Talk:Nicola Sturgeon

intro
Can her arrest and the fraud investigation be included in the intro? She is the second first minister and also the second SNP first minister to be arrested after leaving office which is notable. 82.23.25.205 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

United States
A line of inaccuracy: Sturgeon had previously stripped Trump of his ambassadorial role for Scottish businesses with the Scottish Government in the aftermath of Trump's views of (an outright ban of Muslims from entering the United States).

The American president called for an immediate suspension Trump travel ban of immigration from high terror states, such as Afghanistan to avoid importing terrorists pretending to be innocent civilians during the ongoing downfall of ISIS, later making remark to the twin towers. Months prior, Trump had stated that in WW2, many Nazi leaders, key persons migrated to the US as civilians, also factual.

This is standard practice across the world & is an accepted practice from within the UN/Legislation, states have the right to 1) protect their citizens, 2) control their borders, 3) deny migration in the interests to preserving safety & security.

The basics of Risk Assessment & the hierarchy of controls, eliminate the risk, or substitute, such as the Rawanda deal, UK.

The problematic issue Nicola had was that trump would suspend all migrants from such states without permitting them a fair check to identify those who may have been related to Islamic terror organisations. Stated by Trump: Why take the risk.

For accuracy, to correct the incorrect (an outright ban of Muslims from entering the United States), to (a suspension of Muslims from high risk countries entering the United States). 194.73.217.222 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024
Change Large speculation (Under SNP finance fraud inquiry and arrest, para 3) to Widespread speculation PlanetCitation (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks PlanetCitation (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Her personal life
These are not rumours. These are well-founded allegations that have been widely discussed on the Internet. Sky News, Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Yahoo!, The Telegraph EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, these articles just seem to talk about Sturgeon dismissing these 'allegations' – they don't demonstrate how they're, in your words, "well-founded". Secondly the content itself runs afoul of WP:BLPGOSSIP. — Czello (music) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These rumors are spread widely around her. This information is no less important than that she had a miscarriage or that she loves reading fiction. EpicAdventurer (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication that these rumours are in any way notable. Again, we don't peddle rumours here. — Czello (music) 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If she is a lesbian, then this is a personal freedom, but for Sturgeon to respond personally to this allegation, this alone gives notice and value to this incident. As I told you, this incident was widely discussed in cyberspace. Why would she have a response to this particular "allegation" if it was just rumors? Do you know how many rumors are spread about famous personalities? EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, her responding doesn't make this particular rumour notable. We don't need to document every little thing that happens, especially when nothing of value comes from them. Why would she have a response to this particular "allegation" if it was just rumors? Who can say? Perhaps she was asked directly and answered directly, or perhaps she was just sick of them. That doesn't make it important. Ultimately what's happened is that someone said she was lesbian and she said she wasn't. There's nothing encyclopedic about this. — Czello (music) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

, whatever the merits of your edit, you should not edit war. Respect WP:BRD. You are liable to get blocked if you keep editing in a similar manner.

Turning to the content you want to add, we need to stick to reliable sources, so I'll ignore the Daily Mail article. An encyclopaedia can't and shouldn't mention everything in the life of a person. This rumour and its denial, did they have any lasting impact? All your citations are basically about a single event at one point in time. It doesn't appear to have any lasting significance. WP:BLPGOSSIP applies. Bondegezou (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)