Talk:Diane Abbott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nadine Dorris accused Abbot of lying on Newsnight tonight (27/01/12): I wonder if that is something she should be sacked for.

Ms Dorries has some very strong and rather unique views on the role of 'god' working through her as an MP which I believe would improve this article by being included.

"I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did... I am just a conduit for God."

"I try to live my faith. Some days I fail quite miserably but I constantly try to do what Jesus would do." [4]

Any comments, opinions, objections to me adding this? --Richardeast (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I'm an Atheist RichardEast, I've no objection to its inclusion, as it demonstrates she's barking mad, deluded, and really ought to be dismissed from her role as Chair of the committee, as it proves she's biased from the outset. I feel that Christopher Hitchens is inside me at all times - very distracting at times :) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Diane Abbot knows the Parliamentary Rule Book well enough to slam dunk anyone who accuses her of lying, when all she has done is withdrawn from a highly partial committee with a biased nursing auxiliary as Chair.00:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)twl00:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


I have to say as someone unfamiliar with the career of Diane, looking up this article for information, I was immediately struck by the fact that the overall impression is overwhelmingly negative. Reads like a hatchet job. Can someone explain how this occured and maybe try and balance the piece a little? (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, I tried to take a bit of weight out of it but it is still with undue weight and the criticism section is bloated with cherry picked minor issues given undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems like the "Political Career" section is bogged down with too much discussion of further "controversies". In addition, phrases like "However, she was the only person to attend the inaugural meeting" are unnecessary and paint a negative image. I admit I am not well-informed on the career of Diane Abbott, but I would certainly imagine, as an MP of almost 25 years experience there may be some more significant achievements to her name than this list of race-based controversy. A little research perhaps is needed. (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of the reference to these events: Once elected, Abbott attempted to establish a Black caucus within the Labour party along with Bernie Grant. tried again in 1989 but it soon failed as senior black MPs did not want to join, with some suggesting it was fundamentally racist to create a "party within a party".[1] show that the reference provided does not support the statements, and indeed refers to the formation of the black caucus with Bernie Grant, not it's failure. I removed this stuff from the article. (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for that.Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Diane Abbott: Biography". Retrieved 13 January 2009. 

Diane Abbott[edit]

Copied from User talk:JK the unwise#Diane Abbott

A bit arbitrary, your edit! Not sure it's not you who's op-eding. Observations and reportage are encyclopaedia-OK in bios. I never said that I agreed with her point about schools for her son.--Farsee50 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Example from what you wrote; "The ostensibly-improbable chemistry between Portillo and Abbott, both deemed mavericks respectively from the right and left but able to relate to each other gently and humorously on TV" this is very conversational in style and appears to be original research (OR), i.e. it appears that you have watched the show that that this is what you beleive to be true. While it may indeed be true (I haven't sen the show) it is OR all the same. This is even more true of the sentence "On occasions when other politicians replace them, the easy style of the show rarely works and even Neil seems less affable"
Also, "Her decision to send her son to private school was widly seen as hypocritica ... She defended it robustly", according to whom was her defence robust this looks like POV to me.
I didn't mean to put the op ed link in the article that was an editing error.
I do not think that my Rv of your text was arbitary but maybe it was a bit harsh, I'll try to rework you text to something we can both agree on.--JK the unwise 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an OK and supportable compromise re the school issue at least till someone locates other sourcesd material. Re the chemistry, the issue is about the appeal of the TV programme (and of that kind of political discussion) rather than simply how well she and Potillo relate - and is what reviewers and, presumably, ratings have noted by contrast with the bear-pit of party politics. Will try to substantiate--Farsee50 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the most recent edit (not from me - maybe from someone who understand it better) which get the facts right and the exchange with Michael Rosen allows everyone to read what she says: she said it was indefensible (which is honest and not hypocritical) and then explains (and defends) her decision.--Farsee50 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that its better pared back but it makes me laugh (this is op ed) if she said its indefensible and then trys to defend it :-) --JK the unwise 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Lady MacDuff[edit]

Lady MacDuff?!?--Coroebus 21:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

CLS Stuff[edit]

