Talk:Diane Abbott/Archive 1

Champeen
Nadine Dorris accused Abbot of lying on Newsnight tonight (27/01/12): I wonder if that is something she should be sacked for. Ms Dorries has some very strong and rather unique views on the role of 'god' working through her as an MP which I believe would improve this article by being included.

"I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did... I am just a conduit for God." "I try to live my faith. Some days I fail quite miserably but I constantly try to do what Jesus would do." [4] Any comments, opinions, objections to me adding this? --Richardeast (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I'm an Atheist RichardEast, I've no objection to its inclusion, as it demonstrates she's barking mad, deluded, and really ought to be dismissed from her role as Chair of the committee, as it proves she's biased from the outset. I feel that Christopher Hitchens is inside me at all times - very distracting at times :) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.131 (talk)

Diane Abbot knows the Parliamentary Rule Book well enough to slam dunk anyone who accuses her of lying, when all she has done is withdrawn from a highly partial committee with a biased nursing auxiliary as Chair.00:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)twl00:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.131 (talk)

Tone
I have to say as someone unfamiliar with the career of Diane, looking up this article for information, I was immediately struck by the fact that the overall impression is overwhelmingly negative. Reads like a hatchet job. Can someone explain how this occured and maybe try and balance the piece a little? 143.117.45.114 (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, I tried to take a bit of weight out of it but it is still with undue weight and the criticism section is bloated with cherry picked minor issues given undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like the "Political Career" section is bogged down with too much discussion of further "controversies". In addition, phrases like "However, she was the only person to attend the inaugural meeting" are unnecessary and paint a negative image. I admit I am not well-informed on the career of Diane Abbott, but I would certainly imagine, as an MP of almost 25 years experience there may be some more significant achievements to her name than this list of race-based controversy.  A little research perhaps is needed. 143.117.45.114 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of the reference to these events: ''Once elected, Abbott attempted to establish a Black caucus within the Labour party along with Bernie Grant. tried again in 1989 but it soon failed as senior black MPs did not want to join, with some suggesting it was fundamentally racist to create a "party within a party". '' show that the reference provided does not support the statements, and indeed refers to the formation of the black caucus with Bernie Grant, not it's failure. I removed this stuff from the article.143.117.45.114 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for that.Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Diane Abbott

 * Copied from User talk:JK the unwise

A bit arbitrary, your edit! Not sure it's not you who's op-eding. Observations and reportage are encyclopaedia-OK in bios. I never said that I agreed with her point about schools for her son.--Farsee50 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Example from what you wrote; "The ostensibly-improbable chemistry between Portillo and Abbott, both deemed mavericks respectively from the right and left but able to relate to each other gently and humorously on TV" this is very conversational in style and appears to be original research (OR), i.e. it appears that you have watched the show that that this is what you beleive to be true. While it may indeed be true (I haven't sen the show) it is OR all the same. This is even more true of the sentence "On occasions when other politicians replace them, the easy style of the show rarely works and even Neil seems less affable"


 * Also, "Her decision to send her son to private school was widly seen as hypocritica ... She defended it robustly", according to whom was her defence robust this looks like POV to me.


 * I didn't mean to put the op ed link in the article that was an editing error.


 * I do not think that my Rv of your text was arbitary but maybe it was a bit harsh, I'll try to rework you text to something we can both agree on.--JK the unwise 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an OK and supportable compromise re the school issue at least till someone locates other sourcesd material. Re the chemistry, the issue is about the appeal of the TV programme (and of that kind of political discussion) rather than simply how well she and Potillo relate - and is what reviewers and, presumably, ratings have noted by contrast with the bear-pit of party politics. Will try to substantiate--Farsee50 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the most recent edit (not from me - maybe from someone who understand it better) which get the facts right and the exchange with Michael Rosen allows everyone to read what she says: she said it was indefensible (which is honest and not hypocritical) and then explains (and defends) her decision.--Farsee50 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that its better pared back but it makes me laugh (this is op ed) if she said its indefensible and then trys to defend it :-) --JK the unwise 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Lady MacDuff
Lady MacDuff?!?--Coroebus 21:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

CLS Stuff
I reverted an edit that took out references to her son going to the CLS: the stuff was referenced and NPOV so I put it back. Driller thriller 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Perhaps a clearer Front-Facing photo can be found? Matthewfelgate 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote request
Can anyone find the quote from Abbott in which she complained of seeing too many "blond haired, blue eyed" nurses in the NHS? 86.17.246.75 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * no, but i've got a good one from her past: "We are not interested in reforming the police, the armed services, judiciary and monarchy, we are about dismantling them and replacing them with our own machinery of class rule" If only diane felt the same way today... -- james — The preceding comment was added 07:09, 15 August 2006.


 * The Telegraph Thursday 28 November 1996 Nick Cooper 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jk
I agree that its better pared back but it makes me laugh (this is op ed) if she said its indefensible and then trys to defend it

I don't think she was trying to defend the specific decison that she made but was talking about the issue in general:

"What you are not entitled to do is to completely dismiss the issue of what is happening to black boys in the British education system."

Too much colour?
Surely few people care whether Diane is black, white, brown or yellow. We are in the 21st Century, in a truly multi-racial country and surely the time has gone to bang on about what colour someone happens to be? It is hard to think of anything less important. If anyone actually does care, then the picture says it all. Could we have a bit more about the person - but less about the colour of her skin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.89.0 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clearly very important to Diane Abbott herself - although I agree with you that it shouldn't be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

3
Diane Abbott is said to be black in the article. Three races seem to be involved. Indo-Pakistani ancestors are a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.37.209 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Diane Abbott racist?
To seek a "Black Caucus" within the House of Commons, and to support the "Black Child Annual Awards" are, of course, intrinsically racist activities. Any activity that highlights a racial difference, or discriminates against particular ethnicities (presumably no Native-American, Pakistani, Afghani, Caucasian, Korean etc child has ever won the "Black Child Annual Award") are inherently racist. This disappoints me in the extreme...I would have thought that by 2009 Great Britain would have grown beyond this kind of petty bigotry. Diane Abbot should be denied access to the means of disseminating her prejudice via mass-media in exactly the same way that the British National Party are.

