Talk:Fiona Onasanya

Pre-emptive protection

Can we pre-emptively protect this article from IPs given the court proceedings? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's wait for the storm first. I think the proceedings have been fairly low-profile thusfar, so I wouldn't expect too much vandalism to come. MB190417 (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Low-profile has surely ended. E.g., BBC Fiona Onasanya: Peterborough MP 'to stay in Parliament'. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

True, but so far only one outbreak which was annoying but copeable-with. I do agree that it is likely to need protection sooner or later ... continue to wait a little and see? I'm just not sure yet. It has had edits from IPs and registered users and most have been reasonable so far. DBaK (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Parking a reference

• Association, Press (28 December 2018). "Convicted MP Fiona Onasanya intends to stay in parliament". The Guardian.

That picture

That picture of Onasanya is ugly beyond words, to a degree of being borderline racist. Don't we have a better one? I've seen many better pictures of her on the net... Wefa (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it makes her look like something out of a B-movie about a tribe of cannibals. PatGallacher (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Presuming he's still alive, maybe you should take it up with Chris McAndrew? She seems happy enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Well it’s her official portrait on the UK parliament website, so she must have approved it. But if anyone has any free alternatives, let’s see them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wefa: Could you elaborate as to how the image is "borderline racist"? I'm genuinely curious. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's part of the set of official photos of MPs taken after the June 2017 General Election (you can tell by the grey background). Many of these photos aren't very good, but it is her "official" portrait and the infobox photo has to be CC. The full set of photos is here, and to give another example, Diane Abbott isn't a masterpiece either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the photo is so bad I would be happier to see no photo until another CC one is found. (Just done a google image search, and no other "Labeled for reuse" ones,) Rwendland (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the UK Parliament website, and therefore presumably good enough for Onasanya herself, then it's good enough for us. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Borderline racist"?!? What an astonishing assertion! It's certainly ugly, I'll grant you that. Nonetheless it is an undoctored picture. That IS (for better or worse) what she looks like. How can the claim possibly be made that it's "racist"? If I didn't know better, I'd guess that the quest to find a "better" photo of her is an attempt to make her more "media-friendly"...perhaps someone's trying to "smooth" her image after "recent events"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.40.196 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd want my money back from a passport photo booth if the photos were as bad as some of the 2017 official portraits. It would be interesting to know if Fiona Onasanya was happy with this photo. Since it has CC status, it is likely to be used widely, and at the moment these grey background photos are the only ones of her on Commons.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So let*s generally note the picture is ugly. There seems to be consensus on that here. It is also not that Ms Onasanya herself is ugly - there are enough good looking pictures of her on the web to show the contrary, so this particular image is just a bad one. It also transports a racial stereotype - a black face sporting an extremely broad grin with bared white teeth. Black people have been portrayed that way many times, and not not out of deep respect. When we do a BLP, we owe our subject and our readers imagery that conveys a modicum of dignity and respect. That implies we avoid images that make our subjects look ugly. Not doing so, especially in this case with a racially stereotyping image, is an act of disrespect, and, arguably, some careless racsim. Frankly, when our pictures of Hitler and Stalin show more respect to the subject than the one of Fiona Onasanya we can reliably conclude that there is room for improvement. Wefa (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I dispute that the photo is intended as a racial stereotype. It's unclear if Fiona Onasanya saw this image before it was used as her official photo. This photo was taken by Chris McAndrew and TBH many of these official portraits aren't very good. Apparently, though, "Chris's distinctive style and ability to put people immediately at ease meant we could capture a raw, but sophisticated, image that showed MPs as relatable people."[2] This BBC News article also has Paul Masterton with a Cheshire Cat grin. I'd also want my money back if this was my passport photo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

One wonders which photo she uses on her driving licence. I suspect there's plenty of folks in Peterborough who also feel they "want their money back". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Unduly Lenient Setence

I have reverted the revert of my removal of the statement from the Registrar of Criminal Appeals to the HoC Speaker that it's now out of time for AG's referral. When an otherwise reliable source on a subject can be shown to be inaccurate in regards to a specific statement, then they're no longer a realiable source for this. We don't include a statement when it's clearly not correct.

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 [3] set out that the time limit for referral is "28 days from the day on which the sentence, or the last of the sentences, in the case was passed". If you prefer secondary source, you can refer yourself to CPS's legal guidance on the subject at [4]. Given that no one is disputing that the sentence in question was passed on 29 January 2019, a statement dated 7 February 2019 saying that the time limit for AG's referral has passed is clearly incorrect.