I reverted an edit that took out references to her son going to the CLS: the stuff was referenced and NPOV so I put it back. Driller thriller 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps a clearer Front-Facing photo can be found? Matthewfelgate 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote request[edit]

Can anyone find the quote from Abbott in which she complained of seeing too many "blond haired, blue eyed" nurses in the NHS? 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

no, but i've got a good one from her past: "We are not interested in reforming the police, the armed services, judiciary and monarchy, we are about dismantling them and replacing them with our own machinery of class rule" If only diane felt the same way today... -- james — The preceding comment was added 07:09, 15 August 2006.
The Telegraph Thursday 28 November 1996 Nick Cooper 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jk[edit]

I agree that its better pared back but it makes me laugh (this is op ed) if she said its indefensible and then trys to defend it

I don't think she was trying to defend the specific decison that she made but was talking about the issue in general:

"What you are not entitled to do is to completely dismiss the issue of what is happening to black boys in the British education system."

Too much colour?[edit]

Surely few people care whether Diane is black, white, brown or yellow. We are in the 21st Century, in a truly multi-racial country and surely the time has gone to bang on about what colour someone happens to be? It is hard to think of anything less important. If anyone actually does care, then the picture says it all. Could we have a bit more about the person - but less about the colour of her skin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly very important to Diane Abbott herself - although I agree with you that it shouldn't be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


Diane Abbott is said to be black in the article. Three races seem to be involved. Indo-Pakistani ancestors are a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Diane Abbott racist?[edit]

To seek a "Black Caucus" within the House of Commons, and to support the "Black Child Annual Awards" are, of course, intrinsically racist activities. Any activity that highlights a racial difference, or discriminates against particular ethnicities (presumably no Native-American, Pakistani, Afghani, Caucasian, Korean etc child has ever won the "Black Child Annual Award") are inherently racist. This disappoints me in the extreme...I would have thought that by 2009 Great Britain would have grown beyond this kind of petty bigotry. Diane Abbot should be denied access to the means of disseminating her prejudice via mass-media in exactly the same way that the British National Party are. (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The article covers her alleged racism very well. Whilst it's useful that you've made the point that such racism is notable, please be aware that the talk section is for discussing the article, rather than the actual person themselves.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not what racism means, and you are being willfully ignorant by claiming otherwise. Racism is the ideology that white people are innately superior to all other people. Anything that combats this ideology is anti-Racist. -- (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What an absurd comment - how can it be anti-racist for someone of one race to make derogatory remarks about another race - just as Diane Abbott did on twitter? Racism is not restricted to comments about non-white people, and it isn't only practised by white people. A look down pretty much any British street will show you that. (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of material available for free online about the various definitions and understandings of racism and the various different ways (including differences in severity) in how it manifests. In fact, there is more than anyone could ever be bothered to read. There are also plenty of forums that where the topic is raised frequently for discussion. For that reason, it does not seem neccesary for anyone to take a stand on the issue here. Wight1984 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2015 GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Anit-racist my arse. Racism is racism and is not restricted to white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


This article has been edited in several places after Abbott's candidacy for the Labour leadership was announced. Some of this editing has included fairly trivial superfluous information such as the quote:

'Abbott has said "modernise" only ten times in parliamentary speeches to November 2009.'

