Talk:Nina Bracewell-Smith

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth Date
This was researched from a pay site on company directors can you please not remove it unless it is incorrect if so can you give her actual birth date. --Vivbaker 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * SOME VICTORIAN LITERATURE


 * My memory is perhaps a little above the average; but my brother had a memory that was quite abnormal, and sometimes rather inconvenient. One day, in talking to a lady of uncertain age, he reminded her of something she had said at the Great Exhibition of 1851. She hastily replied:- “Yes, yes, you mean 1862.” But he missed the point of the reply, and went minutely into details showing that it must have been in 1851.


 * Cecil Torr, Small Talk at Wreyland, OUP 1979, page 1.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:89.240.196.209 (talk • contribs)

Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:89.240.205.10 (talk • contribs)

This slow-motion edit war stops now
This is appalling. There's been a slow-motion edit war on this article about the subject's date of birth since September 2006, and not a single editor adding the various dates of birth in all of that time has given a proper citation for that information. "I researched it on a pay site.", per, is not a source citation in any way. The closest that any editor has come to citing a source was in this edit. But that was original research, an inference made from the source by the editor, which is forbidden here. I am removing the unsourced date of birth information from the article, and will keep it removed, under the Biographies of living persons policy, until an editor actually cites a reliable source for this information. If there are attempts to edit war over this without citing a source for the information, I will protect the article from being edited. It is not acceptable for editors to be repeatedly re-adding unsourced biographical information when it has been challenged, with zero attempts to show that it is verifiable. Uncle G 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Working out someone's approximate year of birth by subtracting their current age from the current year is hardly original research, especially when the source in question is The Sunday Times. I'd like to see which of the things that are excluded as OR you think that falls under. Qwghlm 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Simple math, like addition/subtraction, is allowed and is specifically excluded from WP:OR. Also, WP:BLP allows including the approximate birth year of a subject, assuming it is properly sourced - only the exact date is excluded in some cases. So this edit seems perfectly legitimate to me. Crum375 14:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calculations involveing unsourced assumptions made by the editor xyrself are original research, however simple the arithmetic. Stop arguing that this article should contain editors' guesses and start looking for sources.  Uncle G 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a novel synthesis of sourced facts and your own additional assumptions, of course. You had to make assumptions not supported by any sources, such as an assumption about how far beyond the subject's birthday it was at the point when it was stated that the subject was a given age.  Once again:  You are not writing the encyclopaedia as you should be.  You should not be spending your time trying to argue that it's acceptable for an editor to simply make a guess at someone's year of birth.  You should be spending your time trying to find a good source that gives this person's date of birth.  Seven months of editors not working from sources on a disputed aspect of a biography of a living person stops now.  Uncle G 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit I made to the article clearly had a c. before the date indicating it was only an approximation and the explanation in the footnote provided allowed the reader to draw their own conclusion. In a perfect world I would love to put a sourced exact date of birth, though short of trekking down to the National Archives I am unable to do so. Referencing her age in 2006, which was printed in an verifiable article in a newspaper of record ( have you even checked the link? although alas the link is now dead, sorry) which gives an approximate year of birth was the best I could do, in an imperfect world.
 * I have to say I really don't like your tone - you seem to be overtly aggressive and all too happy to lecture me on what I "should" do without acknowledging the limitations upon what I actually can do. Qwghlm 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(imdent left) I removed the category of birth year until you folks can figure this out. Cheers! --Tom 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lady Nina's date/year of birth is clearly stated on her entry on any Report on Directors for Arsenal Holdings Ltd or her other business interests. Links to material on pay-sites is obviously impossible, however her age has been quoted on numerous on-line articles and written material. While I was always taught it was rude to mention a lady's age, I don't see the sensitivity when the information is available elsewhere. --Vivbaker 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the uploaded primary material here. Per BLP, we should not dig up primary material on living persons unless it is being referred to by secondary sources. Also, I have reduced the DOB to year only, per BLP privacy. Crum375 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Red and White
For some reason the Newspapers like to portray Alisher Usmanov as the “owner” of Red and White Holdings. Actually he shares this ownership with Farhad Moshiri, who is London based and deals with the London holdings. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhad_Moshiri_(businessman)

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:WG52cTfNx84J:us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft%3Fsection_group_modifier%3DUK%2BCompanies%26sort_by%3Drelevance%26page%3D%26criteria_name%3Dperson%26criteria_value%3D%2522Farhad%2BMoshiri%2522%26related_id%3Dfto120520081947446467%26startMonth%3D%26startDay%3D%26startYear%3D%26endMonth%3D%26endDay%3D%26endYear%3D+Red+and+White+Holdings+Moshiri&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk

Possibly Usmanov, who is fatter and foreigner, makes a better pantomine villain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.172.171 (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lady Nina's current troubles with the board of Arsenal
A lot of erroneous information is being published in newspapers too numerous to list at the moment. The general drift of this is that Lady Nina’s reason for leaving the board of Arsenal is that she wishes to sell her shares to Alisher Usmanov. This is incorrect in several ways. For a start, as stated above, Usmanov is only one half of a partnership, the London based member of which is Farhad Moshiri. As for the proposed sale, the truth is actually the reverse.

The only newspaper which has the correct story is the Daily Telegraph:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/arsenal/3835734/Lady-Nina-Bracewell-Smith-hits-out-as-Alisher-Usmanov-hovers.html

which states :-

Danny Fiszman, who owns 24.1 per cent of the shares, has apparently taken a calculated gamble in the belief that he no longer needs Bracewell-Smith and that Usmanov is currently unlikely to buy.

The fact is that Usmanov has run into difficulties elsewhere in his business empire and, together with Moshiri, in the current credit crunch, would probably not be able to raise the cash to purchase Lady Bracewell-Smith’s shares. Equally, as the market has hit a trough, she would only get a depressed price for the shares even if she wished or needed to sell them, which is not the case.

For this reason, Fiszman no longer needs her on the board and has chosen to eject her in order to consolidate power in his own hands.

So, rather than leaving the board in order to sell her shares, she has been made to leave because she could not do so.

This leaves the Arsenal board as being highly unrepresentative in terms of ownership, being totally dominated by one man with less than a quarter of the Equity, and unable to muster much more than a third in toto. The majority of the ownership is thus unrepresented, and as this is nearly all in fairly large blocks, they may eventually contrive to intervene to correct this imbalance.

While dramatic changes in ownership are unlikely to happen during a credit crunch, a change in the distribution of directorships and the make-up of the board is a strong possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.172.171 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nina Bracewell-Smith. 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/20150609104842/http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/Contents/book/UK/FHP/Peerage/fhp-SMITHOFKEIGHLEY.asp?&string1=bracewell&string2=smith&BookType=Peerage&Region=UK to http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/Contents/book/UK/FHP/Peerage/fhp-SMITHOFKEIGHLEY.asp?&string1=bracewell&string2=smith&BookType=Peerage&Region=UK#hit-1

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 21:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Place of birth
The article currently says she is Indian born, born in New Delhi, and born in Bonn, Germany.

I'm thinking only some of these are true..

Quarrel (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)