Talk:Layla Moran

Domestic violence

I'm just wondering if the Domestic Violence section is longer than necessary - not to diminish it, but I'm sure it can be made more concise? 88.104.145.163 (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think making that section any smaller would diminish it entirely. It's a serious issue. The other sections should be expanded if anything (and probably will be once the leadership bid is underway). 2607:FEA8:BE60:28E:48D9:73AD:BCC1:58A3 (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not something that received a huge amount of news coverage, and giving it more weight than her entire Parliamentary career doesn't appear to be in keeping with the weight given to controversies of politicians generally. Noting the Wikipedia sections on the anti-Semitic mural (Corbyn) or the deportation of Abu Qatada (May) – both of which received far more media coverage – a more concise wording may be more appropriate. I'd also consider moving it to the 'early life and career' or 'earlier political career' sections, it could fit comfortably in either the first (as a life even rather than a political action) or the second (as it happened at a political conference). Domeditrix (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been reading up a bit on Wikipedia Biographies for Living Persons guidelines, and I think this section gives undue weight to the controversy. It's very well @one of the above Wikipedians: saying 'the other sections should be expanded', but other sections haven't been expanded. The result is to create a misleading impression. Per WP:BITR:

"The contents of this type of coatrack article can be superficially true. However, undue attention to one particular topic within the scope of the article creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor ought to ask: what impression does a reader unfamiliar with the topic get from this article? [...] An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality, even though the details may be true.".

I can only conclude that for now at least, the controversy must be given less weight in the article (not deleted entirely). I will do this today. I welcome anybody that seeks to revert any edit or challenge my basis for reducing the length of the section to reply to this discussion. Domeditrix (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't really make sense. The whole article is essentially a stub if comparing to other MPs or Lib Dem MPs. If nobody can add or elaborate any sections about anything, controversial or not, the page will never grow. Also, media coverage is no basis for how long any page or section should be. How would that sit with the treatment of tabloid references if it was? Layla Moran has participated in 291 parliamentary votes. Much more could be added to the parliamentary career section. Notice that some contributors have already started doing this. Media Studies lecturer (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This section is clearly against the spirit of WP:BITR. Anybody visiting this page not versed in UK politics would get the impression that the controversy was the event she is most notable for, that it is something that stirred up a huge amount of feeling from the public. That is not the case. The section that has been posted includes a section citing bookmaker odds and includes comments from social media users. Come on. The reasoning above is not one that justifies the reversion of the page (an action that was taken before posting the above argument) to include a section (on a controversy that received little media attention) longer than the section on her Parliamentary career. Saying it ought not to be this way does nothing to reverse that fact. I will revert the page to the version that does not create a misleading impression. If you wish to change this, please seek consensus before doing so. Domeditrix (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that you are so keen on demanding consensus here, yet sought no need for it when deleting the content. Given that multiple other editors appear to have contributed to the paragraphs you have removed, and that it lies within the last section of this article (hence I fail to see how anyone could consider it the most noteworthy aspect of her career), I will be restoring. I strongly recommend you don't remove the content a 3rd time. 24.114.95.59 (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned that the only editors reverting this content are new users that have no prior editing history on Wikipedia, with this page being their first contribution. It looks and smells like WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. I will revert because, as stated before, the article as it stands creates a misleading impression. There has been no attempt to refute this. Please state how this section does not create a misleading interpretation by putting undue weight on the content. The edits I made previously do not seek to remove the content entirely, merely keep it to an appropriate length. On Wikipedia we must keep high standards with regards biographies of living persons, and I worry that these standards are not being met here. For now I will tag in some more experienced recent editors of this page so that they can give their thoughts. Paging User:EmphasisMine, User:Nedrutland, User:Hebrides, User:Headhitter, User:Absolutelypuremilk, User:CLCStudent, User:Mean as custard, User:Therequiembellishere, User:This is Paul, User:Edwardx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domeditrix (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Also User:Mvolz (sorry!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domeditrix (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Domeditrix, I spent a long time writing a fully referenced and highly relevant section in this article. It is emotionally distressing to see someone just unilaterally wipe it on the basis that their opinion counts as consensus. Perhaps it would have been more constructive to add content yourself rather than undermine the work of others? Or is that too much effort? I added some material to the Parliamentary Career section as well to start things off. Feel free to pick up on it. I appreciate the good intentions, but please think more carefully before deleting work that may have taken someone else quite a lot of time to produce. I am not going to revert the article because I do not want to be blocked. I think you might be though given that you have just broken the three-revert rule. I would encourage you to be more constructive and just add things that you feel are relevant rather than subtract from the work of others. (Sophie Mills (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

Hey User:Sophie Mills, I don't think I've broken a rule? You are correct that users aren't supposed to make more than three reversions for the same article in 24 hours. I have reverted edits twice in the past 24 hours, and for reasons that I have explained (though perhaps not well enough). I will expand on this reasoning though because I hope that doing so will allow us to have a more reasoned debate on the matter.

