Talk:Kirstie Allsopp

Sourcing and information related to living people--July 1, 2008 edits
Adding information related to living people requires stricter sourcing per WP:BLP. If you need help adding the external links as references, there are plenty of editor who can help, but just readding the same edits will be removed. Flowanda | Talk 02:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also be aware that WP:3RR does not apply to editors removing unsourced or poorly sourced content. Flowanda | Talk 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Stubbed
I've stubbed this article - possible BLP concerns relating to. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That was quite a while ago, I remember dealing with a small amount of vandalism coming from there. It's over now.  JASpencer (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. Flowanda | Talk 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Property porn queen
I have reinstated the text "Kirsty Allsopp has been called a "property porn queen"[2][3]which is a reference to television programmes promoting the purchase of property". This is a sourced reference of significance. Ms Allsopp has been criticised for encouraging property purchases on her TV programmes. The "property porn queen" statement was quoted and addressed by herself in reference 2. Will user "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry" please discuss here first before reverting every change to this page. This is not your personal Kirsty fanclub page and in the interest of a balanced presentation criticism must be represented as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschu (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review the sourcing requirements per Biographies of living people and note the burden is always on the editor adding content to provide sources meeting WP:RS. While I have corrected the references to the sources used in the article, I don't think they are strong enough to support the statement; instead of using a blog to quote Allsopp's comments to the Times, the Times article should be used instead. Flowanda | Talk 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the content from the main space until sourcing meeting WP:RS and WP:BLP is satisfied. And to be clear: I have no idea who Allsopp is other than reading what's been included/referenced in this article. Flowanda | Talk 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm acting in my capacity as an administrator, remvoing libellious material that gives undue weight to her her critic's views. I, also, have never heard of Allsop before reading this page and the related House Price Crash one, and associated forums where users are encouraged to introduce libellious information to this person's article! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The content is not libelous. The references clearly point to an article in the "New Statesman" calling Ms Allsopp a "property porn queen". She then herself in an article authored by herself takes up that comment and responds to it.  It is ridiculous to suggest that the statement she "has been referred to as a property porn queen " is libelous.Rschu (talk)
 * It's libellious because it adds undue weight to the claims. There is no benefit in adding a once-mentioned insult to the article; it would be akin to adding "George Bush is a national scandal" or "Richard Dawkins is a JOKE!" to their respective articles. Furthermore, the two "sources" you've given are an opinion piece and a blog post - neither of which are newspaper articles, nirther of which meet WP:RS. I'm not removing this because I'm a fan of hers, I'm removing this because a.) You haven't sourced it correctly and b.) we don't want to get sued'''. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of balanced view
The article lacks a balanced view about this public figure. The person in this article is a controversial public figure who has attracted significant criticism from a variety of sources. These criticisms have been well documented in established media, such as newspapers and TV programmes. Yet, any attempt to include references to such criticism in the article is immediately removed by what appears to be a fan of the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschu (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) whats up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.80.185 (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Websites related to Allsopp
I have removed information and links related to kirstieslostring.co.uk. There's no proof that the link belongs to Allsopp, and even if it does, adding information sourced only to the website doesn't meet WP:RS. An article on Wikipedia doesn't automatically make everything you do notable, or every website you create suitable for inclusion. Please source content related to this website to independent news reports (i.e. not promotional blurbs) and respected, reliable sources (i.e. not a 24/7 hackney gazzette) meeting WP:BLP. Flowanda | Talk 07:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources are reliable. They now include Channel 4. I doubt Allsopp's employers would be promoting a site that's not hers. This is a section titled "Personal life". By Allsopp's own admission this is a major trauma in her personal life, and therefore relevant. People's own websites are perfectly acceptable under WP:BLP in certain circumstances (of which this is one, notr unduly self-promoting etc.). 08:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are blatantly self-serving at their very best, but have at it. Screw WP:RS when there's manufactured "relevance" afoot. Flowanda | Talk 09:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's not every day that someone offers a reward that is far greater than the worth of the object, so I think it's notable. Harry the Dog WOOF  10:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason this article gets vandalised so regularly is because this kind of promotional BS is not subject to the same scrutiny that negative BS is. There's nothing in WP:N, WP:RS or WP:BLP that puts a dollar amount on notability. Flowanda | Talk 02:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mother's breast cancer
