Talk:Caroline Dinenage

Anti-Equal Marriage Vote

Anti-equal marriage vote information continually being deleted without discussion. Feels needs discussion as to worthiness of inclusion. Removals have been by known Westminster proxies which is very concerning. Jae 10:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonJae (talk • contribs)

Equal Marriage has proven one of the more fractious issues within the Conservative party during its term, with quite few news reports in the media reporting rank and file members abandoning them over the matter. That implies notabilty, I'd say. The statement is well sourced to parliaments own record of the vote in question, so the accuracy of this claim seems ironclad, as it merely presents her actions without interpretation. Dolescum (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Our IP editor posted this to my talk page. I'm going to reproduce it here for everyone's perusal, with my response. I'll alert our IP editor.

Dolescum, I object to you repeatedly editing the Wikipedia page of Caroline Dinenage MP in a manner which grossly misrepresents Ms Dinenage's position on the issue of the 2nd reading of the Same-Sex Couples Bill in the House of Commons.

By taking a few choice extracts reported in an online publication (without looking at the comments in the original context in which they were made) this contravenes Wikipedia rules on articles being editorially neutral. I am concerned at the motives behind your revision, in previous comments, you refer to this revision as a "war", rest assured I do not see it as such.

Furthermore, the public record is not being seen to be amended, the official record (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/) will always state what an MPs position has been, respectfully, Wikipedia is not the forum for which to highlight Ms Dinenage's position on one of many hundreds of votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.219.87 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There are other editors besides myself involved here. Firstly, please explain how a sourced note of Caroline's actions during this vote (which, due to the media circus, social impications and Tory party infighting reported over the matter is far more notable than the usual business of parliament), simply stating that she voted against the bill misrepresenting her? How is this not neutral?

The source you suggest also states that Dinenage voted against the second reading of the bill: [1]

Furthermore,the fact that information is available elsewhere is not an argument against including it. Indeed, our sourcing guidelines at WP:RS pretty much posit that information MUST have been published elsewhere in order to have been included in wikipedia! Dolescum (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see how it misrepresents Dinenage's views on the 2nd Reading of that bill. Dinenage voted against it and that is all that edit says. It is a statement of fact and not sure how it can misrepresent the position. Perhaps you might wish to suggest what the actual position is in your view so that we might better understand how we phrase it. I agree with Dolescumthat this issue is one of importance and certainly noteworthy though I also agree that there are other votes we might wish to highlight. But her position on this is not similar as with most votes given the controversial nature of the topic and its wider implications Jae 20:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonJae (talk • contribs)

The statement ought to be maintained. It is a fact, presented in an impartial manner, and it's one that is important to an understanding of the subject's role. Indeed, if it is true that we shouldn't highlight only this vote, then we should include more votes, as opposed to removing this one. Ducknish (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caroline Dinenage. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150217094955/http://www.nationalnumeracy.org.uk:80/appg/index.html to http://www.nationalnumeracy.org.uk/appg/index.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Formal title

I notice that some people maintain to describe her as either Lady Lancaster of Kimbolton or even Baroness Lancaster of Kimbolton. Both descriptions are incorrect. She is a Member of the House of Commons, so by definition not a baroness (a term that denotes membership of the House of Lords). She could have been a 'lady' by virtue of her now husband being a member of the House of Lords or a knight of the realm. However, this would have been the case only on condition of her having changed her surname and adopted her husband's upon their betrothal. Apparently, she never changed her surname on official records, so she is to be referred to as Dame Caroline Dinenage. Manandro (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Involvement in the De-monetisation of Russell Brand's Social Media

This may be relevant under the career section, in her roll as Chair she has written directly to a number of Social Media websites including TikTok and Rumble (original letters are now widely available) enquiring about their willingness to De-monetise Russell Brand's ability to make money on their respective platforms, regardless of your opinion on the RB situation, an elected official attempting to remove someone's ability to make money - when no criminal trial at all has taken place, is a controversial action that should be noted. 86.188.108.255 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. This needs to be included. 2A04:EE41:3:12EA:3D43:7E95:45EB:B99C (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant but the REAL problem with the letter is what should be focused on: namely that she was irresponsibly giving fuel to far-right conspiracy theorists. As it stands now, undue weight is being given to said conspiracy theories, with focus on objective, non-partisan criticism taking second seat. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

87 year old seeking own deedsSolicitors gone bust

Urgent 87 year old fighting for deeds Tried as a family no response Gosport Portsmouth council left voice mail and sent email to you as MP still no response.. the urgency is clear she requires deeds as a matter of urgency 86.26.143.13 (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)