82.5.68.95 (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article covers her alleged racism very well. Whilst it's useful that you've made the point that such racism is notable, please be aware that the talk section is for discussing the article, rather than the actual person themselves.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what racism means, and you are being willfully ignorant by claiming otherwise. Racism is the ideology that white people are innately superior to all other people. Anything that combats this ideology is anti-Racist. --86.147.179.37 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What an absurd comment - how can it be anti-racist for someone of one race to make derogatory remarks about another race - just as Diane Abbott did on twitter? Racism is not restricted to comments about non-white people, and it isn't only practised by white people.  A look down pretty much any British street will show you that. 109.94.137.1 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of material available for free online about the various definitions and understandings of racism and the various different ways (including differences in severity) in how it manifests. In fact, there is more than anyone could ever be bothered to read.  There are also plenty of forums that where the topic is raised frequently for discussion.  For that reason, it does not seem neccesary for anyone to take a stand on the issue here. Wight1984 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2015 GMT)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.183.164 (talk)

Anit-racist my arse. Racism is racism and is not restricted to white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.224.197 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree racism is not restricted to white people. However, it is restricted to the race or group of people who hold power over others, as racism is an imbalance of power. In this case, a black woman proposed programs to afford black people a place to congregate in a predominantly white country where her identity as a black woman hold little power. She was not proposing a caucus or program that would disrupt the power imbalance in the status quo, so I don't understand how equity can be compared to racism.Da.morning (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please, this is the place to discuss ways in which the article might be improved. It is not the place to debate various possible definitions and their moral consequences. Just not, irrespective of the strength of your views. (This comment is aimed equally at those on all sides of the argument.) Please discuss this elsewhere, or not at all. JDAWiseman (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article has been edited in several places after Abbott's candidacy for the Labour leadership was announced. Some of this editing has included fairly trivial superfluous information such as the quote:


 * 'Abbott has said "modernise" only ten times in parliamentary speeches to November 2009.'

The speed and timing of the editing, together with the fact that all of the information casts Abbott in a negative light, implies that the motive is at least partly political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pip.je (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The editing is not party political, it is wikiresponsible. What is your issue? As the nomination is announced we can clearly expect this BLP to have much higher viewing figures and of course attracts the attention of experienced wikipedia editors, we have a duty of care to the living subject to present a fair, decent cited article to the web. Modernize? ten times? Not notable cherry picked comment, removed. Have you got any more issues?Off2riorob (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem that we will need to have a close eye on this. The section on homeopathy was only described in primary sources, and does not appear to have been covered by primary sources, and so I have removed it. How many early day motions has she supported, and why was this one picked out? I have also removed a sentence regarding her husband which again was only mentioned in one newspaper source (I did look for others) and was over 6 years ago so we have no idea what the situation is now. Quantpole (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? The sources are perfect. The fact that she supported an early day motion criticising the findings of the Select Committee is indicative of her stance on matters evidence based and scientific. This has huge relevance for reputation of a potential political-party leader. The original section was added (by me) weeks ago; well before she announced her candidacy. I have added a quote from another Wilkipedia page which highlights the significance of this Early Day motion.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.15.87 (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are primary sources, which are discouraged, particularly in biographies. If there are reliable secondary sources available which detail this specifically in relation to Diane Abbott, and taking care not to give undue weight to the issue, then fair enough, but I could not find any secondary sources which discuss her in relation to this issue. You are making an inference of what is significant, but this is not backed up by the sources. Quantpole (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that I was slightly mistaken, in addition to the primary source you are also using blogs. Blogs are generally considered unreliable, and certainly do not show that this is a notable enough thing to be included. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mistaken about what? The blog is a very well respected blog. It's simply not right that this action by Diane Abbot is left out of her Wikipedia entry. I have absolutely no vested interests here and I'm not a member of any political party. I just know that if I were reading about Diane Abbot I would be very interested to know her position on science and evidence based issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.15.87 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary sources are allowable in the context of the sheer number of references by non-professioal sources. Just do a search on Google for "Diane Abbot" and Homeopathy. It's a real issue out there.
 * If it is a real issue out there then you will be able to find reliable secondary sources about it. Until then it should not go back in. It's quite simple really. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, do not edit war to keep this section in. If more people comment here and agree that it should be included then fine, but at the moment you are edit warring to introduce poorly sourced information into a biography. You must stop this, otherwise you are likely to be blocked. Quantpole (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I ask why you (83.146.15.87) chose to include the reference to 'the stupid list', and also to put it into bold type? People make errors of judgement, perhaps based upon ignorance of science, but it doesn't necessarily make them 'stupid'. There has been quite a bit of adverse comment about Diane Abbott, suggesting that she is somehow not clever enough to be considered for the Labour leadership. It seems to me you may have some agenda there and are using this homoeopathy thing to project something more. I can certainly see no other explanation for putting that phrase in bold type. Dubmill (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the bold type. This article should stay as it was (for weeks) before this edit war started. I see no reason why the removal of the disputed piece should be the default.


 * The article already looks much better since yesterday, actually resembling a biography! though I think we are lacking some achievements/notable campaign priorities and so forth to give a feel for this MP's politics and motivation. The controversies still need some exposition.  Someone more familiar with her career would be better placed to do this, I only read this article as I was wanted to get an idea of the politics of Diane Abbott, and found it lacking.  143.117.45.114 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes agreed, the article does look much better now. I don't dispute that any of the controversies happened, and that some of them aren't notable enough to include. However the article as it stood on the 20th did not seem like a balanced biography (I can only think of the quote I picked out above as the example though, can't remember exactly how it was). I'm sure people can search out more specific information about her stances on various issues if they want to find it. It is true that her candidacy will / has attracted more edits, however those made on the 20th seemed mostly to relate to information which could be used against her. The article should be in flux though, as clearly more information worth including may well surface as the leadership contest continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pip.je (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on homeopathy
I have just attempted to remove some very weak content from this section, insulting comment of no value and citations to blogs and not reliable locations, and the primary document that does not mention Abbot at all and is of no value her when we already have an internal link to the actual article, all my edits were pretty much instantly stuffed back in without any attempt at discussion by multiple IP accounts, can editors discuss this section as we need to get a consensus about this content, thanks. @Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"the list of MPs who have signed is regarded by sceptics as the stupid list"...... this for example is a valueless insult. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