This article states: "She is the daughter of former chairman of Christie's Charles Henry Allsopp, 6th Baron Hindlip and Fiona Victoria Jean Atherley (neé McGowan, born 1947), who has breast cancer metastasised to her bones." The final clause sounds a bit odd - is the fact that the woman's mother has cancer and, even more, the information as to the extent to which it has spread really needed to identify her? I mean who goes around saying - my parents are Tim, who lost his arm in the war, and Martha, who had a tumor removed last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is precisely the point I'm here to raise. I don't think her mother's medical conditions are relevant to the article.87.112.245.145 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have removed this section of the sentence. The first time I read it I thought it was saying Allsopp herself has breast cancer. Then when I worked out it referred to her mother, my response was simply 'so what?'. Besides, naming someone as a cancer sufferer can be a sensitive issue, and when they're not famous enough to have a Wikipedia article there's really no need to do it. Robofish (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Her mother's breast cancer is relevant to Allsopp's life. This is why it should be stated in the article. Many other Wikipedia bios of notable people mention their mother's bc, including: Andre Agassi, Christina Applegate, Paul McCartney, Ronan Keating, Corey Haim and Nicole Kidman. Only one of the mothers of those people is herself notable. If you're saying that it should be reworded and/or stated elsewhere in the article, please suggest your alternative. If you're saying it should be excluded entirely, do you think the same in all the other cases, or is this article/person somehow different from them in your opinion? Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That somebody's mother has/has had breast cancer isn't often a significant enough part of their own life to warrant inclusion in a biography. If it has acted as an influence for something, then it might be relevant; that doesn't appear to be the case here. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the large majority of cases it does have a significant affect on a person's life, hence why it is stated in all the articles I've listed above. It would be a very uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, self-absorbed person who would be uninterested and unaffected when they find out that their mother has metastatic breast cancer, which is a severe, chronic disease which often results in the sufferer's death. There's no indication that Allsopp is like that. Jim Michael (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not say that a mother's breast cancer wouldn't "have a significant effect on a person's life", I said that it "isn't often a significant enough part of their own life to warrant inclusion in a biography." -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If a major issue involving a close member of a the subject's family affects the subject's life significantly, then it is relevant enough to be included in their biography. We're talking about metastatic bc, not a brief, minor issue. This is why the editors of the articles I've listed mention the subject's mother's bc. A bio is about the subject's whole life, not merely their career. Jim Michael (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I don't think anyone is suggesting that one's mother suffering from cancer is not significant. The issues, as it seems to me, are the rather clunky way it was introduced, and the lack of independent comment about it.

If it is to be in the article at all, it should not be tagged on to her introduction as if it is her identifying factor. Is there some comment from Allsop about her mother's cancer? That would be a better way of introducing it, if you think it needs inclusion. BearAllen (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - she and her sister Sofie have talked to the national media about the matter. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Having come back to this article (I see I commented on it above in 2011), I still don't think this content is relevant to her Wikipedia biography, and have removed it again. Judging from the discussion, it looks like User:Jim Michael is the only one who thinks it belongs here, and everyone else disagrees. That suggests a consensus against it, but if Jim Michael still wants to include it, perhaps the dispute should be taken to the BLP noticeboard? Robofish (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All of that discussion was before she freely chose to talk about it to the national media last month. All of the arguments used previous to that, including your dismissive 'so what' and supposed privacy issues are no longer valid. I reinstated the info lower down. Breast cancer has had a massive effect on members of her family and she has considered having a double mastectomy to prevent contracting the disease herself. How can you still think it irrelevant to her life and biography? She has clearly stated that it is of major significance to her. Jim Michael (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)