Talk:Michelle Gildernew

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

Point of View[edit]

This article does not have a neutral POV. It reads more like a series of press briefings, which detracts from the value of the information in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgb62uk (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential election[edit]

Is there any actual cite for the claim that "The Sinn Féin website stated in March 2008 the party's intentions to stand Michelle as a candidate for the next Irish presidential election". I don't think this is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.70.69 (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses[edit]

I have removed the addition which insinuates Michelle has done anything wrong. Due to the expenses scandal the expenses of all MPs were gone over with a fine tooth comb and many had to pay back large sums of money. If you have evidence that Michelle paid back a single penny please provide it, but without that it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to insinuate any wrongdoing. O Fenian (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact was stated without editorialization. It is for the reader to decide what to make of it. Your reasoning could be used to censor pretty much anything, since any facts you don't want included you could delete on the grounds that calling any attention to those facts "insinuates" something.Bdell555 (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that the sub-title of the linked Guardian article is "Mid Ulster MP insists Sinn Féin members did nothing wrong..." The Guardian leaves it to its readers to decide whether or not to agree. You are insisting here that Wikipedia take precisely the POV of this MP, Martin McGuiness. A textbook example of a WP:NPOV violation, in other words!Bdell555 (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence of wrongdoing please provide it, otherwise you are insinuating. O Fenian (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Wikipedia's job to come to conclusions about who is a saint and who is a sinner. It is rather our responsibility to report what is notable in a neutral way. The Guardian found the fact notable.Bdell555 (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are doing a good job of insinuating wrongdoing in an article about a living person, while ignoring that her expenses were given a clean bill of health. That last part negates the need for any inclusion of the expenses in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then add the material about the "clean bill of health" so that readers are fully informed. This is supposed to be a neutral article about a politician, not a campaign piece. The context here is this MP's abstentionism, a consideration which does not apply to the vast majority of MPs.Bdell555 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clean bill of health negates the need for inclusion of the expenses detail in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Martin McGuiness, given his assertion that there is nothing of note here. Wikipedia does not exist just to be McGuiness' mouthpiece. If, with no small indulgence, the situation is analogous to being accused and then found not guilty, as you suggest, fidelity to history means noting both the accusation and the exoneration, as opposed to deleting any indication that there was ever an accusation. The fact you are apparently opposed to this suggests that you don't really believe your own claim that "the clean bill of health" resolves all concerns. The analogy does not follow anyway because there were no charges of abuse of funds in the first place of the same sort directed against other MPs. This politician is as entitled to the 20 000 pounds of the Queen's money that she took as any UK politician. But she is also just as entitled to take a seat in Parliament and thinks it improper to do so. The reasonable speculation is that it is this, her declared "abstentionism", that makes the taking of UK taxpayer funds for a London flat she apparently does not visit that was of interest to the Guardian, as opposed to yet another run-of-the-mill MP expenses scandal. But that's speculation and ought to be unnecessary: the Guardian found it a notable fact and that should be the end of it, without you, or I, trying to read whatever we please into it in order to try and get it included or excluded.Bdell555 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with being found guilty or not guilty. Unlike certain British politicans who are facing criminal charges over their expenses, there was never even a hint of a police investigation. That is because Michelle's expenses were found to be in order, and where do you come up with the ludicrous idea it is the British Queen's money? Your whole diatribe against her political stance leads me to believe your motives are not neutral, especially given your edits to this and related articles. O Fenian (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the "insinuation" at issue here is your insinuation bald claim that including the fact would insinuate criminality ("criminal charges", "police investigation"). I see you missed the point of the "diatribe" since it was meant to illustrate that even the most concerned did not believe there was a misuse of funds from the UK's perspective. You are magnifying the implications here in order to strengthen the claim that there is a WP:BLP violation. The only issue this politician's expenses raised was that of rhetorical consistency; "The Queen's money" is an occasionally heard republican/nationalist turn of phrase for UK-sourced funds.Bdell555 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why you are so concerned about adding an insinuation by a newspaper that was later proven to be without foundation, perhaps you could explain? O Fenian (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of well-founded facts, presented without any "insinuation", apparently for political reasons undermines neutrality, which is is considered a cornerstone of Wikipedia.---Brian Dell (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Election loss[edit]

This section includes the quote "The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) ran in the constituency taking 2,732 votes, votes which may have helped Gildernew retain her seat." - is that relevant? Have the SDLP ever stood aside to give Sinn Fein a clear run? As far as I can see they've repeatedly refused any sort of electoral pact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.208.201 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michelle Gildernew. 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) 11:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Gildernew. 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) 17:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Gildernew&oldid=1207424445"