Talk:Matilda Simon, 3rd Baroness Simon of Wythenshawe
| 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 C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph of Matilda Simon, 3rd Baron Simon of Wythenshawe be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
Baron/Lord vs. Baroness/Lady
editI wasn't sure whether to name the article Matilda Simon, 3rd Lady Simon of Wythenshawe or leave it as it currently is? According to the House of Lords website she is Lord (Baron) Simon of Wythenshawe [1], but as a woman (and in consistancy with other female hereditary peers such as Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma) would be addressed as Lady Simon of Wythenshawe. Thoughts? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have moved the page to Matilda Simon, 3rd Baroness Simon of Wythenshawe, but an open to conversation if anyone thinks it should remain at Matilda Simon, 3rd Baron Simon of Wythenshawe. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
By-election
editNominations for the by-election to replace Lord Falkland have closed. The three candidates standing are the Earl Russell, the Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor and the Lord Belhaven & Stenton, all Liberal Democrats. [2] Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I just updated the article to reflec that. Thanks! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Only Lib Dem peers were eligible to stand in the elecion anyway, by convention that hereditary peers are replaced by someone from the same party. Hence even if she had wanted to stand (there is no evidence that she did), she could not have been elected. Woodmaz (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- That convention would not prevent non-Lib Dem peers from standing in the by-election. Looking at the candidate lists in By-elections to the House of Lords, almost every previous "whole house" by-election has seen candidates from different parties gather significant amounts of votes. But as of 20 Oct. 2023, Simon isn't even on the Register of Hereditary Peers which lists potential by-election candidates, although she applied to be added to the list in 2022, according to the Lords Library...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, Lord Falkland had switched from Lib Dem to Crossbencher in 2011, so it hadn't been a Lib Dem seat for over a decade. And since there are no hereditary seats held by Green party members at all, the fact that Simon applied for the Register in 2022 implies that she intended to stand for some by-election of a seat held by another party at the time, though she apparently changed her mind later (she was removed from the Register in May 2023).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
That Simon hasn't stood makes the article a bit awkward - almost all of the subject's notability is from sources writing preemptively about an event that ultimately didn't happen.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- While the sources regard the potential for Lady Simon to take a seat in Lords, I would argue her notability is as the first-ever openly transgender Peer in the United Kingdom. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thankyou. Yes, hence the large chunk of the article about this non-event is irrelevant. Woodmaz (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Article contains numerous errors
editThere are at least ten errors of fact in the article. I have tried to put these right - some sources have been misinterpreted and some are in error. The subject's previous name should not be included as she was not any sort of public figure of interest under that name. Her date of birth is irrelevant private information. The article has only appeared because two media outlets tried to create a story by suggesting that Matilda might stand in an election to the House of Lords (which in fact, she could not anyway - see above). The press did this in order to perpetuate the culture war against trans people. since Matilda does not use her title it is not of any interest that she is a trans peer.
Her views are explained on her Facebook page in a comment under a post of 18/7/22 (previously posted on Twitter in a subsequently deleted account):
Contrary to reports, I have no intention of standing in any “election” to the House of Lords which still contains a rump of 92 hereditary peers, all male. Hereditary peerages are an anachronism and the “Upper” House of Parliament is overdue for reform.
It would be absurd to have a female gender and then claim a privilege based upon male primogeniture. But it has been telling to see the establishment tie themselves in knots trying to pay respect to the right of people to express their gender identity - while defending an obsolete, patriarchal system of aristocracy.
The history of the Barony of Wythenshawe is that my grandfather was made a Labour peer in 1947 as part of a move to avoid the conservative House of Lords from undermining the legislation of the post-war government. I am proud of his achievements, and those of my grandmother, Shena Simon, in housing and education in Manchester.
Let us hope that the next progressive government acts to create a democratically elected and representative Upper House. It has become discredited by being stuffed with political cronies as reward for services rendered and donations to parties. Matilda Simon Woodmaz (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Ref 6 is invasive
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:NOTCENSORED. |
Ref 6 contains photographs of the subject reproduced without permission , one of which is of her previous gender expression and therefore should not be used as it breaches the principles of the sensitive topic of trans identity in Wikipedia policy. The reference is not factual but contains supposition by media journalists and was published without the subject's permission or approval. Ref 6 should be removed. I don't know how to do this. Woodmaz (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Woodmaz
The request is not actionable. Only the number of the reference was given, and unfortunately, edits were made before and after the request, which shuffled those numbers around, so it's difficult to discern which reference this is referring to. Based on the time of day, it's either the national review or the telegraph. In the end, content which may be viewed as objectionable on either of those websites is not the purview of Wikipedia. Regards, Spintendo 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