The speed and timing of the editing, together with the fact that all of the information casts Abbott in a negative light, implies that the motive is at least partly political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The editing is not party political, it is wikiresponsible. What is your issue? As the nomination is announced we can clearly expect this BLP to have much higher viewing figures and of course attracts the attention of experienced wikipedia editors, we have a duty of care to the living subject to present a fair , decent cited article to the web. Modernize? ten times? Not notable cherry picked comment, removed. Have you got any more issues?Off2riorob (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that we will need to have a close eye on this. The section on homeopathy was only described in primary sources, and does not appear to have been covered by primary sources, and so I have removed it. How many early day motions has she supported, and why was this one picked out? I have also removed a sentence regarding her husband which again was only mentioned in one newspaper source (I did look for others) and was over 6 years ago so we have no idea what the situation is now. Quantpole (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? The sources are perfect. The fact that she supported an early day motion criticising the findings of the Select Committee is indicative of her stance on matters evidence based and scientific. This has huge relevance for reputation of a potential political-party leader. The original section was added (by me) weeks ago; well before she announced her candidacy. I have added a quote from another Wilkipedia page which highlights the significance of this Early Day motion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
They are primary sources, which are discouraged, particularly in biographies. If there are reliable secondary sources available which detail this specifically in relation to Diane Abbott, and taking care not to give undue weight to the issue, then fair enough, but I could not find any secondary sources which discuss her in relation to this issue. You are making an inference of what is significant, but this is not backed up by the sources. Quantpole (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that I was slightly mistaken, in addition to the primary source you are also using blogs. Blogs are generally considered unreliable, and certainly do not show that this is a notable enough thing to be included. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Mistaken about what? The blog is a very well respected blog. It's simply not right that this action by Diane Abbot is left out of her Wikipedia entry. I have absolutely no vested interests here and I'm not a member of any political party. I just know that if I were reading about Diane Abbot I would be very interested to know her position on science and evidence based issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The primary sources are allowable in the context of the sheer number of references by non-professioal sources. Just do a search on Google for "Diane Abbot" and Homeopathy. It's a real issue out there.
If it is a real issue out there then you will be able to find reliable secondary sources about it. Until then it should not go back in. It's quite simple really. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, do not edit war to keep this section in. If more people comment here and agree that it should be included then fine, but at the moment you are edit warring to introduce poorly sourced information into a biography. You must stop this, otherwise you are likely to be blocked. Quantpole (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask why you ( chose to include the reference to 'the stupid list', and also to put it into bold type? People make errors of judgement, perhaps based upon ignorance of science, but it doesn't necessarily make them 'stupid'. There has been quite a bit of adverse comment about Diane Abbott, suggesting that she is somehow not clever enough to be considered for the Labour leadership. It seems to me you may have some agenda there and are using this homoeopathy thing to project something more. I can certainly see no other explanation for putting that phrase in bold type. Dubmill (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the bold type. This article should stay as it was (for weeks) before this edit war started. I see no reason why the removal of the disputed piece should be the default.
The article already looks much better since yesterday, actually resembling a biography! though I think we are lacking some achievements/notable campaign priorities and so forth to give a feel for this MP's politics and motivation. The controversies still need some exposition. Someone more familiar with her career would be better placed to do this, I only read this article as I was wanted to get an idea of the politics of Diane Abbott, and found it lacking. (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes agreed, the article does look much better now. I don't dispute that any of the controversies happened, and that some of them aren't notable enough to include. However the article as it stood on the 20th did not seem like a balanced biography (I can only think of the quote I picked out above as the example though, can't remember exactly how it was). I'm sure people can search out more specific information about her stances on various issues if they want to find it. It is true that her candidacy will / has attracted more edits, however those made on the 20th seemed mostly to relate to information which could be used against her. The article should be in flux though, as clearly more information worth including may well surface as the leadership contest continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on homeopathy[edit]

I have just attempted to remove some very weak content from this section, insulting comment of no value and citations to blogs and not reliable locations, and the primary document that does not mention Abbot at all and is of no value her when we already have an internal link to the actual article, all my edits were pretty much instantly stuffed back in without any attempt at discussion by multiple IP accounts, can editors discuss this section as we need to get a consensus about this content, thanks. @Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"the list of MPs who have signed is regarded by sceptics as the stupid list"...... this for example is a valueless insult. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

