Jump to content

Talk:Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox

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

Untitled

[edit]

Question on content removal

[edit]

On this edit, can it be explained why the two sections at the bottom were removed, as they appear authoritatively sourced? Also, do not call apparent good-faith edits vandalism. Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 19:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC

Baroness Cox has not been involved with Christian Solidarity Worldwide since 2003. She successfully sued the Evening Standard for the false article that you now reference. It is a subjective statement to say the film was anti-Islamic. Check out www.worldcommittee on Disability, all of her disability work has been removed. This is libel!!!

The opening paragraph should read:

Caroline Ann McNeill Love Cox, Baroness Cox FRCN (born 6 July 1937) is a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords, and campaigner for many humanitarian causes and issues relating to disability.

Re: Christian Solidarity Worldwide

[edit]

The statement in the lede that she's the current president of the Board of Trustees appears to be incorrect - see their latest annual report, downloadable from here, which lists her only as the 'Patron' of the charity. Scog (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend addition of disputed template

[edit]

User_talk:Rootology#Baroness_Cox brought me here.

I think that for the duration of the dispute, this article would benefit from the {{Disputed}} template at the top. This may seem redundant to the protected template, but I think it adds value. Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of the disputed content

[edit]
  • The webpage of the Medical Aid for Poland Fund confirms that she's one of their patrons.
  • The annual reports of MERLIN (Medical Emergency Relief International) confirm that she used to be a trustee: see [1]. However, she appears to have resigned this position in 2005, and I have found no indication that she is currently a trustee.
  • The website of the Andrei Sakarov Foundation [2] lists her as a member of the Board of Advisors - it's unclear to me whether this is the same as being a non-executive director (the claim previously made in the article).
  • If vice-president of the RCN is the same position as deputy president (unclear), then the RCN website confirms that she doesn't hold the position: the current deputy president is Bobbie Chadwick.

Although there are many more disputed claims, I don't have the time or the energy to look into any more right now. Scog (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the above: the claim that she's Chief Executive of HART is verifiable here. However, I haven't yet been able to verify the disputed claims that she's a member of the Standing Conference on Women's Organisations, and a vice-president of the Girl Guides Association. Scog (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion from party

[edit]

{{editprotected}} Where it says that Cox was expelled by Howard from the party, it should say either that she had the whip withdrawn or was expelled from the parliamentary party. Members of either house expelled from the parliamentary party do not necessarily automatically leave the party as a whole, they're just no longer considered part of the party's group/caucus in parliament. See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/howard-sacks-peers-for-endorsing-ukip-565235.html

Full name?

[edit]

Can someone confirm that her full name includes her maiden name of 'Love'? It is the normal custom in the USA for married women taking their husband's surname to have it in addition to their maiden name, but it is rare in the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inclusion of her maiden name is inaccurate.I believe the first line should therefore read "Caroline Anne Cox (nee McNeil Love)...". Company House records relating to the Centre for Social Cohesion from January 2009 and which bear her signature list the double-barrelled surname "McNeill Love" under "Previous surnames" suggesting she is only currently using "Cox". AdamMarchmant (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other note - these official documents also show "Anne" and not "Ann" as the middle name. AdamMarchmant (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who confirms both the the fact that the maiden name is not used and the spelling of Anne with the 'e'. AdamMarchmant (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced article problems

[edit]