Per WP:NPOV: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery."

Per WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Something being true (and verifiable) does not automatically mean it warrants including in Wikipedia. Things must be weighted appropriately in line with their significance. Having a long section (longer than an entire Parliamentary career to date) covering one relatively minor controversy is not by any stretch 'proportionate', and gives a misleading impression to readers.

Per WP:BLPBALANCE: "The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

The above is why I have reverted the article. With regards BLPs, stricter rules apply – it is not enough to say 'more content will be added later'. Please don't take edits to pages (for that's what has happened, your content was edited down into a more concise paragraph and moved into a different section) personally. This is not a personal judgment on you, merely an informed, rules-based judgment on what improves the article. It's great that you've signed up to improve Wikipedia. And more generally, it's good to keep WP:ADHOMINEM in mind – Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals. Domeditrix (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a highly notable incident, and particularly so in the context of Moran's career to date as she hasn't been in Parliament very long. Not only has there been the standard news coverage of the incident, but it has already been notable enough to generate opinion pieces too, thus raising it above low importance or even standard news. The content by User:Sophie Mills is well written, though a case could be made that it's very slightly too long and there is slightly excessive detail in a few places. For example, while Roberto Perrone's comments are highly relevant, we don't really need to mention the exact date on which they were broadcast (people can figure that out from the references). Thus I agree with other that we should keep the section, but there should be a little trimming in places.Shakehandsman (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I would have a look at the breadth of the coverage. The incident was not covered by any of the broadsheets (The Times, The Guardian, the FT), not does there appear to be any coverage by ITV, Channel 4 or Sky News. For a major incident in her political career to date, it did not cause any bump at all in page views for this article. Clearly while that isn't conclusive, it's more evidence to show that a mountain has been made of a molehill here (a practice which goes against WP:BALASP). Could you please elaborate on why the shorter paragraph that has been written (and could easily be moved to another section) is not of a more suitable length? I understand that it's shorter, that's the point – it's in line with other notable points covered (as necessary to comply with WP:BLPBALANCE.

"The incident was not covered by any of the broadsheets", well that's completely false, it was covered by the Telegraph. The Guardian's blatant biases mean they're never going to cover female on male domestic violence, and certainly not by a left-wing MP, and the same goes for Channel 4. There was coverage on at least three BBC outlets, so that in addition to the Telegraph coverage clearly indicates notability.Shakehandsman (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I hold my hands up on that one. For some reason my mind slipped there. I won't respond to the accusations made towards The Guardian and Channel 4 but to say that they are demonstrably false. Nobody is arguing that it's not worth including on the page – not that I've seen anyway – there's just been no policy-based justification as to why it needs to be given such weight and prominence. Domeditrix (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Moran seems to be a fairly popular MP and much of what she says has received more coverage than this incident. Her calling grammar schools 'state-sponsored segregation' received coverage across The Independent, ITV, Huffington Post, the Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Mirror, the Oxford Mail and others, and spawned a hit piece from The Express and an opinion piece from The Guardian. Likewise, her involvement in a 'Cannabis Tea Party' was covered by the Metro, the Telegraph, the Mail, Huffington Post, the Independent, the London Evening Standard, the Mirror, the Oxford Mail, Vice, BuzzFeed and others. The point here is that the coverage of the slap incident does not belie a notability that justifies a full section longer than the one on her entire Parliamentary career to date, nor either of the stories I mentioned above. Repeating WP:BALASP, "An article should [...] strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.". A quick web search reveals that the slap incident did not receive any more coverage than the above, and if anything was covered by fewer sources. The inclusion of an entire section on such an issue then can surely only be classed as disproportionate. The amount written in this article even outstrips far more high-profile incidents of other MPs (on B-class rated articles). I'm not making an argument not to include it at all. I'm saying the section goes far beyond what is necessary and is given too much weight and prominence. The streamlined version addresses these concerns while still relaying the facts of the situation. Domeditrix (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Edited by Domeditrix (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Domeditrix's points. Headhitter (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that the shorter version is better - the longer version feels UNDUE for a controversy that didn't receive much coverage. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I am backing brevity also. The incident did not lead to prosecution or conviction; Moran was not prominent at the time and there was no contemporary coverage. It is only any kind of issue now because she brought it to public attention. Nedrutland (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As others have said, the incident did receive coverage in multiple media sources. It also lit up twitter and the blogosphere, though obviously, so do memes etc. The only reason it did not dominate the headlines is that the future of the entire country happens to hang in the balance due to Brexit. Although I rarely agree with Roberto Perrone, he certainly hit the nail on the head when discussing the strategic timing of the release. Also, the point still stands: if people feel that the parliamentary career section is too short, why not just be constructive and add to it instead of just deleting the hard work of others? I would be happy to see that, but it is so demoralizing when you write something and better-connected others just delete it and summon all their friends in high places. Also, it is a very relevant case study in terms of the media consequences of domestic violence in British politics, cultural attitudes towards it, its social acceptability versus say Joe Biden's recent inappropriate behaviour, etc.(Sophie Mills (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC))