and David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at University College London, has called it a "handy list of dimwitted members of parliament"....this is another valueless insut and is sited to this blog the name of the writer is not even there, this is not a reliable wikipedia source. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The stupid comment is cited to this blog and is very very not a WP:RS Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole section should not be there. Are we going to add a homeopathy section to every MP who has signed the motion? Yes it is relevant to the article on David Tredinnick but not here. It is not covered in any independent reliable sources whatsoever. Quantpole (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually strongly agree with that position, I dislike poor content even more when it is warred back in by multiple IP accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a report to 3RR noticeboard about this, so hopefully the disruption will be stopped soon. I have noticed that the same unreliable sources are also being used at EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy. Quantpole (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, hopefully you will stop removing content off the wiki until it has been agreed that it shouldn't be there. Its notable, and supporters of her, or this pseudo-science trying to hide her opinion by wiki editing is pretty low. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
How exactly do you know I am a supporter? How is it notable? Where is the reliable independent sourcing? Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
To Pikrtn-The content is cited to blogs and you should not have replaced it, please revert your addition of content cited to such locations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Plkrtn, that is a bit of a coatrack for this article - what is needed are reliable sources detailing how support of homeopathy is relevant to Abbott in the grand scheme of things. The motion might be good material for the EDM article, Homeopathy in the UK, or somewhere like that, but not here. Terms like the stupid list sourced to a blog really do not belong anywhere on this encyclopedia per WP:Biographies of living persons, especially not on the biographical articles themselves. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: The article was recently semiprotected. I would advise all editors to avoid re-inserting the material until there is clear agreement about what to insert. You may consider using the BLP noticeboard as a source of outside opinions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely the last notice is an incorrect stance to take. This should be left in until agreement has been reached. It is highly relevant in the recent circumstances of the Labour leadership debate that a possible contender, and possibe leader of this country, supports a pseudo-science with no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is true then please can you show the reliable source which demonstrates it. Quantpole (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.[edit]

It looks neutral to me, and cited and so on, if there are no specific issue with any content the template can be removed, are there any neutrality issues remaining? Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None that now warrant the template. Looks much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Remaining "Citation needed" template[edit]

Currently, there's one {{Citation needed}} left in the article, next to the following sentence:

Amongst her colleagues at NCCL were Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Paul Boateng, all later becoming Labour Cabinet Ministers.

This is probably verifiable – at least, I think I can find a source that states that a particular person worked at the NCCL during the period that Diane Abbott was there, and then find one that states they became a cabinet minister.

This potentially involves six citations, just for the one sentence.

Is it worth it? Can I remove the tag and leave it uncited? Or should the sentence be removed for being random, mildy interesting trivia? --Ibn (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say, if it is not easy to cite then the value is trivial, and I would remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it and brought it here, if anyone wants to cite and replace it, feel free, thanks. ...Amongst her colleagues at NCCL were Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Paul Boateng, all later becoming Labour Cabinet Ministers.[citation needed] Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was highly amused that someone put {{Citation needed}} after the point that there's never been any doubt that she's to the left of New Labour. I'm quite sure that citation could be obtained very easily by going to any broadsheet's website and typing her name in the search function. However, is citation really needed for a point as commonly accepted and understood as her gender and race? I've had no luck with footnotes, so here's a profile from BBC news clearly spelling out her position within the Labour Party: mp2dtw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from, 12 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} To improve clarity, please change 'The speech was described by the following speaker in the debate, David Davies MP...' to read 'The speech was described by the following speaker in the debate, David T.C. Davies MP...'

David Davis is the (well-known) MP for Haltemprice & Howden, David T.C. Davies is the lesser known MP for Monmouth. The Hansard record cited clearly shows it was David T.C. Davies that followed Diane abbot in the debate. (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done The fact he has a different surname, and the link I just added, seem to be enough for disambiguation without adding initials not normally included in his name. Algebraist 12:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

branded a racist[edit]


On 24 June 2010, Abbott was branded a ‘racist’ and an expenses cheat by political pundit Andrew Neil on the late night political programme This Week. Neil made the remark after her decision to send her son James to the £12,700-a-year City of London School. Abbott earned £36,000 a year as a regular guest on the show alongside Michael Portillo until stepping down to fight for the Labour leadership, had defended her position, saying: ‘West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.’"Diane Abbott fumes after being branded a racist on TV"-the daily mail

