Talk:Ann Cryer

Inventing Internet claim utter Tosh - Keighley News

So Cryer says in a newspaper article[1] which also says "The bizarre claim – which appears on the Wikipedia website". I think we need to purge extraordinary claims form this article, especially as it causes ridicule of WP in the press. Rwendland (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Five years later, people continue to edit-war over this titbit of trivia. I removed it, and another user just reverted. I really don't think it belongs in the article: it does not seem particularly significant to Cryer's life or career. It isn't even really about her, it's about Wikipedia; it belongs perhaps on Wikipedia controversies or Reliability of Wikipedia, but not here. Robofish (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Ann Cryer and says more about the person who put it there. Removed again and sourced edit with some merit reinstated. Perhaps this article needs protecting. J3Mrs (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's notable as it's been quoted in the press. The text in this 'talk' section is more about the ORIGINAL CLAIM or internet invention than the current text (which is not asserting anything that is untrue -- unlike the original claim) 87.224.72.204 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not about Ann Cryer, it's about Wikipedia. J3Mrs (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to note it was not in WP "Until 2009" undisputed. First inserted 9 May 2008 [2] and first removed 25 June 2008 [3]. In and out ever since! Rwendland (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any consensus here to include this material. I have semi-protected the article to prevent its repeated addition. --John (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Cryer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227235715/http://www.ilkley.org/govment/ukmp.htm to http://www.ilkley.org/govment/ukmp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Thanks. --Rcalvert (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Continual removal of interview

Some users don't like to use the talk and just undo things they don't like. How rude. I'm going to add it back in and risk the wrath of someone with too much time on their hands! The section above appears to confuse the original assertion with the fact that she was later interviewed about it. The original may have been a wind-up, but the interview isn't, that's a fact, even if WP doesn't really like it because it reflects badle. --Theman3110 (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems a fair enough addition. I vote to leave it in. --87.224.72.204 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

+1 (to leave it) --Rcalvert (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It'll be left then. Thanks for the input. --Theman3110 (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

1. The insult was clearly meant for me in your original message under this subject. This could be sanctioned. 2. You need to look carefully at WP:BLP. The section could be removed at once if its neutrality is in doubt. 3. You seem to have a slight bias towards editing only about Anne Cryer, and have edited nothing else recently. I strongly suggest you edit some other articles to prevent you from being seen as a single-purpose account on a contentious article. 4. Just one other named editor (and one anon editor who has been previously warned for adding that material, and who I strongly suspect is you) saying they think the inclusion is ok does not count as an overwhelming vote in favour of its inclusion, given the number of editors who have removed it previously. 5. Learn how to format your replies appropriately. I have corrected your last effort.

I will now remove it. I have also totally protected the page. You need to discuss its inclusion politely on here and get far more support than you seem to have got so far to argue in favour of its inclusion.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You guys are harsh. I haven't contributed to this yet, but can see why folk are put off. Odd to see a cited piece being removed though, esp as there's not much on this page and the content of the interview is hardly inflammatory or contentious. --82.132.231.160 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's NOT odd to remove off-topic trivia that has no place in the article, even if it was reported in the Keighley News. Can you explain just what information it adds to our knowledge about Ann Cryer? It was a hoax and has no place here. J3Mrs (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Cryer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605051945/http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/archive/2008/09/11/3666215.Ilkley_MP_wanted_to_change_the_world__but_she_didn_t_invent_the_internet_/ to http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/archive/2008/09/11/3666215.Ilkley_MP_wanted_to_change_the_world__but_she_didn_t_invent_the_internet_/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Full Protection

A renewed attempt to add controversial information resulting in a continuation of an edit war has begun. Consequently, I have fully protected the article. Once protection has expired, any attempt to re-add the material without abiding by BRD will be dealt with by means of blocking if necessary. There should only be Discussion here from now on regarding this material since the B and R bits of BRD has already happened, more than once. Removal of any re-added material will not be deserving of any action, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement needing clarification?

I wonder if "She was selected as the prospective Labour candidate for the Keighley constituency, the seat her husband had held, from an all-women shortlist", should be reworded, as while Bob Cryer had represented Keighley from 1974-1983, has last seat in parliament had been Bradford South (which he held fom 1987 until his death in 1994. Might "the seat her husband had held until 1983" be better? Dunarc (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)