User:Sophie Mills I will address some of the points you've made about me personally and my integrity: 1) I am not well-connected on here, and do not know - nor have I previously pinged - any of the users that I have mentioned this discussion to. When I raised that a discussion was being held here, I did it in a neutral tone, as is required; 2) The users that I notified are exclusively users that have recently edited or expressed an interest in this page, and have some experience editing. I did not look into whether they agreed with my understanding of the rules or not, such an accusation is a baseless attack on my integrity and theirs; 3) I have previously stated, and will state again, that I am not trying to attack you. Any decisions on content are not judgments on the you personally – we have all had content deleted, pages we've created deleted – it comes with the territory.

I have already addressed in full the other arguments you have made. Wikipedia is policy-driven, and I believe it better if we allow policy to shape the conclusions we come to. Therefore if you have an issue with my interpretation of the policies I have mentioned (WP:BALASP, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPBALANCE), then rebutting those specifically may allow for a more informed debate. As it stands it's difficult for me to see the basis of your argument when you avoid mentioning policy. Domeditrix (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:185.69.145.158, could you please explain the reasoning for your reversion to include the bold edit / contentious section? Firstly, as I see anyway, no consensus has been reached one way or another. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domeditrix (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2607:fea8:be60:28e:d8d4:87c7:b7c3:7fa0, could you do likewise and explain why you reverted User:Headhitter's edit? My understanding of WP:NOCONSENSUS is that consensus must be established in favour of the bold edit before allowing it to stand. You have reversed the burden of proof. Domeditrix (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This editor has since been banned. Should the previous edit stand? I'm not sure on policy here. Domeditrix (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say this is a case of WP:UNDUE. We should mention it, but we don't need a lengthy discussion about it, and definitely not a whole section dedicated to it where her actions and the reaction of her party are compared to other cases. I'm not sure where the best place to mention it would be. It happened before she entered parliament but only came to light recently. Perhaps if there's ever a section on her leadership bid we could mention it there. Failing that merge it into parliamentary career. This is Paul (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:This is Paul I've actually amended the page previously, but different users keep reverting the edit – you can see the amended version (which is the version I believe User:Headhitter, User:Absolutelypuremilk and User:Nedrutland were supportive of) here. The reasons being given for reverting do not rely on Wikipedia policy or on consensus being reached on this talk page. I don't want to revert and be accused of edit-warring, so I'm not sure what I can possibly do in this situation. Domeditrix (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a better version and all we need to say about the incident. This is Paul (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If I make the edit will I be open to accusations of edit warring? Or would point 7 of WP:3RRNO apply? Domeditrix (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If you do, I will be the first to report you for edit warring. The manner in which you boldly revert and then have the sheer nerve to (a) demand the consensus you did not seek yourself[1] (b) threaten to get other editors to gang up on the author of the section and (c) throw unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry into the mix[2] is, to be frank, disgraceful. 2607:FEA8:BE60:28E:D8D4:87C7:B7C3:7FA0 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've explained why for BLPs the policy is to remove contentious content until consensus is reached. Temporarily removing such content until some consensus is found is entirely consistent with seeking consensus. I have not accused any specific users of sockpuppetry. I have not threatened "to get other editors to gang up on the author of the section". And asking a question to User:This is Paul about Wikipedia policy shouldn't result in this sort of response. Domeditrix (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Headhitter (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I thanked Domeditrix's original edit before it had been initially reverted, and they let me know on my talk page it had been reverted. I agree the current version violates both undue weight and making the edit before consensus was reached on the talk page was appropriate. I'll also point out that only IPs are reverting, two of which have only edited this page. Mvolz (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Mvolz Do you think it would be worth requesting pending changes protection for this page? Domeditrix (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Domeditrix I think pending changes is a bit too strong, but I'd support at least a temporary extended confirmed protected, personally. Mvolz (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Mvolz I have applied for temporary semi-protection (as WP:ECPGUIDE suggests that semi-protection should be used prior to requesting extended confirmed protection). The request can be viewed here. I hope my description is sufficient to describe the issue. Domeditrix (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you all no decency? Is it so important to destroy someone else's contribution rather than being constructive and addressing the fundamental source of the problem? Look at how many lines of text and hours of time you have all wasted on Wiki-lawyering. If even a fraction of the MASSIVE effort that has gone into this talk page had gone into expanding the other sections on Ms. Moran's Parliamentary Career, this whole thing would be a non-issue by now. Since we are all citing rules to get one up on each other, I think there is NO BASIS for adding protections to the page. All of the changes made have been fully justified, the content is FULLY REFERENCED, and I fear that alongside the BLATANT violations of WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:EW, this just adds a new contravention to the list: WP:AGF. (Sophie Mills (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC))