and David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at University College London, has called it a "handy list of dimwitted members of parliament"....this is another valueless insut and is sited to this blog http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2829..where the name of the writer is not even there, this is not a reliable wikipedia source. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The stupid comment is cited to this blog and is very very not a WP:RS http://spidercomment.blogspot.com/2010/03/letter-sent-to-mr-winterton-on-16-march.html Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole section should not be there. Are we going to add a homeopathy section to every MP who has signed the motion? Yes it is relevant to the article on David Tredinnick but not here. It is not covered in any independent reliable sources whatsoever. Quantpole (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually strongly agree with that position, I dislike poor content even more when it is warred back in by multiple IP accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a report to 3RR noticeboard about this, so hopefully the disruption will be stopped soon. I have noticed that the same unreliable sources are also being used at EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy. Quantpole (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, hopefully you will stop removing content off the wiki until it has been agreed that it shouldn't be there. Its notable, and supporters of her, or this pseudo-science trying to hide her opinion by wiki editing is pretty low. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you know I am a supporter? How is it notable? Where is the reliable independent sourcing? Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To Pikrtn-The content is cited to blogs and you should not have replaced it, please revert your addition of content cited to such locations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Plkrtn, that is a bit of a coatrack for this article - what is needed are reliable sources detailing how support of homeopathy is relevant to Abbott in the grand scheme of things. The motion might be good material for the EDM article, Homeopathy in the UK, or somewhere like that, but not here. Terms like the stupid list sourced to a blog really do not belong anywhere on this encyclopedia per WP:Biographies of living persons, especially not on the biographical articles themselves. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: The article was recently semiprotected. I would advise all editors to avoid re-inserting the material until there is clear agreement about what to insert. You may consider using the BLP noticeboard as a source of outside opinions. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely the last notice is an incorrect stance to take. This should be left in until agreement has been reached. It is highly relevant in the recent circumstances of the Labour leadership debate that a possible contender, and possibe leader of this country, supports a pseudo-science with no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.23.91 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is true then please can you show the reliable source which demonstrates it. Quantpole (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
It looks neutral to me, and cited and so on, if there are no specific issue with any content the template can be removed, are there any neutrality issues remaining? Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * None that now warrant the template. Looks much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pip.je (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Remaining "Citation needed" template
Currently, there's one Citation needed left in the article, next to the following sentence:"Amongst her colleagues at NCCL were Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Paul Boateng, all later becoming Labour Cabinet Ministers."This is probably verifiable – at least, I think I can find a source that states that a particular person worked at the NCCL during the period that Diane Abbott was there, and then find one that states they became a cabinet minister.

This potentially involves six citations, just for the one sentence.

Is it worth it? Can I remove the tag and leave it uncited? Or should the sentence be removed for being random, mildy interesting trivia? --Ibn (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say, if it is not easy to cite then the value is trivial, and I would remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it and brought it here, if anyone wants to cite and replace it, feel free, thanks. ...Amongst her colleagues at NCCL were Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Paul Boateng, all later becoming Labour Cabinet Ministers. Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was highly amused that someone put Citation needed after the point that there's never been any doubt that she's to the left of New Labour. I'm quite sure that citation could be obtained very easily by going to any broadsheet's website and typing her name in the search function. However, is citation really needed for a point as commonly accepted and understood as her gender and race? I've had no luck with footnotes, so here's a profile from BBC news clearly spelling out her position within the Labour Party: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10276583  mp2dtw (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 82.16.132.252, 12 June 2010
To improve clarity, please change 'The speech was described by the following speaker in the debate, David Davies MP...' to read 'The speech was described by the following speaker in the debate, David T.C. Davies MP...'

David Davis is the (well-known) MP for Haltemprice & Howden, David T.C. Davies is the lesser known MP for Monmouth. The Hansard record cited clearly shows it was David T.C. Davies that followed Diane abbot in the debate.

82.16.132.252 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact he has a different surname, and the link I just added, seem to be enough for disambiguation without adding initials not normally included in his name. Algebraist 12:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Remarks
On 24 June 2010, Abbott was branded a ‘racist’ and an expenses cheat by political pundit Andrew Neil on the late night political programme This Week. Neil made the remark after her decision to send her son James to the £12,700-a-year City of London School. Abbott earned £36,000 a year as a regular guest on the show alongside Michael Portillo until stepping down to fight for the Labour leadership, had defended her position, saying: ‘West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.’"Diane Abbott fumes after being branded a racist on TV"-the daily mail

This content has been added and imo the way it is written construes a bit of an attack type tabloid comment, I would not add it as it is just opinion not written in a uninvolved way, it is also already covered in the content about the school and the finnish nurses and the expenses. Off2riorob (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Its been replaced without any discussion. we don't add expression such as branded a racist to our BLP articles such accusatiory tabloid language is verging on an attack, at the very least it needs rewriting and I support its removal as an attack. Off2riorob (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this seems fair comment. I shall have to change the wording so that it does not appear like an attack on the MP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandtplatt (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have re-worded to show a more balanced view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandtplatt (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense now though, it reads as if the racist comment is her defence to being a racist.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is better, but it is now exposed as the valueless comment that it is and should be removed, all the points are covered in other sections. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is totally inaccurate - how can that be better? And none of the points are covered anywhere else. Yes there are other cases of racism, but this is a completely different incident.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well good to see some of the accuracy issues I pointed out have been resolved to some extent, the content now makes sense at least.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How does this entire entry get away without at least one sentance on the Finnish nurses scandel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.52.100 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not 'Racist Remarks' as the sub heading? All right thinking people regard her remarks as racist, because they are hideous generalisations drawn along ethnic lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral point-of-view doesn't mean presenting your opinions as facts. 2 lines of K  303  12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to answer my question. Once again: why not 'Racist Remarks' as the sub heading? All right thinking people regard such remarks as racist, hence, 'Racist Remarks'. You are not being neutral and logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral point-of-view doesn't mean presenting your opinions as facts. That is answering your question, let me know which word(s) you have trouble understanding. 2 lines of K  303  13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I get it now. I hate all racists and you only hate white ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted a number of controversial comments made otherwise the tweeting incident seems somewhat contextless. Someone else has added that the matter has been reported to the Met but this seems hardly relevant to an Wikipedia article. Should be deleted in my view. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else with more experience look at this. I think 'twitter Row' is not a particularly good sub heading. The issue seems to be racial stereotyping and tweeting the action that brought the alleged controversial stereotyping to the public view. Previous remarks made by Abbott seem to reinforce this and without them the paragraph looks contextless. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In my view, if Abbott has been reported to the police, then that becomes ingrained in her life history. The fact a notable black MP has been reported to the police for alleged racist comments cannot be ignored.

