Talk:Lily Madigan

Women's officer

I've just changed the title of the post in question from "woman's officer" to "women's officer", as that is what every source had. However, looking through those sources, as well as through this article, I gotta admit that I still haven't a clue what that post is. As a Yank perusing this article, it left me a little confused. IF the post is one worthy of having its own article, it would be nice if someone were to create that article and link it. If not, it would be nice if there was some source that could be used as an excuse to state what it is in this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I've never heard of it myself, but her name (and picture with Jeremy Corbyn) popped up on my news feed, so I googled her name, found a bunch of news hits and discovered stuff like https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3101587-Biased-BBC-article-promoting-Lily-Madigan which made me think "if I don't create this, somebody else will and it might not confirm to as many policies". In particular, I have not named the fellow women's officer that the BBC report Madigan has tried to dismiss (as distinct from actually getting fired or resigning of her own accord), as I believe it violates WP:BLP at this point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have tried to edit this page to remove what I believe shouldn't be there as it is outside or directly contradicts the guidelines. Other users have undone my edit multiple times with either no explanation or explanations that aren't valid at all. For example, saying they're restoring content merely because it's sourced, when regarding the issues I highlighted it either was sourced solely from the subject's own Twitter feed or indeed not at all (let alone the fact that the information was obscure and unimportant). Or citing GNG which is no justification at all for putting someone's position as a local party official as a 'Title' in the infobox. I have now been sent a message saying I am "edit warring", and threatening me with punitive action for trying to improve this encyclopedia against a backdrop of blind sympathisers who are the ones edit warring themselves. I saw the Peter Hitchens saga unfold recently and so was motivated to make an account myself. I have to say, my experience so far has proved him right: many of you don't actually care about communicating information or upholding the truth, you just want to patrol around here to defend certain pages from unwanted edits. Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockforward (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you're new to editing Wikipedia. Let me recommend that you read WP:BRD, a guideline to good cooperative editing. Basically, if you boldly make a change, and someone reverts it, even if you don't think their reasoning is good or sufficient, the best thing to do is not to repeat the edit, but to come to this talk page and discuss the edit. You got a message letting you know that you were edit warring because you were, multiple editors had reverted your edit and you just kept redoing it. Discuss your edits here, try to find consensus for them, assume good faith in your fellow editors, and things are more likely to move forward smoothly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they shouldn't have repeated their edits. If anyone was edit warring, it was surely other users who - as I have pointed out - were giving clearly invalid explanations or even no explanations at all for their own repeated edits. If that hadn't been the case and there were more clarity, discussion here might not have even been necessary. I'm not going to assume good faith when everyone's impression of this website in recent times is being continually vindicated, in this case by - to be blunt but fair - left-wingers who evidently gain some sort of arousal by defending a >redacted student (who I mustn't "misgender" for fear of wrongthink) and making her page give the illusion that she is more significant and accomplished than she actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockforward (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

We are suopposed keep our opinions here restricted to making the profile better instead of making odd assumptions about the editors, see WP:PA. As for her title, it is the reason this article passes notability guidelines and is significantly covered. If someone comes to this article it is likely due to that position so it makes sense including it in an infobox. And biographical information coming from personal blogs is normal on wikipedia, how long you have reliable sources doing the work of proving notability it is OK to use someone's twitter for other personal facts. Rab V (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