As I've stated previously, I am not trying to attack you. Any decisions on content are not judgments on the you personally – we have all had content deleted, pages we've created deleted. If you could explain how you feel WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:EW and WP:AGF have been violated, I'd be happy to hear you out. I will note though that just because editors must assume good faith, this does not mean all evidence to the contrary must be cast aside. I think we all started with good faith here. I have made a total of three edits to the page in the last 96 hours, and have made a conscious effort not to make further edits to the page without consensus being reached. I don't at all understand why you feel WP:NOCONSENSUS has been violated, but perhaps you could expand on that. Domeditrix (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In answer to an earlier question, I'd stay clear of reverting the changes too much as it could be seen as breaking the 3RR policy. It seems clear those who keep adding this information appear to be unwilling to reach a compromise, so it's probably better to get consensus on this issue. This is Paul (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that the most recent person to revert the article (to its current state) has now been banned. User:This is Paul, you're a far more experienced editor than I – what can we do to build consensus here? Is there a format to follow? It appears to me that positions are very entrenched, and things are getting quite heated. Domeditrix (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm that experienced as I often have to ask about stuff like this. You could try seeking a third opinion or a dispute resolution. I think you'd probably need to go for the latter as there are more than two people involved. Be sure first that you've made every attempt to discuss the issue, which would seem to be the case. This is Paul (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Throwing in my academic opinion amongst all of the mud slinging, I have to say that it looks like a huge swathe of essay-relevant material has been wiped by the proponents of keeping the page politically flattering. I for one think that the original content is incredibly relevant to some of the PR courses I teach. As several others have pointed out, it would be far better to pad out the generic parts of the article about the less unique aspects of this politician's career. Otherwise, it is a fascinating case study on media representations of misandry and violent actions by women against men. This will become increasingly relevant over time as it has in Spain, where the Vox party is gaining seats in parliament as a consequence of similar double standards. I know there will be disagreement here regardless of the outcome, but I would say that investigating me for sockpuppetry just because I have a different opinion is probably going a bit far. This issue is a lot like abortion. Some people care about it enough to contribute when they otherwise wouldn't. Please see WP:JERK. Wiki nerdiness ≠ more weighty opinions.(Media Studies lecturer (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC))

Hear hear! (Sophie Mills (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC))

It looks like there is a cynical ploy to outmanoeuvre those in the camp of keeping the disputed section and allowing for the rest of the page to expand around it. Without naming names, politically motivated actors are trying to silence opposing voices by using their clout with the admins to get the page locked down. Users User:ITOldBiker, Media Studies lecturer, User:Hebrides, and all of the anonymous IP editors: thank you for your constructive contributions so far. Please hold off from doing anything for the time being as you may be accused of being socks, Russian bots, or even worse, holding WP:JERK, WP:AGF and WP:BITE in contempt. It seems the rules regarding WP:NOCONSENSUS are being broken with impunity here, but I am doing my best to fight our corner through official channels. (Sophie Mills (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC))

Hey user:Sophie Mills, as explained previously, strict rules apply regarding WP:BLPs. Per WP:BLPBALANCE: "The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