The fact that someone reports something to the police doesn't seem worthy of inclusion in an article. Particularly as the police are not pursuing the matter. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who added this as a subtitle? "Comments based on the racial origin of the subject and accordingly the subject of public criticism" that is not written in plain English and I'm changing it back to something that normal people can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Undid edit. Section refers to comments that some people alleged were racist, hence 'Alleged racist comments'. snakehands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-story
The announcement by the Met that Abbott is not going to be prosecuted is a non-story. Something isn't going to happen. However, after removing a cite to an article in The Sun, because it appeared to be the only media report, and therefore suspect, I changed my search string, and found the story in the Telegraph. As The Sun piece seemed likely to be restored, I reasoned the Telegraph is more likely to be accepted as a reliable source and uncontroversial. The same user who inserted The Sun citation has attempted to restore it, which I reverted. The only detail I did not restore cited from The Sun was a reference to "40" complaints (in both sources) which did not seem particularly notable. Philip Cross (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You initially started off by deleting sourced facts.

You then switched your argument to, the Telegraph being 'obviously better'. Again, deleting the source. This is your Opinion. You again, undid the verified facts with the following explanation "charge' has a particular legal meaning, so is best avoided"  ...Followed by you putting back your own piece, that uses the word charge? Both sources use the word charge and name the charge. This is not my opinion, this is the Sourced facts. A 'non story' is a matter of opinion which should always be left for the reader to decide. You should err on the side of verifiable facts. This was clearly a story as it had been picked up by numerous newspapers. The reader can make a clear juxtaposition between the treatment of Ms. Abbott and the treatment of others with regards the Law, but the decision should be in the readers hands. Your reasoning about the reporting of something that isn't going to happen is fallacious. If no event took place, i.e no police investigation took place, then fine but thats not what happened. The event took place(the investigation) and the police decided no action was to be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acerbicattrition (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference was between the police being charged with an investigation, and someone being charged with a crime prior to a court appearance. The first usage is best avoided because of the potential confusion with the legal meaning; using the first is also stylistically bad as it is normal to use synonyms. This supposed omission does not preclude a conclusion by a reader that someone was delegated, 'charged' if you like, to make a decision, but editors have to take care over both undue weight and recentism. Including every non-story, really would make a mess of Wikipedia, something you were earlier keen to avoid, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. BTW, I said 'non-story' on this page, where stating an opinion is inevitable, not in the article. The police investigation was on the basis of a mere 40 complaints from the public. The Sun and Telegraph are not "numerous newspapers"; other reports, apart from the usual far-right suspects, are somewhat elusive. Philip Cross (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the following comment be included under issues of race; "In 1988, she declared, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, that "the British invented racism." British is not a 'race' of people. It's a mix.Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Her west indian mums comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8761601.stm

I think it should be included somewhere but would it be better in the schooling section or the alleged racist remarks section?

RafikiSykes (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Put it in both. snakehands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

More racism from Dianne Abbot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086722/Work-white-Conservative-What-Abbott-told-Tory-voting-graduate-asked-job.html#ixzz1jTyCLznI


 * sigh* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Schooling
All very well to note that her son 'convieniently' made a statement to the media that her decision on his schooling had been at his request, but shouldn't we also quote her actual admissions on the subject for balance? 222.155.201.232 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Posh white boys from the Home Counties?
Is it just me that fails to see why this is in the 'racial comments' section? Cameron and Clegg are both undeniably posh (Cameron's grandfather was a baronet, Clegg is directly related to various European aristocrats) and white. Clegg is from the Home Counties and Cameron might not have been born there, but he was certainly raised there. The whole statement "Abbott referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys from the Home Counties" in May 2010" just doesn't seem very notable to me and should be removed. It's likely to have been put there by someone with an axe to grind against Abbott and is seizing on anything that could be construed as racist, however frivolous. 151.227.46.249 (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Normal nice peole don't bring up others' race in an insult. I'd give you more merit if you had an account - are you Diane herself? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal relationship with Jeremy Corbyn
A number of UK newspapers are now reporting a sexual relationship between Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn in the 1990s after the end of her marriage. While these are mostly attack pieces intended to damage Corbyn, should the article mention this historical relationship? --Ef80 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken. The available sources are saying Corbyn and Abbott had a brief affair in the late 1970s when Corbyn was separated from his first wife. Clearly this connection is going to mentioned regularly by the media for a while, so a mention is not going to be out of place in due course, but as the sources at present do not go beyond hearsay evidence, it is not appropriate to mention their relationship at the moment. Philip Cross (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. We would certainly need good WP:RS before adding anything. The coverage is pretty tabloid at present but presumably a decent journalist will cover the subject eventually. It's not a matter of huge importance anyway. --Ef80 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Diane Abbott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927171141/http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/view=newsarticle.law?NEWSID=416158 to http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/view=newsarticle.law?NEWSID=416158

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Diane Abbott. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/stonewall_mp_voting_records_2010_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150520125406/http://www.grassrootdiplomat.org/whoswho/ to http://www.grassrootdiplomat.org/whoswho/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wig
The mention of her wig is important. Abbott wants to acknowledge her ancestry in the way she looks. See http://www.stylist.co.uk/beauty/diane-abbott-on-making-a-political-statement-or-not-with-her-hair-shadow-secretary-for-state-labour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wythy (talk • contribs) 13:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is encyclopedic, and User:IronGargoyle agrees. Any other comments? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean it seems like trivia? Wythy (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. There is a political agenda behind her using wigs. See the link. Wythy (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Random people's opinions on Diane Abbott's son's schooling
I personally am not sure why Wikipedia needs to tell anyone what to think about Diane Abbott sending her son to a private school. I suggest we just state the fact that she did, which is of public interest, and let people make their own minds up about it.