This content has been added and imo the way it is written construes a bit of an attack type tabloid comment, I would not add it as it is just opinion not written in a uninvolved way, it is also already covered in the content about the school and the finnish nurses and the expenses. Off2riorob (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Its been replaced without any discussion. we don't add expression such as branded a racist to our BLP articles such accusatiory tabloid language is verging on an attack, at the very least it needs rewriting and I support its removal as an attack. Off2riorob (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this seems fair comment. I shall have to change the wording so that it does not appear like an attack on the MP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandtplatt (talkcontribs) 08:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have re-worded to show a more balanced view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandtplatt (talkcontribs) 08:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense now though, it reads as if the racist comment is her defence to being a racist.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is better, but it is now exposed as the valueless comment that it is and should be removed, all the points are covered in other sections. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is totally inaccurate - how can that be better? And none of the points are covered anywhere else. Yes there are other cases of racism, but this is a completely different incident.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well good to see some of the accuracy issues I pointed out have been resolved to some extent, the content now makes sense at least.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How does this entire entry get away without at least one sentance on the Finnish nurses scandel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not 'Racist Remarks' as the sub heading? All right thinking people regard her remarks as racist, because they are hideous generalisations drawn along ethnic lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talkcontribs) 12:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point-of-view doesn't mean presenting your opinions as facts. 2 lines of K303 12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to answer my question. Once again: why not 'Racist Remarks' as the sub heading? All right thinking people regard such remarks as racist, hence, 'Racist Remarks'. You are not being neutral and logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talkcontribs) 12:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point-of-view doesn't mean presenting your opinions as facts. That is answering your question, let me know which word(s) you have trouble understanding. 2 lines of K303 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I get it now. I hate all racists and you only hate white ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talkcontribs) 17:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted a number of controversial comments made otherwise the tweeting incident seems somewhat contextless. Someone else has added that the matter has been reported to the Met but this seems hardly relevant to an Wikipedia article. Should be deleted in my view. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else with more experience look at this. I think 'twitter Row' is not a particularly good sub heading. The issue seems to be racial stereotyping and tweeting the action that brought the alleged controversial stereotyping to the public view. Previous remarks made by Abbott seem to reinforce this and without them the paragraph looks contextless. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In my view, if Abbott has been reported to the police, then that becomes ingrained in her life history. The fact a notable black MP has been reported to the police for alleged racist comments cannot be ignored.

The fact that someone reports something to the police doesn't seem worthy of inclusion in an article. Particularly as the police are not pursuing the matter. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who added this as a subtitle? "Comments based on the racial origin of the subject and accordingly the subject of public criticism" that is not written in plain English and I'm changing it back to something that normal people can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talkcontribs) 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Undid edit. Section refers to comments that some people alleged were racist, hence 'Alleged racist comments'. snakehands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talkcontribs) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


The announcement by the Met that Abbott is not going to be prosecuted is a non-story. Something isn't going to happen. However, after removing a cite to an article in The Sun, because it appeared to be the only media report, and therefore suspect, I changed my search string, and found the story in the Telegraph. As The Sun piece seemed likely to be restored, I reasoned the Telegraph is more likely to be accepted as a reliable source and uncontroversial. The same user who inserted The Sun citation has attempted to restore it, which I reverted. The only detail I did not restore cited from The Sun was a reference to "40" complaints (in both sources) which did not seem particularly notable. Philip Cross (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You initially started off by deleting sourced facts.

You then switched your argument to, the Telegraph being 'obviously better'. Again, deleting the source. This is your Opinion. You again, undid the verified facts with the following explanation "charge' has a particular legal meaning, so is best avoided" ...Followed by you putting back your own piece, that uses the word charge? Both sources use the word charge and name the charge. This is not my opinion, this is the Sourced facts. A 'non story' is a matter of opinion which should always be left for the reader to decide. You should err on the side of verifiable facts. This was clearly a story as it had been picked up by numerous newspapers. The reader can make a clear juxtaposition between the treatment of Ms. Abbott and the treatment of others with regards the Law, but the decision should be in the readers hands. Your reasoning about the reporting of something that isn't going to happen is fallacious. If no event took place, i.e no police investigation took place, then fine but thats not what happened. The event took place(the investigation) and the police decided no action was to be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acerbicattrition (talkcontribs) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference was between the police being charged with an investigation, and someone being charged with a crime prior to a court appearance. The first usage is best avoided because of the potential confusion with the legal meaning; using the first is also stylistically bad as it is normal to use synonyms. This supposed omission does not preclude a conclusion by a reader that someone was delegated, 'charged' if you like, to make a decision, but editors have to take care over both undue weight and recentism. Including every non-story, really would make a mess of Wikipedia, something you were earlier keen to avoid, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. BTW, I said 'non-story' on this page, where stating an opinion is inevitable, not in the article. The police investigation was on the basis of a mere 40 complaints from the public. The Sun and Telegraph are not "numerous newspapers"; other reports, apart from the usual far-right suspects, are somewhat elusive. Philip Cross (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the following comment be included under issues of race; "In 1988, she declared, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, that "the British invented racism." British is not a 'race' of people. It's a mix.Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Her west indian mums comments[edit]

I think it should be included somewhere but would it be better in the schooling section or the alleged racist remarks section?