This page cropped up on my watchlist and depressingly it seems that after protection expired, editors yet again went to it and reverted back to a previous version on one of the disputed sections, removing what appears to be well sourced content without explanation, and adding a lot of poorly sourced claims about awards which are full of peacock terms. The article has to be balanced, which means including significant criticism as well as significant praise (see WP:NPOV). I'm concerned that this article is being unbalanced by the recent edits. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that sourced material is repeatedly being removed by non-registered users. I am referring material regarding Caroline Cox's involvement with the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, Burma, The World Committee on Disability, The Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award and other sourced material. One should be permitted to introduce positive information about a subject and not just controversial entries. There is a clear bias in reporting matters relating to a 50 year career. Justif2 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References 24 and 26 are non-working citations. They should be removed. Justif2 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure which references you are referring to, one of the two versions only has 23 numbered references and in the other 24 and 26 don't link to web pages. 13 and 14 (and possibly others) are dead links but are available on archive.org[3][4]. —Snigbrook 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you removed sourced information, but did not provide an explanation for this – it looks like you are reverting 84.70.185.136 without looking at what changes are being made. —Snigbrook 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a removal of information you are referring to, the article has had several edits from more than one IP recently. You will probably need to link to the diffs in the page's history[5]. —Snigbrook 18:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has not been involved with CSW for some time, but the non-registered user insists on putting it in the first paragraph. It is not representative and it is false. Also her past CSW involvement is already is already mentioned in the body of the text. The is no need mention it twice or in the heading. It is not representative of her current work or her 50 year career. Justif2 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"She has campaigned for humanitarian causes,[citation needed]". There are citation for her humanitarian work. What do you call the first citation? Justif2 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a pattern by non-registered users and others if you look back at the history of this page of people wanting to include controversial citations and removing the more positive ones. Justif2 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, CSW shouldn't be in the first paragraph but it doesn't appear elsewhere in the article. It should still be mentioned as it can be verified and is notable[6][7].
The "citation needed" is probably because the HART website is not an independent source, as it is an organisation the subject is involved in. —Snigbrook 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also citations don't need links to web pages, although many users prefer them to be as it makes verification easier. Newspapers, books and journals are permitted as citations whether the content is available online or not, the only requirement is that they are reliable sources. —Snigbrook 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Between 1997 and 2000, Christian Solidarity Worldwide directly intervened to buy the freedom of alleged slaves, and in a letter to The Independent on Sunday Cox claimed to have redeemed 2,281 slaves on eight visits to Sudan. [22] In 1995 she won the William Wilberforce Award.[23]" See, CSW is already mentioned and there is no need to mention it twice and certainly not in the first paragraph. Also, if you are going to discredit the HART website, then you can put the CSW website citation in the same category. Justif2 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her role in founding the CSW is not mentioned in the article, and is by far the most notable organisation that she is involved in and is her most notable achievement. HART is not notable and, as Snigbrook correctly points out, is not a third party source. --84.70.185.136 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subjective statement based on your own opinion. I am sure the people of HART would disagree. Please be aware of Wikipedia's neutral policies on reporting. This is not an editorial.Justif2 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my opinion, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART) article was deleted due to lack of notablity. --84.70.185.136 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that your editing has been based on subjective opinion and not unbiased reporting. Again Wikipedia is not an editorial to air your opinions. That is not the purpose of this site. You would do better to participate in a blog. Thank you for confirming my point. Justif2 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by WP:CIV. --84.70.185.136 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and please also abide by Wikipedia's neutral reporting procedures. Justif2 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am, the article was deleted by Wikipedia. --84.70.185.136 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by WP:NPOV, and not your opinions. You stated, "That is not my opinion". Justif2 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not violating WP:NPOV, go and look at the deletion summary. --84.70.185.136 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other users are now deleting reliably sourced material and making false claims in their edit summaries. [8] --84.70.185.136 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distilling the problem

[edit]

I'm working on building up a list of the disputed facts in the article, and what sources are available. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now complete. If others have views or can help, please comment below. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burma

[edit]
  • Should the article mention personally bringing humanitarian aid to the Burmese?
    • SB comment: The reference given isn't a particularly good one; it is just a copy of a question Baroness Cox asked in the House of Lords - so it is in a way self-published. This is a pity because it looks significant and I would like to find a better, secondary, source.

Categories

[edit]

Christian Solidarity Worldwide

[edit]
  • Should her role in founding Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and other connections to it, be in the lede?
    • SB comment: How prominent is this organisation? If it's not that prominent, and she is not currently involved with them, then I don't see why it should be singled out for mention.

Connections to various organisations

[edit]
  • Should the article include connections to the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, Andrei Sakharov Foundation, International Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction, and the award of various honours as added in this edit?
    • SB comment: Many of these organisations and awards certainly look reputable and significant at first glance. There ought to be sources out there to allow them in as referenced facts.

Disability campaigning

[edit]
  • Should the lede state that "She has campaigned for humanitarian causes, particularly relating to disability", and what are the sources?
    • SB comment: The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article. If the subject has campaigned on disability issues then there ought to be more information out there about it which can be put in and sourced.
  • Should the paragraph here be added?
    • SB comment: The source is good for her connection to the World Committee on Disability; I presume sources can be found for the Roosevelt Award. It looks worth mentioning and does help prove disability campaigning.
The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Award is the Award of the World Committee on Disability and the members of the Committee are the judges. Please read the source in question. It verifies your questions. Justif2 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful. I did some digging, though, and according to this page, the role of the World Committee on Disability is to give advice on the recipient of the award rather than to decide who gets it. With so many members on the World Committee on Disability, was Baroness Cox personally involved? Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FDR Award is a joint award programme by the World Committee on Disability and the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. If you telephone their numbers, they will confirm that she has been a judge for the award for over ten years - +1-202-293-5960, +1-845-486-7766. Justif2 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain has fallen

[edit]
  • Should the mention of "Great Britain has fallen!" include the criticisms of Baroness Cox that followed?
    • SB comment: The references are to the mainsteam media and the critics are established politicians. The link appears to be good. Without it the reader may get a mistaken impression that this was an uncontroversial book launch.