I am opposed to including Gerald Kauffman's comments on the matter. The criteria for including someone's opinion in a Wikipedia article can't simply be "someone said it and it was recorded in a reliable source". Otherwise we would have to include Donald Trump's claim that China was "raping" the United States in our China article. A better justification than that is needed.--greenrd (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a major controversy at the time and so there's a case for some commentary. But I agree it's excessive and Abbott's own comments on the issue are more than enough to allow the reader to understand, so I've removed it. (If anything, Abbott further stirring the hornet's nest with the "West Indian mum's will go to the wall for their kids...that's what some of my colleagues on the Left will never understand" comment belongs here more than Kaufman's) Dtellett (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't think it noteworthy to mention that, while complaining about people sending their kids to private schools, she does that herself? I think it shows her mindset and complete disrespect for the people she professes to represent. "If you choose to send your kids to any school other than state run, you are a terrible person. I do it, but I'm better than you because I don't have a choice."
 * Perhaps you should rename yourself "Corbynite", and it'd be understandable why you think she did nothing wrong? 88.108.239.234 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Picture
That is just a horrible picture. It seems almost deliberately unkind. Isn't there a better one that could be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.58.156 (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * None of the available alternatives are ideal, but the photograph currently used is certainly unsatisfactory. Philip Cross (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at her other photos, and everywhere she looks horrible. It ties in well with the current content of this wiki article, so let us leave it. Zezen (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded another photo I took at the same event: File:Diane Abbott, 2016 Labour Party Conference 2.jpg. Personally I like it less, though she does not have her mouth open. As you say, none of the photos we have are great. Did a google image search for a better CC license photo, but there are none. Rwendland (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diane Abbott. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/view%3Dnewsarticle.law?NEWSID=416158
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904083445/http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/sitea/people/women/Diane_Abbot/diane_abbott.html to http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/sitea/people/women/Diane_Abbot/diane_abbott.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diane Abbott. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208134410/http://news.sky.com/story/915384/mp-apologises-after-tweet-sparks-race-row to http://news.sky.com/story/915384/mp-apologises-after-tweet-sparks-race-row
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903014848/http://thethirdestate.net/2010/09/an-interview-with-diane-abbott/ to http://thethirdestate.net/2010/09/an-interview-with-diane-abbott/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments about Mao Zedong
I attempted to create a section under "Political controversies" regarding Abbott's remarks about the Chinese ruler Mao Zedong. During an interview in 2008 on BBC One's This Week with Abbott, Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo which featured a debate about who was history's worst dictator.

Neil started the debate off by saying: "Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt but obviously wrong, as it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?" Abbott replied "I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm. We can’t say that about the Nazis." Portillo slapping Abbott's leg said: "What. You can not be serious Diane. What was the good he did that made up for the 60 million people he murdered?" Neil said: "Mao killed tens of millions of people." She defended her comment by stating: "He led his country from feudalism he helped to defeat the Japanese and he left his country on the verge of the great economic success they are having now." She then finished with: "I was just putting the case for Mao."

The source I used was which was questioned by another Wikipedia editor. Although it should be noted that the source gives the full text of the debate. Two newspaper articles which mention it are and. Actual footage of the debate and her stating those statements can be found here.

I can't think of anywhere apart from creating a new section that the statements could go.--2.97.235.224 (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a tabloid so shouldn't be used on WP:BLPs, while the Huffington Post and Independent verge on tabloids. I would however support the inclusion of this material, especially if you can find a non-tabloid source (Guardian, Times, Telegraph etc.). I agree that there are too many quotes, maybe change it to:

In 2008, during a BBC One This Week interview between Abbott, Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil, Abbott said about Chinese dictator Mao Zedong: "I suppose some people will judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm....He led his country from feudalism he helped to defeat the Japanese and he left his country on the verge of the great economic success they are having now."

This hopefully still includes all the relevant content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
I've tagged the "Political controversies" section for attention to the weight given to Abbott's various comments and any associated controversy. I haven't looked too closely at the sources, but some of the prose has the vague air of improper synthesis, as in describing a few opinion columnists' remarks about Abbott as a "controversy". Much of the rest of the section is a simple WP:QUOTEFARM, particularly the section on race. What sources, if any, describe her remarks as "controversial"? I believe that most of these examples don't belong in an encyclopedic bio – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotations. Some could be moved to Wikiquote if appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's been a huge controversy - the shameful way that Diane Abbot was treated on BBC Question time in the second episode of the new series with Fiona Bruce in the chair. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDx0reH1euU to see one of the incidents but much mentioned in print as well.
 * Probably a serious controversy over the insistence of other sources to publish it as "Was Diane racially abused?" which is something neither she nor Labour complained or wanted made an issue of. 86.129.252.207 (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Degree awarded?
Dianne Abbott attended Cambridge and studied history. But did she actually get a degree? If so let's say so, and what grade. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.212.50 (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just as a quick point- it comes across as extremely stuck up in the UK to say "went up to Cambridge". I am sure that Diane herself would not like this class-relic. If somebody can be bothered, maybe they can change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.145.217.234 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Appearances on the media
This article's introductory section says that she has appeared frequently in the media, and then says she had appeared on "Have I Got News for You". It could mention that, until she was made a member of the shadow cabinet, she appeared regularly on a BBC One programme called "This Week". Vorbee (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, she was a regular contributor to the programme alongside Michael Portillo. This is Paul (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Parent's education & careers
How is Abbot's mother a nurse if she "left school at the age of 14"?