RafikiSykes (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Put it in both. snakehands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talkcontribs) 06:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

More racism from Dianne Abbot[edit]


All very well to note that her son 'convieniently' made a statement to the media that her decision on his schooling had been at his request, but shouldn't we also quote her actual admissions on the subject for balance?[1] (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Posh white boys from the Home Counties?[edit]

Is it just me that fails to see why this is in the 'racial comments' section? Cameron and Clegg are both undeniably posh (Cameron's grandfather was a baronet, Clegg is directly related to various European aristocrats) and white. Clegg is from the Home Counties and Cameron might not have been born there, but he was certainly raised there. The whole statement "Abbott referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys from the Home Counties" in May 2010" just doesn't seem very notable to me and should be removed. It's likely to have been put there by someone with an axe to grind against Abbott and is seizing on anything that could be construed as racist, however frivolous. (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Normal nice peole don't bring up others' race in an insult. I'd give you more merit if you had an account - are you Diane herself? '''tAD''' (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal relationship with Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

A number of UK newspapers are now reporting a sexual relationship between Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn in the 1990s after the end of her marriage. While these are mostly attack pieces intended to damage Corbyn, should the article mention this historical relationship? --Ef80 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. The available sources are saying Corbyn and Abbott had a brief affair in the late 1970s when Corbyn was separated from his first wife. Clearly this connection is going to mentioned regularly by the media for a while, so a mention is not going to be out of place in due course, but as the sources at present do not go beyond hearsay evidence, it is not appropriate to mention their relationship at the moment. Philip Cross (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. We would certainly need good WP:RS before adding anything. The coverage is pretty tabloid at present but presumably a decent journalist will cover the subject eventually. It's not a matter of huge importance anyway. --Ef80 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diane Abbott. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diane Abbott. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


The mention of her wig is important. Abbott wants to acknowledge her ancestry in the way she looks. See — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wythy (talkcontribs) 13:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is encyclopedic, and User:IronGargoyle agrees. Any other comments? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean it seems like trivia? Wythy (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No. There is a political agenda behind her using wigs. See the link. Wythy (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Random people's opinions on Diane Abbott's son's schooling[edit]

I personally am not sure why Wikipedia needs to tell anyone what to think about Diane Abbott sending her son to a private school. I suggest we just state the fact that she did, which is of public interest, and let people make their own minds up about it.

I am opposed to including Gerald Kauffman's comments on the matter. The criteria for including someone's opinion in a Wikipedia article can't simply be "someone said it and it was recorded in a reliable source". Otherwise we would have to include Donald Trump's claim that China was "raping" the United States in our China article. A better justification than that is needed.--greenrd (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a major controversy at the time and so there's a case for some commentary. But I agree it's excessive and Abbott's own comments on the issue are more than enough to allow the reader to understand, so I've removed it. (If anything, Abbott further stirring the hornet's nest with the "West Indian mum's will go to the wall for their kids...that's what some of my colleagues on the Left will never understand" comment belongs here more than Kaufman's) Dtellett (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


That is just a horrible picture. It seems almost deliberately unkind. Isn't there a better one that could be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

None of the available alternatives are ideal, but the photograph currently used is certainly unsatisfactory. Philip Cross (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at her other photos, and everywhere she looks horrible. It ties in well with the current content of this wiki article, so let us leave it. Zezen (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded another photo I took at the same event: File:Diane Abbott, 2016 Labour Party Conference 2.jpg. Personally I like it less, though she does not have her mouth open. As you say, none of the photos we have are great. Did a google image search for a better CC license photo, but there are none. Rwendland (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)