Talk:Maria Caulfield

Polly harriott .1#gmail.com
Hello Maria caulfield I understand you are our local MP..I would like to put a concern in for my my human rights where I'm not getting the real support that I've been offered from the council with social services ..I've been left with just phone calls without human support ..I've gone downhill with my mental health because of this I'm not well again ...my support is not there for me and I'm not being listened to ..maybe I'm just of one person this happens to but I know of another but I've been left to my own devices where as I've been offered help but haven't received it ..I hope you get to read this as I'm appealing for your support and help in this matter ..I live at home on my own with my doggie and need the outreach of help where it's been dropped from me ...and I don't know where else to go and who to talk to ...I'm happy and welcoming to obtain help but haven't received it from the promise it was given ...please can you help me with this matter regards Polly harriott 14.crisp Road lewes bn7 2tu 88.105.99.191 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert 15:24 3 November 2022
Your edit summary says: Not sourced. What utility/insight does this quote provide?

1) The amendment is sourced – to ref number 34 which includes She said: “For me, the definition of what’s harassment is open to interpretation. That’s my concern – [that] someone who’s going up to, maybe, comfort someone who’s upset or distressed could be accused of harassment and could face six months in jail.” Please do not accuse me of adding unsourced material without checking.

2) I added the quote because it gives more inf about what she actually said. I don’t understand why you think this is not useful. Please explain.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of any response or objection, I am reinstating the quote. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of anything, sheesh! I asked what utility does it provide, you replied I added the quote because it gives more inf about what she actually said; very insightful. The quote does not further improve the paragraph, bottom line. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See my edit here ty. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry that I accused you of accusing me of something. But you did say that the text was unsourced, when it was in the existing source – and adding unsourced material is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia. But I’m now baffled as to (1) why you say you can’t decipher what she is saying, and (2) why you suggest that the quote may be intended to ‘debase the subject’. The point of adding the quote is so that readers can see what she actually said – which is that someone who may (according to her) be intending to ‘comfort’ someone attending an abortion clinic may be convicted of harassment if they approach someone with the ‘buffer zone’. I don’t see how quoting someone’s exact words could be ‘debasing’ them (or did you mean debasing the subject of abortion?).
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * nah, I don't care about the subject of abortion. I care about debasing the subject of the article. How does this particular quote help people better understand the subject? This is a terrible quote that is totally ambiguous. It debases her because she said something incomprehensible. Joe Biden or Donald Trump could say a quote and mumble over their words or speak awkwardly, but does that mean we should include it in the WP article? Probably not. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t find the quote incomprehensible, and I don’t understand why you do. What is it that you think is ambiguous or incomprehensible? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, the definition of what’s harassment is open to interpretation. That’s my concern – [that] someone who’s going up to, maybe, comfort someone who’s upset or distressed could be accused of harassment and could face six months in jail. I'm not sure what else to say, other than this quote is confusing and ambiguous. Plus, WP:ONUS! Just because a quote exists doesn't mean it needs to be included. Like... Donald Trump tweeted "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" .. does that need to be included in the article to better articulate how he feels about XYZ? Most definitely not. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

She is saying that if there are buffer zones around abortion clinics, then someone who approaches a woman going to the clinic may be charged with harassment. She is also saying that what constitutes ‘harassment’ for the purposes of the criminal law may be subjective. So, she is saying that if someone approaches a woman on her way to an abortion clinic, with the intent to comfort her, they may be convicted of harassment and go to jail. Our article currently says: She has said that protesters outside abortion clinics might be there in order “to comfort“ those entering the clinic.I think the full quote is necessary in order to explain this. The quote does not in any way resemble the quote by Trump about Clinton. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And you believe that the quote is absolutely essential to further one's understanding of the text? Because I sure do not. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. And unfortunately, I still don't understand your objection. Are you agreeable to me adding it back? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote is incomprehensible. Additionally I still fail to understand the utility. I'm not agreeable with you adding it. Literally WP:ONUS, your description of its utility above is even confusing to me. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)