"Nurse" has a professional meaning and should be distinguished from an untrained caregiver, if that's what Abbot's mother was.


 * Abbott's speech says that her mother came to the UK as a pupil nurse, i.e. a nurse in training. Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Summary - not showing picture from the page, instead shows racist imagery
I was just going through wikipedia, hovering over MP names and I noticed the summary image for this page was a picture of a gorilla.

The link for the summary page json is below: https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/summary/Diane_Abbott

In the json response, under the thumbnail source it links to a picture of a gorilla

It's quite self explanatory why it is unacceptable for any image aside from the main image of the article being used in the summary response, let alone racist imagery for an active member of parliament. Usmanxm (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was some earlier vandalism to the page that has since been reverted. Have you tried refreshing your cache, in case you're pulling a vandalised copy of the article?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Diane Abbott: Racism is black and white
This is the primary document that cost Diane Abbott the loss of the Labour Party whip job.Should this be included as a reference, or just have news articles talking about it?
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No opinion on whether this should be included along with the details of the controversy, but including a letter to a page in the written works is a bit of a stretch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A link to the letter in the relevant place in the article body would seem appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversies section
According to WP:CSECTION, 'Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".' AND 'Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged.' Would anyone like to allocate the material in the section to other sections? Is there a good reason not to do this and ignore the guideline? Jontel (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Normally I'd agree, but I think Abbott has had so many controversies it's difficult to merge them into other sections. Controversy sections are discouraged, but not prohibited – I would say the circumstances when they're justified are for subjects like Abbott, whose controversies even led to the whip being withdrawn. Perhaps the section could be renamed, however. — Czello (music) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the section is problematic, and undue. The length of the section is also a concern to me. Abbott is the first Black woman elected to the UK Parliament and yet the article is seemingly dedicated to criticism. Take the Sasha Johnson comments section where we have a "Home Office source" anonymously criticising Abbott for a Tweet. Then the bizarrely-worded "Appearance alongside Chinese human rights abuse denier" in which Abbott is criticised for someone else's comments. This is WP:UNDUE for an article about someone with her lengthy career. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A few of these "controversies" are problematic - see my comments in the "Frank Hester" section below. I have incorporated the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" section into her career. Burrobert (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have started merging and/or removing content that is not appropriate. Burrobert (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Frank Hester's comments
Some comments made by Frank Hester about Abbott were recently removed from the article. The reverted text was

In 2019, Frank Hester, who had donated £10m to the Conservative party, said in a meeting "It's like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV, and you're just like I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she's there, and I don't hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot". Abbott described the remarks as "frightening" and reported Hester to the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigations team.

The edit is sourced to the BBC, The Guardian and the Independent, all reliable sources for facts. The Guardian does not give Hester’s full quote but does include the part about “looking at Diane Abbott makes you “want to hate all black women” and said the MP “should be shot” “. It does not introduce any doubt about whether Hester made the comments, using the phrase “the Guardian can reveal”. The BBC gives the comment in full and says “In 2019 Mr Hester allegedly said …”. The Independent also uses the term “allegedly”. Here are the choices:
 * accept the Guardian’s rating for reliability and use the text given in the Guardian article rather than the full quote from Hester.
 * play it safe and use the text above and introduce the term “allegedly”. For example, we could say “According to the Guardian …” or “Hester allegedly said …”.

Removing the text completely makes no sense since the incident is notable and has resulted in Abbott reporting Hester to the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigations team. It also removes Abbott’s reaction to the comments. No source says Abbott allegedly reported Hester to the police or allegedly called the comments “frightening”, so there should be no problem in using Wikivoice for these statements.

