Talk:Ann Furedi

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

DB: Attack request:[edit]

The originating author has history of creating new articles primarily intended to disparage the subject (indeed one was deleted only this week) and/or promote her conservative views. She is also currently under investigation by admin for her conduct elsewhere on WP. Current article is severely POV and aimed at disparaging subject (who as a mere CEO is hardly worthy of inclusion on WP anyway.). Deep 13 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Deep 13 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain how and why. I have cited my sources. I cannot find anything else about Ann Furedi, and as somebody who appears on the media a great deal, there is nothing about her on WP. Maybe you could embellish the article rather than deleting it?Ros Power 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your explanation, you must now delete the hangon tag. If it is not, you should give your explanation asap. Deep 13 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ann Furedi is not only the CEO of BPAS, she is also a pro-abortion activist and the founder of the "pro-choice forum". She has done much in Britain to promote and advocate abortion, and only today was on national radio. As a member of the HFEA she has helped shape some of the most significant decisions this country has taken regarding cloning, abortion, genetic selection, etc. There is nothing about her on WikiPedia and I have done my best to provide an unbiased synopsis of her recent life and work. I personally cannot see anything in it inaccurate, offensive, or NPOV. Perhaps you could explain what you find "severely POV" and "disparaging"? Ros Power 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is a good thing. Actually, it's a wonderful thing: NPOV = 'Neutral Point Of View' and it is what WP is all about. (I see the article has already been deleted by Admin.) Deep 13 18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deep 13, please explain why you consider this article to be offensive or POV before requesting speedy deletion again, thanks. I notice from your user page that you are closely aligned to the political far left and are unlikely to be NPOV on this matter.Ros Power 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't a good idea to repost deleted articles. Try clicking on the Help section on the main menu if you feel you need advice of posting/editing. It's a very helpful resource. ("closely aligned to the far left"? The Greens?! You make it sound like I helped Stalin rather than voting for The LibDems With Added Lentils. Thanks for the laugh, tho!)Deep 13 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


DB-repost Original author reposted exact same article within moments of deletion. Never seen that sort of thing before! Deep 13 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debating the article[edit]

1 - This is a very poorly phrased article - so bad that it's almost unsalvageable. (The author claimed at one point that the female subject was some guy's "husband"!)

2 - The originating author claims this subject is someone of note. If so, the article should represent this: all I have come away with a sense that the author views the subject as unpleasant in some way - that's it. The subject's membership of a political group seems to have no bearing on anything. (I belong to the Greens and once worked for an NGO: do I get an article?) It tells me nothing about the subject's views, aims, purpose, works. The author cannot just dump a few facts on a page, fold her arms and say 'and now it is up to everyone else to fill in the rest'. It needs research and a thorough re-write.

