Talk:Rosie Winterton

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire High‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Rosie Winterton is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Affair with Prezza[edit]

Can't be long now before there's a section on this.

I think it certainly merits one.

82.22.69.195 10:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations, such as they are, have all been made indirectly, and none have been made in a reputable source (or, for that matter, the tabloids). As and when it becomes widely-reported, then we can consider it for inclusion on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

James F. (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that allegations have been made, even if they are unproven though the entry should make clear it's merely hearsay. 219.89.39.235 08:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could wait 'til they're printed, and we can blame someone else for the potential libel. WP:OR and all that.

James F. (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James is right, she's threatened to sue for any mention of it, and English libel law being what it is, you can get sued for printing something as false; John Major did it and killed of the trust that then owned the New Statesman. Libel law is an arse, but until it's changed, WP can't print it, as you can sue in any jurisdiction that it's read. -MatGB

Bloggers are publishing the Rosie Winterton affair story, and one of them (Iain Dale) has been on numerous current affairs programs to discuss the allegations. WP may not traditionally comment on blogs, but when they are publishing stories that the press are afraid to, then surely they deserve to be mentioned? - Bloo

As Guido Fawkes (blogger) points out, it has been two weeks since he reported the story, and there is no sign of a writ yet [1] DWaterson 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the current sentence because it made no sense. Also the source needs to be a bit wider and more conclusive than the opinions of one (albeit renowned) blogger. Please feel free to re-write a comprehensible sentence if necessary.Matthewfelgate 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the best sentence, was it? :-) Something like "She is alledged to have engaged in a long-term affair with John Prescott by several political activists and commentators, notably the bloggerGuido Fawkes.", perhaps, but... eurgh. Let's wait 'til PE (or whomever) print it, hmm?

James F. (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a MoS story has just been added by User:Catchpole: see diff. AFAICS, the only grounds for the story are that he visited her house a lot, and they widely known to be old friends from her days working for his office while in opposition. A man visiting a woman's house is poor grounds for alleging an affair, especially when there is no sourced allegation that he stayed overnight. This is merely a rumour based on flimsy circumstantial evidence, so I have reverted Catchpole's edit. Unless the story is better substantiated, it is unenclyclopedic: wikipedia is not a scandalsheet. --BrownHairedGirl 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

This page needs a photo to be found Matthewfelgate 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"rumours concerning her relationship with a ministerial colleague"[edit]

I've taken this bit out. We can't just leave it in with a {{fact}} template indefinitely, and even if it's true (I don't know) then as the policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As an editor said in the discussion further up this Talk page, "Unless the story is better substantiated, it is unenclyclopedic: wikipedia is not a scandalsheet." As far as I can see the reasoning for putting it in amounts to "There's loads of gossip about it" - which is not good enough for an encyclopedia. If it gets reported in a reliable source, then fine: put it back in. Otherwise, it shouldn't be there, however frustrating some may find that. Loganberry (Talk) 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minister with responsibility for NHS dentistry[edit]

I have been trying to include something about Mrs Winterton's recent job as Minister with responsibility for dentistry, which covered a key period of the NHS dental services reforms.

Someone keeps editing out my inclusions though.

I can understand, with the state of NHS dentistry in this country, how her and her minions want to exclude this from her C.V, as all she did was alienate the dental profession, and make matters much worse. However, it is historical fact, and shouldn't be allowed to be removed.

Toothsmith.

(A UK dentist)

School[edit]

Epolitix says she went to Doncaster Grammar, not Danum. (The ref in the article doesn't mention a school.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]