Jerusalem Summit

[edit]
  • If the Jerusalem Summit is mentioned, should it be explained as advocating "ethnic cleansing of all Arabs" from the occupied territories?
    • SB comment: This is a pejorative term and one not used in the reference supplied. It should not go in the article. However it is worth quickly summing up the views of the Jerusalem Summit so that readers know where it stands.

Sudanese civil war

[edit]
  • Should the article describe the Sudanese government as "Islamist" and the Sudan People's Liberation Army as "Christian-dominated", etc.?
    • SB comment: This looks like a simple editing matter.

North Korea

[edit]

Baroness Cox is the Vice Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea. She said the the new Obama administration brings with it a golden opportunity for a formal cessation of hostilities and normalisation of relations with North Korea on her recent visit to North Korea. This is clearly major news concerning her parliamentary careers and the other stuff mentioned about her is clearly minor by comparison. A section on a book written by someone else with not working citations is not of the same calibre. See this site: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8583 Justif2 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Wilders

[edit]
  • Please note that Geert Wilders was finally allowed into England and the postponed showing of his film, "Fitna", took place on the morning of the 5th. March, 2010, at the House of Lords. Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson attended the meeting. Geert Wilders explained that he did not have issues with individual Muslims but with the Koran, which promotes violence against non-Muslims and the take-over of the rest of the world, including Europe and the U.S.A. Geert Wilders is currently facing charges in the Netherlands of a political nature (15 of his 18 expert witnesses have been refused the right to give evidence to the court) while his Freedom Party has recently come first and second in local elections in two large cities of the Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawley (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue

[edit]

A quote assuming Cox is an Armenian 'nationalist' is obviously a BLP violation. Also no any importance for this quote, so it should be removed. Andranikpasha (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed here, at BLP board: [9] Not a BLP issue. Grandmaster 05:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THis old notice also says it's not a fact but an attribution. Not enough significant to be added here, sorry! Andranikpasha (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It is an opinion of a notable person. You need to take to WP:BLPN again, if you think it is a BLP issue. Grandmaster 05:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
stop editwarring. it is not a sognificant POV. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the removed info, as there's no consensus at WP:BLPN that this is a BLP issue, especially among the editors not involved in AA topics. Please reach consensus with the community, if you believe that this info should be removed. Grandmaster 06:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source for professor title?

[edit]

Baroness Cox is described in the article as a professor, but I couldn't see an institution or a supporting reference. Is anyone able to fill this in, please? The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this page is losing its neutral tone, especially in relation to sensitive subjects as 'Christian Zionism' and the complex situation in Sudan.

I have tried to make some uncontroversial factual changes (such as dates) but they have been rejected.

Also, should Baroness Cox's work with HART be placed a little higher? HART is her most-prominent association alongside being a member of the House of Lords.

Can edits be made on my behalf?

Any advice, gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srj.mason (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit

[edit]

I am concerned that this page is losing its neutral tone, especially in relation to sensitive subjects as 'Christian Zionism' and the complex situation in Sudan.

I have tried to make some uncontroversial factual changes (such as dates) but they have been rejected.

Also, should Baroness Cox's work with HART be placed a little higher? HART is her most-prominent association alongside being a member of the House of Lords.

Can edits be made on my behalf?

Any advice, gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srj.mason (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider posting your proposed text here on the talk page. That will give other people a chance to comment on it. You recently made some edits that might have been too sweeping, in that you removed references as well as text. 'Lack of impartial tone' may be corrected by rewriting. Negative opinions about Caroline Cox may, if the source is reliable, sometimes be included by qualifying it as the source's opinion. Consensus is needed to ensure that such material is important enough to include. Note that http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com is a personal blog and probably can't be used as a source in a BLP article per WP:BLPSPS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal blog?

[edit]

Does anyone understand why this is still being used as a reference: http://barthsnotes.com/2007/08/29/jerusalem-summit-sponsor-accuses-critical-journalist-of-faking-gun-attack/ This barthsnotes.com is hosted on Wordpess, and it seems to be a personal blog by Richard Bartholomew. It seems to be included here to cast doubt on one member of the Jerusalem Summit, Michael Cherney. The blog reference does not mention Caroline Cox. Since it's not from a WP:Reliable source and it's not about the woman who is the subject of the article I suggest it be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical error

[edit]

Perhaps someone needs to check the article more carefully:

she feels they are more franks about Islam's threat to Western traditions

NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring well-sourced material

[edit]

A bunch of noteworthy stuff has been deleted from this article, with edit summaries claiming it is poorly sourced. The sources are the BBC, Guardian and Nursing Times. I have restored it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Cox,_Baroness_Cox&oldid=1205674794"