as an accurate and unbiased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.123.137 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


Well she's harassed many people, so what goes around comes around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooncotton (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katie Hopkins. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed, see WP:BLPPRIVACY. Philip Cross (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

'Far right' Rebel Media is not factual.

Until a citation can be given as to how The Rebel Media is far right, it should be considered a smear that has no place in a Wikipedia article. The page for far right describes something that Rebel Media is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.162.84 (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The source used describes The Rebel Media as being "far-right". That is enough for verification. In the opening it says Hopkins "has joined far-right Canadian website the Rebel Media, where Tommy Robinson, the founder of the English Defence League, is also a contributor." Plenty of sources also use the term for the English Defence League and Pegida, the body with which Robinson is now associated. Philip Cross (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I did a quick google search, and the top hit says "Katie Hopkins joins far-right Canadian website Rebel Media". Even the Daily Mail, not exactly known for being a yoghurt-eating leftie publication, has said "Ex-Mail Online columnist Katie Hopkins joins right wing Canadian website". If a reliable source says it, we can too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Katie Hopkins was born on 13 February 1975, in Barnstaple, Devon.[3] Her father was an electrical engineer and she has an older sister. She was raised in Bideford,[4] attended a private convent school from age 3 to 16, played sports and learned to play the piano and violin. From age 16 to 18 she attended North Devon College,[2]. EgbertLeClair (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial 'not done'. It is not admissible to use an internal Wikipedia article as a citation. Hopkins attendance of North Devon College has proved difficult to demonstrate via a proper citation in the recent past. I do not suppose the situation has changed in the 10 months since you last raised this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://newsthump.com/2015/04/21/kaite-hopkins-now-officially-more-awful-than-diarrhoea/
  2. ^ http://joom.ag/xsBb
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference grigg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Bideford girl Katie Hopkins stars in Big Brother". North Devon Journal. 14 January 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017: Katie Hopkins Sandhurst

She completed her military training at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, but before the final "passing-out" ceremony her medical history of epilepsy was uncovered. As a result she was refused a commission. Not only had she accepted a place at the Academy under false pretences, thereby taking that opportunity away from someone else, but - had she passed out - her condition would have jeopardised the safety of soldiers under her command. Antslessor (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 Not done as per WP:NPOV — IVORK Discuss 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016

Suggest addition of info to top of section subtitled "Television"

Katie Hopkins appeared in the unaired pilot of the first Big Brother series on Channel 4, in early 2000. She began work for future husband, Damien McKinney, later that same year.

source : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2906383/CBB-s-Katie-Hopkins-one-people-exposed-Big-Brother-house-15-years-ago-pulled-jeans-reveal-bum.html 144.124.82.113 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done The Daily Mail should be generally avoided as a source for biographies of living people as it has a long standing track record of being sensational at the expense of factual accuracy (search for the paper in the Reliable sources noticeboard). I don't mind it being added if you have a source such as a book or a broadsheet newspaper. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Surgery (and relation to WP:BLPSOURCES)

I'm a little (but not a lot) uncomfortable about the recent addition about the epilepsy surgery, simply because I searched for sources here to find some additional ones and got depressed - the top page of results gives me the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, London Evening Standard and OK! magazine. Just missing The Sun to complete the set. Out of all of those, I think itv.com is probably the least tabloiddish, but it would be really nice to get a broadsheet source ASAP, wouldn't it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katie_Hopkins/Archive_1&oldid=1159836499"