Finally, let’s compare the contested text with some of the text that appears in the “Political controversies” section: For example: Burrobert (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * “According to the Daily Mirror, she said …” sourced to a borderline source.
 * “In 2004, following a complaint made by Conservative MP …” which uses a primary source.
 * The “Charging fees for speeches to students” subsection sourced to The Birmingham Post
 * Since the text was removed, there has been a lot of editing related to this incident, including by the editor who initially removed the text. However, there has been no discussion here about what wording is appropriate. Burrobert (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with what you've set out here. I don't really understand why the information was removed. Do we add it back? Ellwat (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ellwat, per WP:BLP, anything written about a living person needs to be robustly supported by reliable sources. Any allegations of wrongdoing need to be attributed as well as reliably sourced and responses by the person involved need to be included. Editors who come across content which does not strictly comply with BLP have a duty to correct it or remove it. The onus for making content policy compliant lies with the editor adding it and not with the editor challenging it. See WP:BLPRESTORE for more details. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the sources that @Burrobert used are "reliably sourced", as they come from the BBC, The Guardian, and The Independent. Ellwat (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ellwat, the sources did not support the assertion that he "said in a meeting...". The only one that said that was The Guardian, the rest called it an allegation reported by the Guardian. Do you see the subtle difference? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not following the arguments about this. My edit sourced to the Guardian, the BBC and the Independent were removed. Fair enough. I then started a talk page discussion as required. Since then the editor who reverted my edit and another editor have added text about this incident into the article sourced to Sky News without any discussion here. The version that has been added:
 * Says Hester was "challenged" about saying Abbott "should be shot". Seems like weasel wording.
 * Does not provide a source for the two sentences beginning "Hester later apologised to Abbott ...".
 * Omits to mention Abbott's responses as described in my original edit. Of course, Abbott is probably getting used to being ignored after standing up 46 times within 35 minutes to try make a comment in a debate that was largely about her. Burrobert (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I suggest you edit it to include the original information with the sources that you had used. The quality of your sources I think is better. Ellwat (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, Hester was challenged over the remarks, wasn't he? The source for two sentences you mentioned is (now) at the end of the following paragraph. I guess no-one else thought Abbott's responses were worth adding. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of your sources use the term “challenged”. Comments in the sources use the terms “reprehensible”, “utterly revolting”, “racist and inciteful” and “sexist”. Challenged means to “question whether a statement or an action is right, legal, etc”. The commentators aren’t questioning whether the statements were wrong. They are saying outright that the statements were not only wrong, but specifically racist, sexist, etc. Is there a problem saying that with appropriate attribution?
 * So, in a section of Abbott’s bio about racist, sexist remarks directed at her, we find space to include the reactions of the person who made the remarks, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, but not those of Abbott herself (including her referral of the matter to the police)? It’s question time all over again. Didn’t you notice she is wearing a bright red dress amongst all those drab suits? Burrobert (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, they're not my sources. Unlike the news media used as sources, it's not Wikipedia's role to take sides in any dispute. Wiki editors are obliged to present information neutrally, dispassionately, and in an impartial tone, and without the use of loaded, subjective, or judgmental language or newspaper-style editorialisation. It's also not acceptable to assert opinions as facts or facts as opinions. See WP:NPOV for Wiki's policy on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not address any of the points I made above. The issue is not related to "taking sides". It is about presenting the information from the sources you have chosen to use. Specifically:
 * * Why have you avoided including the attributed opinions from those sources and instead inserted your own watered down description of the event?
 * * Why have you avoided giving Abbott's views on the incident? They are there in the same articles you have used for the opinions of Hester, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. They are also in the three gold standard sources which you inexplicably removed from the article. Here is the first sentence of the NPOV policy you referred to above:
 * "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".
 * "All significant views" would surely include those of the person whose bio it is and who was the target of the comments.
 * Burrobert (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, I addressed both of the points you raised in your previous post. Let me clarify:
 * They were not my sources, my slight rewording did not need any extra sources. All I did after reverting a poorly summarised edit was replace the term "widely condemned" with "challenged" and reworded the pre-existing sentence to be clearer and combined two short paragraphs into one. How can you condemn something when it isn't clear whether it happened or not - it was an allegation and not an assertion of fact that we are talking about. That is why I think we need to pick our words carefully so as not to give the appearance of taking the side that blindly believes that he did make those comments over the more cautious side that will treat the alleged comments as nothing more than unfounded allegations unless they become substantiated. That is why we need to present the information neutrally, dispassionately, and in an impartial tone, without the use of loaded, subjective, or judgmental language.
 * I already answered the second point previously when I wrote "I guess no-one else thought Abbott's responses were worth adding".
 * I didn't write the section you are commenting on, all I did was revert a poor edit and try to fix a glaring policy violation in the pre-existing content.
 * As for your new points:
 * I didn't avoid including attributed opinions or water anything down, all I did was what I described above in a sentence in a section that previously existed.
 * I haven't avoided giving anyone's view, I just fixed an issue in a pre-existing sentence. And I didn't use any articles for the opinions of Hester or of anyone else as I didn't add any such content to this article, all I did was fix a pre-existing sentence. Similarly I didn't remove any "gold standard sources" (whatever you mean by that), inexplicably or otherwise, as all I did was what I described above.
 * I'm glad you've taken the trouble to look at the NPOV policy, the challenge now is to apply it. Feel free to boldly add any new content that you think is missing, but remember the Wiki policies cannot be ignored and anything relating to a living person needs extra care too per WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You removed the three gold standard sources with this edit . The sources were  You removed Abbott's responses to the comments in the same edit. Anyway, there appears to be no objection from you or anyone else to including Abbott's responses, so I will re-add them to her bio. Burrobert (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, no, there I simply reverted your edit which contravened Wiki policy. The onus is on you to make your content policy compliant, not on me. And there is no such concept as a "gold standard source" in the Wikipedia policies on sources at WP:RS and WP:V. Those three sources you mention are generally considered to be reliable sources, but that does not necessarily mean, even if they actually support what was written, that what was written using them must be kept in the article (see WP:VNOT). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Burrobert is right that we should include Abbott's response and the cite the actual allegations and the most informative sources, which are indeed gold standard. Nobody has disputed the content of Hester's comments, for which he has publicly apologised, so we're being excessive in our use of the word "alleged". BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Frank Hester's comments
Some comments made by Frank Hester about Abbott were recently removed from the article. The reverted text was

In 2019, Frank Hester, who had donated £10m to the Conservative party, said in a meeting "It's like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV, and you're just like I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she's there, and I don't hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot". Abbott described the remarks as "frightening" and reported Hester to the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigations team.

The edit is sourced to the BBC, The Guardian and the Independent, all reliable sources for facts. The Guardian does not give Hester’s full quote but does include the part about “looking at Diane Abbott makes you “want to hate all black women” and said the MP “should be shot” “. It does not introduce any doubt about whether Hester made the comments, using the phrase “the Guardian can reveal”. The BBC gives the comment in full and says “In 2019 Mr Hester allegedly said …”. The Independent also uses the term “allegedly”. Here are the choices:
 * accept the Guardian’s rating for reliability and use the text given in the Guardian article rather than the full quote from Hester.
 * play it safe and use the text above and introduce the term “allegedly”. For example, we could say “According to the Guardian …” or “Hester allegedly said …”.

Removing the text completely makes no sense since the incident is notable and has resulted in Abbott reporting Hester to the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigations team. It also removes Abbott’s reaction to the comments. No source says Abbott allegedly reported Hester to the police or allegedly called the comments “frightening”, so there should be no problem in using Wikivoice for these statements.

