Talk:Isabel Oakeshott/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unexplained removals

I have twice recently restored the unexplained removal of reliably-cited material, by an IP editor. It is not acceptable for such material to be removed, without a good justification being given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Piggate - wikipedia page

Can someone add in a section or link to Piggate, and the story that Isabel Oakeshott wrote about then Prime Minister David Cameron? It might be that the story is not worth adding in at all? But it does have its own Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.240.111 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The article includes a link to Call Me Dave, which seems adequate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The subject of this BLP, (aptly) editing under the name GhostInk, tried to remove her DoB. It was reinstated because she removed a lot of other content at the same time without explanation. However, per WP:DOB, where the subject attempts to have their DoB removed, we should remove it. I know it's easy enough to find a possible DoB, for example on IMDB that we link to, but that's not our problem. Bromley86 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry

Is she related to Michael Oakeshott, the celebrated Tory philosopher? Meltingpot (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

She claims so, but it's not enough for inclusion here. Bromley86 (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. For me that would settle the matter (it's not something she would be likely to lie about given her already illustrious ancestry), but I accept that Wikipedia has different standards of evidence than I do personally. Meltingpot (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Political editor at large of the Daily Mail

We had an entry on her being political editor at large, for some period, of the Daily Mail. Philip Cross removed it (diff).

1. Regarding Campaign[1] being unsatisfactory as a source. Is it that "(from February)" could be February 2017, not 2016? But there's that tweet of hers in Jan 2017 that says "After a v exciting year I'm triggering Article 50 on my membership of the Mail.", which fits with Feb 2016.
2. In that television slot with Wales, she takes issue with an older version of her article saying "As of January 2017, she is employed as the political editor-at-large at the Daily Mail."here, @23s But she doesn't take issue with working there. As she'd already resigned (per her Jan 2017 tweet), her point is merely that her WP article says she's currently working for the Mail, when she is in fact not. This is the change that she (or someone with access to her selfies) tried to put through. It was reverted, making the article factually incorrect: this is her point.
3. Gossip columns as sources. Actually, the real source is her tweet, and I think the Spectator article is reliable for reporting the contents of that tweet. As to notability, her basic journalistic career bio details don't need to be independently notable, surely? Otherwise, with just one source, we'd trim her Scottish stuff (okay, we could probably add more sources for that, but you get my point).

I'd like to see it re-added. It's substantially agrees to what she herself added to the article, it's basic bio detail on her career path, and it's (as far as I can see) reasonably sourced for accuracy. Bromley86 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oakeshott's articles for the Daily Mail are here on a single page and cover only five months; the last entry dates from August 2016. In only one month, the previous March, did Oakeshott contribute more than two articles to the paper. For whatever reason, it is not a very substantial part of her career. Philip Cross (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet it's a part of her career that (a) exists, (b) that she (or at least GhostInk) acknowledges, and (c) that we have (some sort of) sources for both the start and the finish. How substantial was her contribution to any of the East Lothian Courier, the Edinburgh Evening News or the Daily Record? If you're concerned about the title (as there's always a chance that someone is over-egging that), we can drop that. (I must admit, I've no idea what political editor at large would be.) Bromley86 (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No idea how substantial Oakeshott's contributions to the Scottish titles were, but as she was not a 'name' then, it's likely to have been more substantial because her work would not have been perceived as a means to maintain circulation. As it is, we can barely source her second brief period at the Mail. Oakeshott's involvement with "piggate" has not helped her reputation, nor the Vicky Pryce incident, and there is a risk of using the Daily Mail, an unfavoured newspaper on Wikipedia, to help dismiss individuals who have had a connection with it. Philip Cross (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

WP's politics (which I happen to disagree with: evaluate the source on a case-by-case basis, if necessary) is, IMO, irrelevant. She had publicly acknowledged that she worked there, which is surely all that matters? Bromley86 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The sourcing is too problematic, what is the point? Oakeshott's tweet, as reproduced by The Spectator, post-dates her last article for the Mail by five months, but we could only be accurate by interpreting the five month gap between that last article and the tweet . In other words, indulge in a spot of original research which would doubtless be deleted in due course. All we can add to the article is that Oakeshott was appointed and then left the Mail. Given the low output of copy (a mere 10 credited articles), it's improbable she worked in the Mail's Kensington offices. Neither have those ten articles been viewed as in anyway notable by third-party sources. Philip Cross (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the sourcing as problematic. She claims to have worked there (Twitter, her personal webpage,[2] LinkedIn, WP (although those last two are circumstantial)), and we have no reason to believe otherwise: indeed, we had two sources that confirm that she did, and which gave the dates that she was there. That you've spotted that there were no articles in the last five months is interesting (indeed, the Spectator article alludes to it), but it is also OR. More references for her working for the Mail.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11])(there were more, but that seemed enough for me) There's also a blog on politics.co.uk,[12] a number of entries on Guido, and mentions in videos on YouTube (including by her), for what they're worth. Sure, they're largely tangential, but they establish that she did work there, and a couple of them confirm that in early Feb 2016 she was the "soon to be political editor-at-large", which supports the source we'd used to establish her start date. Bromley86 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to your action. I did not agree to the passage on Oakeshott's second brief tenure at the Mail being restored. The sourcing is vitally important. It is best to leave things out if there is no means to prevent information being included which is either wrong or at least misleading. As the the January 2017 tweet does not accurately indicate the end of Oakeshott's work for the Mail, which was effectively last August, you have chosen to restore an error. A third opinion, at least, is needed. Philip Cross (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to call in a 3O. I've restored the version that existed prior to your arrival. Bromley86 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

BBC's Question Time in October 2016 says she worked there;0:32 BBC's Daily Politics likewise.[13] And then there's the Daily Mail in November 2016, which for some reason doesn't show up on the list of her articles that you provided.[14]. And there's the advertising forum Advertising Association 2017 that one of our sources refers to, and that took place in January 2017.2:15

Unless WP is now passing comment on whether or not someone is a good, productive employee, I think that conclusively settles it. Bromley86 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoted reviews

Are these quotes sufficiently balanced? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Further unexplained removals

The unexplained removal of cited content, to which I referred on this page in 2016, is happening again; I have already referred the editor concerned to this page, advising them to find consensus here before repeating their edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

...and despite doing so, I have just been reverted for the third time in 30 hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• • I have added an edit warring template to the users talk page and tried to explain why consensus is needed. I will revert to the version with cited content and hope the new editor will come here to get consensus for changes to that version, and will move more slowly. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Just checking my edit summary for that revert. It should say (in my bold), "See the warning on your talk and please get consensus to change the RS version of the article. You are a new editor; please take advice of experienced editors so you are not blocked." rather than,"See the warning on your talk and please get consensus to the RS version of the article. You are a new editor; please take advice of experienced editors so you are not blocked." Apologies for any confusion.Littleolive oil (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)