You acknowledge that this would leave the article unbalanced, so we're in agreement there. All that is left to agree on is whether we should follow Wikipedia's policy or not. I propose that we do. I'll not respond to the sockpuppetry allegations here as that would be improper, but if you truly believe that a user or two is using sockpuppets to game the system, then that's something you should absolutely report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. That page contains information on how to propose an investigation. Domeditrix (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I acknowledge is that we very clearly disagree, and that there is an ongoing violation of the rules regarding WP:NOCONSENSUS amongst other things. Sophie Mills (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Remind me, because this discussion has spiraled – what are your issues with the article as it currently exists? Domeditrix (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As myself and others have repeatedly pointed out, it lacks many of the important details I added about the recent domestic violence controversy. Sophie Mills (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What details specifically? I think the article a good job of succinctly covering the incident. Domeditrix (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dominatrix, the article was far better when it included full details and references. Less flattering, perhaps, but facts are the currency here, not spin. Media Studies lecturer (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've explained multiple times the policy-based reasons for having the page as it is, most recently in the comment thread you are responding to. If you wish to rebut the interpretation of those policies, please do. If you wish to challenge those policies, feel free to, but this would not be the place for that. Those are more fruitful grounds for a discussion than suggesting that editors are acting in a concerted manner to 'spin' an article – which is itself a very serious charge to make on this site. Domeditrix (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

As is having your mate range block the IPs that disagree with you and determining that anyone else who has a conflicting opinion about your interpretation of what is relevant must be a sockpuppet. Media Studies lecturer (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Quick correction, my username is Domeditrix, not Dominatrix! Domeditrix (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories

Is it appropriate for this page to be listed in Category:Domestic violence Category:Violence against men? I don't think so – I believe it clearly breaches WP:BLPCAT and goes against WP:COPDEF. Don't want to edit war, so bringing it up for discussion here. Paging User:91.125.175.168. Domeditrix (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed, obviously not appropriate. Edwardx (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Two photos?

It seems odd to have two photos. Jontel (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

I've moved her ethnicity to the body of the article for this reason. MOS:ETHNICITY 'Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.' You may decide it is relevant and can assert this here. I am adding a section here in case it comes up in future. Jontel (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Being the first Palestinian-descent MP is notable I think. As you say in your edit summary, it isn't the most notable thing about her, but I still think it is notable. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Pansexuality is not bisexuality

I removed the category of bisexual politicians because the word bisexual is not in the Guardian source, nor is it in this BBC source [3]. Sexual orientation is a personal description and although some people - including LGBT people who I know - don't understand and equate the two, the fact is that Moran has publicly called herself pansexual but not bisexual Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a solid answer here but there is a very significant overlap between the terms such that they can often be used as synonyms but don't always have to be.

The Pansexuality article says "Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a branch of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity. Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary, it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual".

The Bisexuality article says "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality."

These definitions allow for an interpretation that everybody pan could also be considered bi, but that not everybody bi is necessarily pan. Of course, that's not the only interpretation.

I suspect that a lot of people who identify as pansexual now would have identified as bisexual in the past but prefer the newer term because they feel that it is important to explicitly reject the gender binary, and to acknowledge nonbinary people, so that their identity can not be perceived as erasing anybody else's.