Finally, let’s compare the contested text with some of the text that appears in the “Political controversies” section: For example: Burrobert (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * “According to the Daily Mirror, she said …” sourced to a borderline source.
 * “In 2004, following a complaint made by Conservative MP …” which uses a primary source.
 * The “Charging fees for speeches to students” subsection sourced to The Birmingham Post
 * Since the text was removed, there has been a lot of editing related to this incident, including by the editor who initially removed the text. However, there has been no discussion here about what wording is appropriate. Burrobert (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with what you've set out here. I don't really understand why the information was removed. Do we add it back? Ellwat (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ellwat, per WP:BLP, anything written about a living person needs to be robustly supported by reliable sources. Any allegations of wrongdoing need to be attributed as well as reliably sourced and responses by the person involved need to be included. Editors who come across content which does not strictly comply with BLP have a duty to correct it or remove it. The onus for making content policy compliant lies with the editor adding it and not with the editor challenging it. See WP:BLPRESTORE for more details. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the sources that @Burrobert used are "reliably sourced", as they come from the BBC, The Guardian, and The Independent. Ellwat (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ellwat, the sources did not support the assertion that he "said in a meeting...". The only one that said that was The Guardian, the rest called it an allegation reported by the Guardian. Do you see the subtle difference? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not following the arguments about this. My edit sourced to the Guardian, the BBC and the Independent were removed. Fair enough. I then started a talk page discussion as required. Since then the editor who reverted my edit and another editor have added text about this incident into the article sourced to Sky News without any discussion here. The version that has been added:
 * Says Hester was "challenged" about saying Abbott "should be shot". Seems like weasel wording.
 * Does not provide a source for the two sentences beginning "Hester later apologised to Abbott ...".
 * Omits to mention Abbott's responses as described in my original edit. Of course, Abbott is probably getting used to being ignored after standing up 46 times within 35 minutes to try make a comment in a debate that was largely about her. Burrobert (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I suggest you edit it to include the original information with the sources that you had used. The quality of your sources I think is better. Ellwat (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, Hester was challenged over the remarks, wasn't he? The source for two sentences you mentioned is (now) at the end of the following paragraph. I guess no-one else thought Abbott's responses were worth adding. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of your sources use the term “challenged”. Comments in the sources use the terms “reprehensible”, “utterly revolting”, “racist and inciteful” and “sexist”. Challenged means to “question whether a statement or an action is right, legal, etc”. The commentators aren’t questioning whether the statements were wrong. They are saying outright that the statements were not only wrong, but specifically racist, sexist, etc. Is there a problem saying that with appropriate attribution?
 * So, in a section of Abbott’s bio about racist, sexist remarks directed at her, we find space to include the reactions of the person who made the remarks, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, but not those of Abbott herself (including her referral of the matter to the police)? It’s question time all over again. Didn’t you notice she is wearing a bright red dress amongst all those drab suits? Burrobert (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, they're not my sources. Unlike the news media used as sources, it's not Wikipedia's role to take sides in any dispute. Wiki editors are obliged to present information neutrally, dispassionately, and in an impartial tone, and without the use of loaded, subjective, or judgmental language or newspaper-style editorialisation. It's also not acceptable to assert opinions as facts or facts as opinions. See WP:NPOV for Wiki's policy on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not address any of the points I made above. The issue is not related to "taking sides". It is about presenting the information from the sources you have chosen to use. Specifically:
 * * Why have you avoided including the attributed opinions from those sources and instead inserted your own watered down description of the event?
 * * Why have you avoided giving Abbott's views on the incident? They are there in the same articles you have used for the opinions of Hester, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. They are also in the three gold standard sources which you inexplicably removed from the article. Here is the first sentence of the NPOV policy you referred to above:
 * "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".
 * "All significant views" would surely include those of the person whose bio it is and who was the target of the comments.
 * Burrobert (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, I addressed both of the points you raised in your previous post. Let me clarify:
 * They were not my sources, my slight rewording did not need any extra sources. All I did after reverting a poorly summarised edit was replace the term "widely condemned" with "challenged" and reworded the pre-existing sentence to be clearer and combined two short paragraphs into one. How can you condemn something when it isn't clear whether it happened or not - it was an allegation and not an assertion of fact that we are talking about. That is why I think we need to pick our words carefully so as not to give the appearance of taking the side that blindly believes that he did make those comments over the more cautious side that will treat the alleged comments as nothing more than unfounded allegations unless they become substantiated. That is why we need to present the information neutrally, dispassionately, and in an impartial tone, without the use of loaded, subjective, or judgmental language.
 * I already answered the second point previously when I wrote "I guess no-one else thought Abbott's responses were worth adding".
 * I didn't write the section you are commenting on, all I did was revert a poor edit and try to fix a glaring policy violation in the pre-existing content.
 * As for your new points:
 * I didn't avoid including attributed opinions or water anything down, all I did was what I described above in a sentence in a section that previously existed.
 * I haven't avoided giving anyone's view, I just fixed an issue in a pre-existing sentence. And I didn't use any articles for the opinions of Hester or of anyone else as I didn't add any such content to this article, all I did was fix a pre-existing sentence. Similarly I didn't remove any "gold standard sources" (whatever you mean by that), inexplicably or otherwise, as all I did was what I described above.
 * I'm glad you've taken the trouble to look at the NPOV policy, the challenge now is to apply it. Feel free to boldly add any new content that you think is missing, but remember the Wiki policies cannot be ignored and anything relating to a living person needs extra care too per WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You removed the three gold standard sources with this edit . The sources were  You removed Abbott's responses to the comments in the same edit. Anyway, there appears to be no objection from you or anyone else to including Abbott's responses, so I will re-add them to her bio. Burrobert (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, no, there I simply reverted your edit which contravened Wiki policy. The onus is on you to make your content policy compliant, not on me. And there is no such concept as a "gold standard source" in the Wikipedia policies on sources at WP:RS and WP:V. Those three sources you mention are generally considered to be reliable sources, but that does not necessarily mean, even if they actually support what was written, that what was written using them must be kept in the article (see WP:VNOT). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Burrobert is right that we should include Abbott's response and the cite the actual allegations and the most informative sources, which are indeed gold standard. Nobody has disputed the content of Hester's comments, for which he has publicly apologised, so we're being excessive in our use of the word "alleged". BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Standing for re-election banner
Abbott has been banned from standing as a Labour candidate again, but the banner saying she is standing for re-election is still showing. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything is certain at the moment, seems different papers are pushing different narratives. Most papers are now reporting that she hasn't been banned, but the Express is saying she will be standing as an independent. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: political controversies
As I understand it is wikipedia policy not to have separate 'controversies' sections on famous politicians. If so this needs editing. Firestar47 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)