My short time on WP has shown me that there are some crackingly well-written and researched articles out there. This pointless, artless article wouldn't be one of them. Deep 13 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the author to provide these details, and tagged the article as requiring them. If the article doesn't gain them in the next couple of days, I'll send it to WP:AfD - the process where the community decides an article's future.
You're right that a lot of authors here put up skeleton articles and expect others to do all the hard work. However, I'm prepared to assume good faith that this author will flesh out the article with a simple assertion of notability. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. May I ask you to consider the acceptability of the second external link quoted? Seems to be just some guy's blog. Deep 13 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I will return to this article tomorrow (today!) if that's OK. For the time being, I suggest that running Britains largest independent abortionists is noteworthy in itself - we certainly do the same for CEOs of large businesses and charities. Furthermore Ann Furedi is a fairly well known figure in these matters - she has been interviewed on such substantial programmes as Radio 4's Moral Maze and the PM programme, to name but two, and has written articles for broadsheet newspapers. I suggest that Deep 13 is simply uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of her role in the abortion industry with her role in left-wing politics, however as bio's go, it would be simply mendacious to avoid mentioning both these pertinent facts. Ros Power 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but are they pertinent?
Mention the woman's political leanings if you so wish, but put them in context. What relevance does her political view have on anything else? How can I put this more simply? It's like saying "Mr X is the chairman of XYZ Bank Plc. He votes Labour and likes peanut butter." What do the last two attributes have to do with the first? If, however, Mr X was part of the recent (alleged) Cash for Titles scandal and recently died choking on peanut butter, then re-wording and expanding the sentence would make sense. It's the same here.
You mention the size of the organisation for whom the subject works. Yes, potentially interesting, but not always. If your bike repair business ws the biggest in the UK would you claim notablity here? No. So, prop up your argument that she's to show that she's more than a CEO of what still seems to be a smallish organisation.
I have no difficulty with the article's subject, or anyone else, sharing my left-wing politics and pro-choice views (tho your repeated implication that the Greens are Communists remains very funny!). I do, however, hate seeing WP diluted with dubious articles: I don't seem to be alone in this respect.
I look forward to reading something substantial, worthwhile and balanced here soon. Or consider the merge suggestion. Deep 13 07:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for saying you had a "far left position". However you are a self-declared member of the Green Party, one of the few political parties to have a formal pro-abortion position, a position it shares with the Communist Party. Certainly, in this respect, you are a member of an organisation on the "far left" of the abortion debate. However that does not mean I do not think you are not capable of contributing to an article about one of the most prominent abortionists in Britain; similarly, neither am I.
BPAS is not a benign and insignificant bicycle repair organisation, it is a major abortionist that is also highly active in influencing policy and debate on the matter and other life and death matters such as PGD. Its role in the public life of Britain, and certainly its very vocal, outspoken and publicly visible founder, along with her political links, publications and activities are both subjects of merit for WikiPedia, a position I am sure both pro-abortion and pro-life people would agree on. They are pertinent to the subject as they inform readers as to complex political and ideological alignments.Ros Power 09:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the apology, Ros, which I gladly accept.
I am indeed pro-choice. Making the leap, however from the Green to the Communists because they share a few ideas is rather silly. Not that I have a probem with Communists: takes all sorts.
Clearly you are no fan of BPAS. That's fine. But saying they are not 'benign' is just your POV, which is fine if we're having a friendly debate but otherwise not terribly important. Nevertheless, you have offered to re-write the article more fully, and I look forward to reading what will hopefully be an informative and well-rounded article on someone who, apparently, is in a position of authority. Deep 13 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will do what I can, however I cannot guarantee that there will be much more to it. I don't think Mrs Furedi is necessary in a position of authority other than over her organisation which receives over £12m of public funds from the state every year, however she certainly is in a position of influence, as her sixty mentions on the BBC News website alone will attest. Irrespective of how much or little material is available on Mrs Furedi on the internet, however, her position, activity, history and political affiliations undoubtedly merit an entry on WP.
Incidentally, I was not suggesting that organisations who abort children are anything other than benign, I was merely stating that bicycle repair organisations generally are! Ros Power 10:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ann Furedi the founder of BPAS? Are you sure? She's not more than 45 or so.--Anchoress 10:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is not the founder of BPAS, she is, I believe, one of the founders PCF. Sorry. Ros Power 10:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ros, if you yourself have nothing much more to add to it, then it really is too thin to stand as an article on its own. The info you have provided would make a useful addition to the new article, however. Very few commenst so far, but the few here and on the new article's page seem to favour merging. Might I suggsest that Anchoress incorporates the info from this article anyway? Deep 13 11:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deep 13, I don't think it is too thin. Far less significant people such as second division footballers, minor snooker players and pop singers - people who have had no tangible impact on the political and cultural landscape - have far briefer biographies on WikiPedia and nobody seems to complain! Respectfully, I suggest you are simply uncomfortable with the truth about the intimate, factual, relationship between extreme political ideologies, government organisations responsible for such matters, and the provision of abortion in this country, specifically insofar as an impartial observer might suspect that the provision of abortion is not purely driven by "altruistic" goals. But that, ultimately, is for the observer to decide - the facts of the matter cannot be obscured, and the facts of the matter are what WikiPedia, ultimately, is concerned with. No matter how brief a biography we have of Mrs Furedi, she is patently worthy of an article in her own right. Ros Power 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated plainly that I believe abortion to be acceptable and that I don't give a toss about anyone's political beliefs (left, right or none of the above) and how they relate to their job. You will kindly do me the honour of accepting that as my point of view and not making an erroneous suggestion for a record-beating third time.
Saying repeatedly that this lady 'undoubtedly merits' or is 'patently worthy' of inclusion is unconvincing: prove it or let's get on with merging. The fact that there are other poorly worded articles on WP (and I do so agree with you re the snooker) is not relevent: we're discussing this article, no other. We can always team up to improve the rest of WP once this is out the way. ;-)
Admin asked you to beef up the article: if you can't, my vote is still for it to be merged - not deleted - with the BPAS artifle where it will make a useful paragraph. In the end, it is not my decision... Deep 13 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think I have provided more than enough evidence as to why this woman should be included, the article on her adequately explains itself. I will elaborate it over the next few days - however I can assure you that in circles concerned with the rights of the unborn, and beyond in the field of medical ethics, she is very well know. I have added an article by the editor of a national broadsheet to illustrate her significance, and whether I expand it further or not, is not relevent (sic). She is a subject of national, independent stature. Ros Power 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The woman appears to be reasonably well know (sic - yes, we all can take the piss out of typos) according to Google. To Redvers: I'm no longer in favour of wiping the article, still favour merger, but can live with it if it stays as is. Deep 13 17:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you deep, sorry about the typo snipe. Ros Power 17:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It drew no blood. On a style note, I earlier tried to reorganise the article so that info was grouped together more logically (all the BPAS stuff in one sentence, the Commie stuff in another...) Can't quite work out if you rv'd it or if I hit an Edit Conflict and didn't notice. Deep 13 17:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the note earlier about merging: I don't have any personal opinion about merging the two articles; I created the BPAS article after reading about this on the Admin board, I thought it might help bolster the notability of the director. However, when I was done and hadn't found any more bio info about Ann on the net during my search for BPAS info, I thought it might be an equitable alternative to the brouhaha over deletion just to merge the two.
That having been said, I think it would be reasonable to leave both articles for at least a week or so to a) get more input from other editors (not only on whether to merge, but some people might come to edit the articles), and b) to give editors of this article a bit of breathing room to flesh the article out. Frankly there doesn't seem to be much on the web about this woman, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it might just need some RL research.--Anchoress 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I just created the article British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Ann's current employer. Perhaps a way to fix this permanently would be to merge this article into that one?--Anchoress 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It would seem to be an excellent idea, actually linking the woman with the organisation she is heads. Deep 13 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Ann Furedi does much pro-abortion work outside of BPAS, and should stand as an independent entry.Ros Power 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NP, I don't want it to seem like I'm thwarting your process or anything. It just seemed like it might solve the problem of the article being repleatedly deleted, especially since there's not much on the page besides her work there (right now). If there's a lot more stuff about her, that's cool.--Anchoress 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK there's something wrong now[edit]

