Talk:Sally-Ann Hart

Far too much prominence
Given over the allegations of Islamophobia. So far, every single source cited is from a left-wing perspective. I recommend we create a new ‘controversies’ section as per basic Wikipedia guidelines and move any allegations there. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CSECTION, a "Controversies" section is not appropriate. You seem to have overlooked the BBC source (neutral) and The Independent (centrist). Nonetheless, I've added sources The Jewish Chronicle and the right-wing Times, which were not in the article before because they didn't exist when the rest of the content was written. I haven't found any more reliable sources but you are of course welcome to introduce any well-sourced content that is missing. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone more experienced have a look, please?
I came along to update Hart's article following her interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy yesterday. I noticed that great swathes of information had been removed on the basis that: "The Guardian is (a) known publisher of fake news and frequently passes opinion as fact. Not a valid source for information which is clearly political biased. Spurious biased information removed". diff I've put most of it back in along with other sources, but now I'm pondering whether it's too much. I was thinking of removing the investigation para from the lead section and the comments by Gove, for a start. I'm also not sure whether the issues around the investigations should perhaps be in a separate section. I recognise that it looks overloaded but, to be fair, I'm struggling to find any positive media coverage. Can someone else take a look, please? --DSQ (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, the IP edit should have been caught weeks ago. If there isn't any positive media coverage then we shouldn't attempt false balance, and just include the major points made in the most reliable sources on the topic. I can't see how we would justify removing the investigation comment from the lead since it's the most significant part of her short MP career so far (this will probably change over time, at which point we can update the article). The Gove comment, however, does strike me as not particularly informative or significant so I've removed it for now. As for restructuring, perhaps it would make more sense as the article becomes larger, but we shouldn't fork all the negative content into a controversy section—secondary source reaction to her statements is what shows due weight and should be incorporated inline at the points at which they are mentioned. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thank you for those useful links. I was just a bit mindful of it looking like overkill, but your rationale makes perfect sense. Thanks for looking at it for me. --DSQ (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)