Talk:Caroline Nokes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noteworthiness[edit]

The most noteworthy thing about Mrs Nokes is that she was revealed to be having an extramarital affair despite having signed a Christian pledge to uphold marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.48.120 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact she's an MP makes her worthy of a wikipedia entry - see WP:bio. The fact she had an affair is a secondary but notable, added to the fact that she made the pledge. Both sides in the anon edit war - those who think the affair is the headline, those who would prefer it removed - should note wikipedia's rules. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trident - where does she confirm she had an affair? Where does she 'made the pledge'? She doesn't. She says they are " inaccurate commentary, speculation and rumour" on her website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.22.75 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The affair[edit]

Why is this notable? Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facrt that she has had extra marital sex is only going to become encyclopedic if there are major notable issue in her life that result from it, right now it is simple tabloid tittilation and has no encyclopedic value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its notable due to the extensive spread of WP:RS, and the fact that while she was having an active four year affair, campaigned on her family roots and signed a Christian-based pledge which covered the issue of adultery. Suggest this debate is now conducted at WP:BLPN as you requested on my talkpage. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trident13; they were allegations which she never confirmed were true. [1]. The allegations were followed by successful legal action.[2]. I think your assertion is inaccurate in light of what later transpired. I think there is no evidence that she was (a) having an active four year affair (merely an allegation) and no evidence she signed a pledge promising to live her life by Christian values (merely an assertion by a third party in a newspaper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeyrider69 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note she never confirmed the rumours of an affair, and there seems to have been legal action resulting from the media coverage. Also interesting that she divorced her husband (not the other way around). Furthermore, there is no evidence she signed a 'Christian based pledge', merely that she agreed to uphold the rights of Christians to practice their religion and hold their beliefs - she has not anywhere stated she shares those beliefs. This should be noted for balance.

References

  1. ^ http://www.romseyadvertiser.co.uk/news/news/8227073.MP_hit_by_scandal_asks_to_be____left_in_peace___/.
  2. ^ http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10049126.Romsey_MP_Caroline_Nokes_and_husband_divorce/.

revealed?[edit]

In June 2010, it was revealed that Nokes was having an affair with a married 27-year-old Conservative councilor James Dinsdale.....revealed does not explain anything. it should be explained correctly, support is already in the citations..

alteration to the sectionOff2riorob (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

In June 2010, it was broken in an undercover expose by the Daily Mirror that Nokes was having an affair with a married 27-year-old Conservative councilor James Dinsdale


The toy-boy love cheat was revealed to also have slept with gay rights LGBTory Anastasia Beaumont-Bott cited here Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he may end up notable (likely not due to BLP1E), but for now I don't think we should have a non-notable person's name as part of an affair. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely name people of medium or limited notability if their names are being routinely added and named in the press. He is a political councilor so we hardly need to assert that he is a private person, in fact he is a public person, he is being quoted as commenting and admitting to the affair, if we are to mention it then in the circumstances to remove his name is similar to censorship. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree, he appears to be a lawyer for a publishing firm, I don't know that that makes him a public person. Nor do I think we should have negative information about non-notable people unless actually needed. But I'll fully admit I don't know BLP policy well enough to know if my opinion is supported by guideline/policy or just my own common sense. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob is engaging in WP:POINT editing -- he's unhappy that there is any mention of the affair at all, and his attitude appears to be "well fuck it, let's go whole hog then". See WP:BLPN#Caroline Nokes where this is clear. It's not to be taken seriously. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nameless correspondent[edit]

n June 2010, a Daily Mirror undercover exposé disclosed that Nokes was having an affair with a married Conservative councilor from Suffolk, who works in publishing, whom she had first met at the Conservative conference in Bournemouth in October 2006.[5][11][7]

It seems a bit odd to me that the article tells you about the guy's profession, place of residence, and where the couple met, but doesn't give his name. 116.48.142.163 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the relevance of where and how they met, his profession or where he is from. It seems superflous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeyrider69 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