The article's all screwed up, it says her husband's the founder of BPAS, lol.--Anchoress 10:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ros's fault. I accidentally hit enter while I was still cutting and pasting. Ros has, however beaten me to it and resolved the problem. My apologies. Deep 13 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're only human! I made a similar mistake, calling her the "husband" of the Revolutionary Communist Party Founder, Frank Furedi! Doh!16:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion policy process?[edit]

Can someone point me to the AFD discussions on this article? It sounds like it's been deleted repeatedly without process. Judging by Ros Power's tenacity, I really doubt it was PRODed, so that leaves speedy, which I don't see as applicable. Thanks. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't point you in the right direction, but I believe it was speedy deleted once based on the (then) content and redeleted as a repost. One repetition. HTH. Deep 13 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you're looking for is the deletion log. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July, 2007 prod template[edit]

I removed it, because, if the delete log is checked [1], the article was restored, not re-created. Can we take it to AFD instead? Anchoress 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fame and inclusion=[edit]

I would have thought the fact that the individual in question was one of a small circle of people who have become prominent commentators on social issues in the UK would be a good enough reason for inclusion (cf. Revolutionary Communist Party). With Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia, I'd imagine one of its tasks is to inform one of that of which one may not be overly aware. Britannica's door to door salesmen would have fared even worse had they been met at the door by potential customers who knew the entire contents of the volumes.

194.46.239.141 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Ann's date of birth and other details are hard to ascertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.53.249 (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ann Furedi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Furedi. 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) 13:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Furedi&oldid=1195165821"