If you disagree, please clearly state why including an obviously incorrect statement is not UNDUE. -- KTC (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the conflicting primary sources. In the circumstances, it may be best to say nothing until we have greater clarity or we've got a secondary source about this specific case to cite. Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

+1, I'm puzzled but we can't do the math ourselves.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We have conflicting primary sources. We should either include both (as was the case with a "Notwithstanding that ...") or, as has been suggested by Bondegezou, say nowt. I think it is poor to remove one citation and leave another. Nedrutland (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We go back to basic policy. I suggest, as per WP:PRIMARY, we should say nowt. Bondegezou (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

All the second one shows is that at the time the document was prepared, the AG office was considering a ULS referral request, which must be correct at some point in time if someone have made a request. But since it doesn't actually add to the previous sentence saying that they have received such request, have no problem with its removal. -- KTC (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Solution! The Speaker has received a corrected version of the letter from the Registrar of Criminal Appeals; "I also confirm that we have received no appeal against sentence nor any Attorney General referral, but the time limit for such a referral does not expire until 26 February 2019." Nedrutland (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Great! Then let us proceed with that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Recall petition

The last sentence of #3 Criminal conviction starts "The recall petition has been called" so the second sentence of the previous paragraph which includes "a recall petition will be started" needs changing. Mcljlm (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: You can be bold and fix it yourself, but I'll take a look at this as well. edit: After a quick look, I think it should stay as it as as that paragraph is about events in January-February, while the following paragraph is about the events from March onwards, including the recall petition. Maybe the whole things needs re-writing so it is less of a list of news reports (violating WP:NOTNEWS), but I don't have time to go over such a rewrite. Iffy★Chat -- 13:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Onasanya was not the first female MP with a prison sentence

Reference 11 which goes to an article in The Times states the following post publication correction:

"This article was amended on February 1, 2019. We stated incorrectly that Fiona Onasanya is the first female MP to be jailed. Bernadette Devlin was given a six-month sentence in 1969, when she was MP for Mid-Ulster, for her part in the Bogside disturbances."

I am unable to change it, due to the Wikipedia settings in the article (I have not edited enough). Would someone with permission please change this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KxLondon (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

KxLondonThanks for raising that - I've removed the claim from the article. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Former or not

A couple of us edited the lead to say that Onasanya is a former politician, but Ianmacm has twice reverted, most recently saying, "she is no longer an MP but this is not the same as being a former politician". I take Ianmacm's point that one can be a politician without being an MP. However, equally, I see no evidence that Onasanya is currently a politician. She is not doing the things politicians do. She is not in a party. She did not stand in the by-election in her seat. In the absence of a reliable source describing her a politician or describing her doing anything politician-like since she served her sentence, I think we have to go with "former". Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I think you've got it backward. In the absence of a reliable source describing her as a "former politician", or a statement saying she is retiring from politics, we should keep it as it is. That she is a former MP is self-evident, that she is a former politician is not.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And is she yet a "former solicitor? If we wanted to follow most current sources, I guess we'd describe her as a "disgraced politician", but I guess that would look too tabloid in an opening sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd change the lead to "Onasanya was a British politician". That's neither confirming or denying what she is now. I don't think RS support saying she "is" a politician. We cannot assume that just because she was a politician, we therefore presume she always remains a politician in the absence of evidence, not given the circumstances of her fall from grace. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I reverted this only once.[5] The other revert was by Moscow Mule on 1 May 2019.[6] Anyway, I think it is problematic to say that an ex-MP automatically becomes an ex-politician.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In general terms, I'd certainly agree with you. But in this case?! ...she'd be very brave to stand anywhere, ever again, as an Independent. And I can't even see an offer from the party which came 10th out of 15. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I had a shot at rewriting the intro -- "former member of the Labour Party" (which is undeniable), rather than "former politician". "Following a re-trial" at the start of the 2nd para also seemed out of place. Revert at will. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fiona Onasanya is described underneath her photo in her bio as "Member of Parliament for Peterborough" obviously she is the former MP for Peterborough, and as such the page should be changed to reflect this. The question of if she is a current or former politician is neither here nor there in relation this that is a matter of fact. Lippyrich (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And under that it says "In office 8 June 2017 – 1 May 2019". Same for all ex-MPs with this infobox. William Avery (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the text that's directly "underneath her photo" is her name. I think she's still got that. "Member of Parliament for Peterborough" is just the office that she once held. Possibly slightly misleading in this case, but I don't see how that can be avoided. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely then all former MP's should be changed to "Former Member of Parliament" as they no longer hold that post. Maybe their bio should be similar to that of sportsmen/women so as to be less misleading, certainly is where people have lost their positions as a result of unusual circumstances - such as Ms Onasanya's ?Lippyrich (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you'd need to raise that as a proposal at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)