I don't see the relevance of listing the details of the man who alleged he had an affair with Nokes. The fact the allegations were referenced is sufficient surely? Also, Nomoskedasticity says she 'asserts' there was successful legal action, not that it was true. This assertion was later published by two newspapers. I therefore don't see why the assertion isn't accepted. Donkeyrider69 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are additional sources that document the fact of successful legal action, then by all means indicate what those sources are. The one we currently have only supports the notion that she asserted there had been successful legal action. BTW, I would also suggest you consult WP:3RR -- you've done enough reverting on this article for today. (Do make sure you're familiar with the definition of reverting -- it is not limiting to wholesale undoing of another edit.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Fathers4Justice Harassment of Nokes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for personal or political propaganda, and has no relevance to this asrticle. Suggest ignore/ remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.194.153 (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read this section, based on the apparent seriousness of the harassment, I think some mention of it is justified. But the current section is far too long and contains too much unnecessary detail and background material. It makes the article look imbalanced, as it has much more text about this issue than any other aspect of Nokes' political career. It needs to be cut down to a more reasonable length, with perhaps some of the more off-topic material being moved to Fathers4Justice. Robofish (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this is personal or political propoganda. I have, as suggested, moved the bulk of the content to the Fathers For Justice page, and reduced the amount of detail on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodsman2013 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is left reads as a one-sided account (Nokes' side). There is no description of the other side's complaints / position. Has the Nokes PR machine pulled one over on Wikipedia so easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.53.100 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple incorrect citations for fathers4justice section[edit]

This text is unsupported:

"However, the group refused Nokes' offer to table amendments, and called on her to resign from the committee. After she refused to do so[66] the group declared 'war' on Nokes, and accused her of betraying her commitment to their agenda. They began a campaign of harassment against her.[38] The group organised a demonstration in Nokes' constituency, for which they were criticised by local residents,[67] encouraged their members to visit Nokes' family home at night, posted late-night Tweets saying they were driving around her village 'looking for' her, asked members to send the MP their dirty underwear, demanded to see a Court Order outlining her daughter's living and contact arrangements, and falsely alleged her ex-husband was having difficulty having contact with his daughter.[68][69]"

Breaking this down on a sentence by sentence basis:

"However, the group refused Nokes' offer to table amendments, and called on her to resign from the committee." No citation given

"After she refused to do so[66] the group declared 'war' on Nokes, and accused her of betraying her commitment to their agenda." No citation is given for this chain of events nor is any citation given for fathers4justice 'declaring war' on Nokes.

"They began a campaign of harassment against her.[38] " The citation simply links to the F4J twitter account, no direct link to anything providing evidence for a 'campaign of harassment'.

"The group organised a demonstration in Nokes' constituency, for which they were criticised by local residents,[67]" The citation says local residents complained about the groups loudspeaker and that one of the groups was rude to them, it does not provide evidence that local residents criticised the group for demonstrating Nokes which is what the sentence suggests.

"encouraged their members to visit Nokes' family home at night, posted late-night Tweets saying they were driving around her village 'looking for' her, asked members to send the MP their dirty underwear, demanded to see a Court Order outlining her daughter's living and contact arrangements, and falsely alleged her ex-husband was having difficulty having contact with his daughter.[68][69]" The first citation links to a statement on the fathers4justice website where they say the allegations that they were "driving around her village 'looking for' her, asked members to send the MP their dirty underwear, demanded to see a Court Order outlining her daughter's living and contact arrangements, and falsely alleged her ex-husband was having difficulty having contact with his daughter" were false. The second link is a non-existent photo on facebook.

Moreover, given the lack of evidence for harassment in the section I have edited it to remove the POV bias and weasel words and removed any unsupported statements.

As such I have edited the text and section to reflect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.136.96 (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Caroline Nokes. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whip Restored[edit]

Hi,

Just wondering if this page needs to be updated, as Boris Johnson has restored the whip to 10 MPs according to this tweet https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1189246662096629761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1189246662096629761&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-50212212.

Wagnerp16 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Nokes&oldid=1208298714"