| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Untitled
editThere are obvious NPOV issues here: I have addressed the relevant sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.209.237 (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
To Moonraker
editThanks for the additional information. I didn't want to draw too much detail from the links I provided because it might have appeared that I was copying text. My original point was hard to phrase; no she hasn't been elected yet, she'll be extra-famous if she fails given this Tory stronghold with revised borders that may yet strengthen the majority, but she is Ancram's replacement as Conservative person in the constituency. Should she fail, it doesn't mean that she will lose her position as Tory member. I hope you see what I mean. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Redirect
editRedirected as per WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Articles on Prospective Parliamentary Candidates for Election 2010. If the candidate gets elected then the redirect can be reverted. Currently the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN
Daily Mail Quote
editA Daily Mail article today reports her alleged remark "What have I got to do to be called by the Speaker? Give him a b*** j**?". Despite being picked as "Quote of the day" by Guido Fawkes I really don't see that this is notable enough. NBeale (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- A British MP talking in a vulgar manner about the speaker of the House of Commons is notable - it gives readers an insight into her temperament. If we're going to have her thoughts on internet censoring, we should have her views on the provision of oral sex to speakers in exchange for debate access. 86.162.46.137 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see this as being at all notable. Your comparison with her policy on internet censoring does not follow, and your loaded language suggests you have an agenda in putting this up, which clearly goes against the spirit of objectivity on Wikipedia. I therefore vote that this be removed from the article. Jordi22 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Jordi22, it strikes me as trivial and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Moonraker2 (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see this as being at all notable. Your comparison with her policy on internet censoring does not follow, and your loaded language suggests you have an agenda in putting this up, which clearly goes against the spirit of objectivity on Wikipedia. I therefore vote that this be removed from the article. Jordi22 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the above comments, and say it would certainly be reasonable to include. Notability applies to entire articles, not to inclusion within an article. However, there is the problem that neither Paul Staines nor the Daily Mail are reliable sources. Mdwh (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the Guardian and the BBC are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.98.253 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any long-standing antipathy between her and Guido Fawkes? In the light of her recent apparent libel of him, would this explain why here first reaction on having her site hacked was to blame him, rather than some other group? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Divorce
editCan any body provide a reference for her divorce? This might be a ref, but I'd rather not pay Murdoch to find out. I'd be amazed if she's still currently in the process of divorcing two-and-a-half years later. Bazj (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Whitewashing
editI have restored most of the notable stuff recently removed, except the sensitive BLP stuff that may not be acceptable. I note that the editor concerned is a brand new WP:SPA who appears to have a whiff of insider information and therefore could be WP:COI conflicted.
Happy to discuss further. -Roxy the dog™ bark 12:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Use of Express and Guido Fawkes website as sources
editWP:BLPSOURCES says that content should not be added to BLPs where the only source is a tabloid. The Daily Express and the Guido Fawkes website are both tabloid so they should not be used to source content here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Claire Perry, Education
editClaire Perry, Education, not verifiable. no alumni history exists from Harvard Uni for an MBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.189.225 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Article name
editArticle was moved from Claire Perry O'Neill to Claire Perry a few days ago, which seemed a good idea at the time. However, her Twitter account and biog at her new employer have Claire O'Neill, so she will soon be better known under her new name. --Wire723 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this article needs renaming I believe,JLo-Watson (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, all the coverage of her recent resignation I've seen uses "Claire Perry O'Neill": Telegraph, Sky News, Guardian, Times, The National. I've moved back to that title. the wub "?!" 17:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)