We don't have a category for "Pansexual politicians" so I think that maybe the "Bisexual politicians" category could be put back on but I also think that the "LGBT politicians from England" category covers it well enough that we probably don't need to. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The article on pansexuality is in fact in the Category:Bisexuality but the fact is that this case is categorisation of a living person (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). Moran has publicly called herself a pansexual and not a bisexual. It is not public knowledge whether or not she also accepts the term "bisexual" (for example, some bisexual women also accept being called "lesbian" and can therefore be categorised as both per the note in Category:Lesbians) Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Unproductive argumentation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Isn't the best way to proceed to note that she refers to herself in these terms, rather than asserting that she *is* pansexual - given that the latter is a contested term? Not sure why my edits on this have been reverted. 92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Do we also write on Ed Davey's article that "he refers to himself as heterosexual"? Why can we not take it as fact that somebody that identifies as pansexual is in fact pansexual? She presumably identifies as pansexual and not bisexual for a reason. WP:EGRS implies that we should not try to infer what that reason may be. As for why your edit doesn't stand, we follow the WP:CYCLE. --Domeditrix (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC) My suggested phrasing is more precise, for two reasons: first, pansexual is a contested term and asserting that she is this leads unnecessarily into a discussion about whether that is preferable to bisexual, etc; second, it is clear that is other people referred to themselves as various things - a prophet, the new messiah, a unicorn - we would not automatically say that they *are* these things, just that they *claim* to be such things. I'm not sure what your objection to this is - unless you are wanting to make a political point about self-identification, which doesn't belong here.92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Moran isn't claiming to be a prophet, a messiah, or a unicorn though. She is identifying as having a defined sexual orientation. I think there needs to be an incredibly strong reason in a BLP to override a person's stated sexual orientation, and I'm not convinced you've offered such a reason. I don't see that her identification automatically leads to a discussion of whether pansexuality is 'preferable to' bisexuality, I think that's something that you yourself have read into the article. --Domeditrix (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Of course she isn't claiming these things, but as a basic principle, it is clearly more objective to assert that she claims to be something. I think you are not offering a reason to override that objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Jv0314 How is my edit WP:NPOV? It is objectively and indisputably true that she *claims* to be this; that is documented and surely more objective than any assertion that she *is* something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC) No, it is not a contested term. We were just discussing how best to cover it in this article. If she says she is pansexual then she is pansexual. While the differences between pansexuality and bisexuality are subtle, and the boundary is not always clear, they are distinct topics. This is why we have separate articles about each. What you are proposing a weasel worded way to dispute the validity of her identity which is clearly unacceptable behaviour and, if you continue to push your luck, is likely to start earning you warnings for non-neutral editing and/or vandalism. I had been the one to have discovered and reverted your edits to the article then you would already have a couple of warnings against your IP. We will not be using the construction "She refers to herself as..." in relation to anybody's sexuality, gender, race or whatever. Such a construction is only even vaguely appropriate when a person is using a term of their own invention which clearly does not apply here. Having reviewed your edits to the article, I think it is very clear that you hold considerable animosity towards Moran and that you should step away from editing this article as you can not do so in a neutral and constructive manner. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Untrue. I have no animosity to her whatsoever, nor am I using weasel words; I am using precise words. There is plenty of evidence that pansexuality is a contested term, and regrettably your own position seems to be driven by a personal agenda regarding gender and sexuality, which is outweighing objectivity here.92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Our IP based friend is now hopping their IP and continuing to attempt to vandalise the article. This is clear evidence of bad faith editing. This is basically just trolling so I have requested page protection and I'm rolling this undignified "discussion" up in order to avoid wasting any more of anybody's time on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Layla Moran MP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of partner's dismissal from Lib Dem job

Thought it best to try to hash things out here @Ralbegen:. Personally, I fail to see the relevance of Moran's current partner's dismissal from her job (working for the Lib Dems). Though the dismissal occurred around the same time that Moran coming out as pansexual – thus it being included in the article in The Guardian – there isn't a strong enough link to the event to Moran personally for it to warrant inclusion on a page about Moran. I'd also question whether naming Moran's partner at all is warranted. Reading over WP:BLPNAME, there appears to be a strong presumption in favour of privacy, especially in cases where having a name adds nothing to the article, even if the name has been mentioned in 'news media'. I'd argue the inclusion of Moran's partner's name could be replaced by 'a former Lib Dem staff member'. Domeditrix (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Moran's partner's name is widely disseminated (it's in multiple national newspapers) and it hasn't been intentionally concealed. She is also directly involved with the article's topic, and her investigation for forgery has been covered in the New European, the Guardian and Time amongst others. All of those sources mention this material and their main topic is Moran. It hence seems due to include the material here. The email forgery was a widely covered event in and of itself, but I don't think that additional material about it should be included here unless the sources are about Moran. A single sentence like Cobb was head of press for the Liberal Democrats until 2019, when she was accused of faking an email to a journalist is plenty for this article. Ralbegen (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Article lead section

The opening sections of many Wikipedia articles are written as 'leads' - see the Manual of Style (MOS:LEAD). SwayShunt felt it repeated content given elsewhere in the article, it was actually fulfilling one purpose of the lead: to "summarize the body of the article". I reverted their change and left a polite note on their Talk page. Paul W (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I note that SwayShunt reverted my change saying "Cut down lead section, so similiar to other MPs. All information is already in the rest of the article". Numerous UK MP articles - Boris Johnson, Kier Starmer, Rachel Reeves, to name but three - begin with significant summarising lead sections. SwayShunt is therefore going against consensus in such edits to biographies of living people (see MOS:BIO). Paul W (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)