Talk:Sarah Champion

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sarah Champion (politician). 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/20121129123715/http://www.champion4rotherham.org.uk:80/biography to http://www.champion4rotherham.org.uk/biography

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 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

COI tag
There is a tag on this article which says that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." However there was no discussion on the talk page and For who placed the tag in July 2015 did not provide a reason. Does anyone think this is still an issue and if so what should be done about it? If not then I will remove the tag. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , an IP, located at the same business centre as Champion's constituency office, repeatedly tried to whitewash her record in regard to handling her expenses. The user was cautioned and let the matter be. They returned to further edit the article in July, hence the COI tag. Since then has edited the article to the exclusion of any other article, including another attempt to whitewash the £17 expenses claim.
 * IMHO, she's an excellent MP who's been sadly let down by some over-keen staff members trying to whitewash & embellish her article. (some of the relevant edits are signed with my previous username, Bazj) for (talk)  17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background on this. Unfortunately the removal of embarrassing material by [probable] COI editors is pretty common on UK politicians' bios; fortunately this one appears to be regularly patrolled by several editors which means they don't appear to have had much influence on the article content. As far as I'm aware the current version of the article is OK and fairly stable, so I'm going to remove the tag as requested but put a "connected contributors" tag on this talk page so editors are aware COI edits may happen in future, in line with how editors have handled other BLPs with similar COI whitewashing issues Dtellett (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Quote from The Sun article
I don't believe we should directly quote this article in the lede if we're not going to do so later on. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should be an overview of the article as a whole. The later section that deals with her Sun article quotes the headline. By all means use the "Britain has a problem" there, but don't include it in the lede if it's not going to be referenced again. This is Paul (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

But somewhere in the article I think the exact phrase which appeared in the original Sun article should be quoted. This should not be paraphrased.

Here is the link to the original article. See the first sentence. It says: "BRITAIN has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4218648/british-pakistani-men-raping-exploiting-white-girls/ Varnebank (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More work need on this article. While Naz Shah may not be a supporter, Sajid Javid apparently is. I think the article at the moment is not balanced enough. See: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/17/sajid-javid-says-jeremy-corbyn-wrong-to-sack-sarah-champion.

I have added the fuller description of what Sarah Champion wrote in the Sun article, viz the word 'raped' which unaccountably did not make a recent edit..it was not just 'exploited' but 'raped and exploited'. Let's not Bowdlerise this, its important. Varnebank (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Things have moved on a bit so apologies for not coming back here to post before now. I added the quote to the section about her tenure as Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, which seemed the most appropriate place for it as that section discusses the article and its aftermath. So whether or not the quote is used in the lede is now a moot point, I guess. If you want to add Sajid Javid's comments to the section then please go ahead. Whether we also add them to the lede is something of which I'm not entirely sure. Ideally we should just mention there that she wrote the article and resigned following criticism. Anyone wanting to know more can scroll down to the relevant section. This is Paul (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it might be worth adding Javid's view but certainly I would say that just having the Naz Shah comment as it is at the moment leaves it a bit lopsided. What do other people think? Varnebank (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Javid is part of the government–and a British Pakistani—so his opinion should definitely be in there if Shah's is going to be included. At the moment the coverage in the article implies that Champion's comments received no mainstream support and that just isn't the case. These grooming cases are complex matters so Wikipedia's obligation to be neutral is especially important in covering them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you or This is Paul do this, I am not confident that I would get it right. Varnebank (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this news site is acceptable as a source since I live in the US. The news story about Sajid Javid is in THE WEEK: Why Sajid Javid has ordered probe into ethnicity of sex gangs Quoting THE WEEK: “MPs should be able to do their job without being threatened or intimidated in any way. Sarah Champion has my full support,” he said. “My officials have been working with investigating officers in relevant cases, and with the National Crime Agency, to establish the particular characteristics and contexts associated with this type of offending.” CryMeAnOcean (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 14:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

– The MP gets 81% of the traffic, the presenter gets 11% and the journalist gets 5.6%. The latter two are also stubs and have only one reference each.|Sarah_Champion_(presenter)|Sarah_Champion_(journalist)|Sarah_Champion_(politician) Unreal7 (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarah Champion (politician) → Sarah Champion
 * Sarah Champion → Sarah Champion (disambiguation)
 * Support. Seems to clearly qualify for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems to be a straightforward primary topic both in terms of interest, and by historical importance. The politician is also a shadow cabinet member. bd2412  T 15:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.