First off, I have no idea why my description of her as redacted has been redacted. redacted Furthermore, as that redaction along with the general edit warring that has taken place clearly shows, it would be more odd to assume good faith than it would be to assume other editors aren't being compromised by their transparent bias. Nobody is visiting her page because of her obscure position. They are visiting it because her individual case is one of interest, namely due to her being a women's officer who is biologically a man. This more specific state of affairs should be fleshed out in the main body. It would be absurd to imagine any other women's officer of a local Labour Party branch would have their title in the infobox. As for information being solely sourced from her own Twitter feed, the blatant inappropriate nature of that remains standing against your confusing and weak rebuttal. There is nothing in addition that corroborates the information, just her own Twitter feed. You people are clearly acting in an obstructionist manner against the guidellines in order to pursue your own agendas. Attempting to deny that is just silly at this point. If you have any integrity at all, you will turn down your full-force opposition to my edit at least a decent one or two notches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockforward (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Your statements were redacted because under out WP:BLP policy, such unsourced negative descriptions are not allowed, even on talk pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of Lily's title is IMO desirable due to media and public misrepresenting her position as more significant than it is. She's a local CLP Women's Officer - but her post has been reported and hyped up as if she holds a national position. Tip.Stall (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A perfectly valid point, bit it still belongs in the main body and not the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockforward (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a nice simple solution to any possible "edit warring" over this issue. Madigan is no longer a CLP Women's officer. https://twitter.com/LilyMadigan99/status/1049308672973840384 Ecadre (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There is of course a further question. Since Madigan's "notoriety" was solely based upon a very short tenure in a minor position in a constituency Labour Party, is this page even needed now? I'm looking at it and with Madigan no longer holding this minor post, it's difficult to see how to edit this page and make any sense of it or its importance. Ecadre (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In general, if a person met WP:GNG at some time, they aren't going to unmeet GNG later just by ceasing to hold a post (if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that coverage isn't going to unexist, even if there stops being new coverage: they would remain "a former [whatever made them meet GNG]"; WP even has articles on people who are no longer alive). However, while you're here — if you know — could you explain for the benefit of non-Brits what the job of "women's officer" entails in the first place? What does a "women's officer" normally do? -sche (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Labour Party (in Britain) has several levels of organisation. One of these levels is the Constituency Labour Party (being made up of all Labour Party organisations and affiliates in a Parliamentary constituency). This could include Labour Party branches, Union branches and branches of other affiliated organisations. Officers are elected at the Constituency Party level, such as, secretary, chair, treasurer, and in this case a Women's Officer which is basically an organiser in the Constituency Party around issues concerning women. Ecadre (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Notoriety is not the standard, notability is (I suppose you would have to be notorious to qualify for wickedpedia.) Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that all makes sense. I'm simply wondering whether there was enough notoriety for this specific person in the first place, rather than the issue i threw up. There is a Constituency Labour Party (CLP) organisation in every constituency in England/Scotland/Wales, and according to the rule book, a Women's Officer is one of the key officers in a CLP. This means that there should be 632 Women's Officers at any one time. CLP officers are elected every year at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) and there could be a different set of officers elected every year. Madigan did not serve the full year as Rochester and Strood CLP Women's Officer, so a new one will have been appointed. The point is, shouldn't this issue be covered concisely on another page dealing with the structure of the Labour Party, or on some other labour Party page since the issue was predominantly about trans-women and this office rather than the person, who was 19 years old at the time and has not done much at all. Ecadre (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Slight edit to make grammatical sense Ecadre (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm going to suggest that you stop using the word "notoriety" for this subject unless you have sourced reasons to paint her in a negative light. The word does not mean simply "fame", as it seems like you're using it.

Second, yes, you're right that Women's Officer is not inherently a notable role (in contrast to, say, Prime Minister; every PM of the UK will get an article). However, that does not mean that a person serving in that capacity cannot garner sufficient attention or import for their service in that role. If you feel that she has not achieved that, what it seems are your options in proposal are 1) to merge this page into some specific other page; 2) to move this page to a title focusing on the broader topic ("Transgender issues in the Labour Party") and rework the content to focus on that; or 3) to call for the page's deletion. If you want to go with 3), I suspect there would be enough conflict over it so that the WP:PROD system will not achieve the goal, and you should probably start with the Articles For Deletion process. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This wilioedua page is totally biased and any attempts by anyone to make corrections or to post anything that doesn't paint Madigan in the most positive light is immediately reverted by Madigan's friends. I've lost all faith in Wikipedia and it's really just another form of social media, not a reliable source of information. Ricky P Deer (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Support and criticism, bias

There is a significant problem with this page, and that is the unbalanced inclusion of many, many "support" message, many vague, and basically nothing tangible of any criticism. Ecadre (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It is completely biased and all attempts to add or modify the page are reverted by their friends. It exists purely for Madigan's self promotion and promotion of trans gender movement. Ricky P Deer (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ricky P Deer: Can you point to some specific parts of the article which violate WP:NPOV, or some constructive edits which were reverted? I believe I'm one of the editors you're referring to but I can assure you that I have no connection with Lily Madigan. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

WP: Notability

Can someone explain to me how this page meets the requirements for WP:Notability (person)? The page largely seems to exist for the self-promotion, hence the link to Madigan's Youtube page (among other things). Alssa1 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like it meets WP:BASIC through headline-level coverage at The Times and BBC, as seen in the sources. You are, of course, free to take it to Articles For Deletion if you feel that is not the case. A link to a personal web presence is actually called for in our external link guidelines; per WP:ELYES, "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that a bit of headline coverage for a short period is not the required level to justify their own WP page. If that was the principle in which we created pages, WP would be significantly larger than it currently is. But anyways, thank you for your recommendation and I shall follow your advice. Alssa1 (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to actual policy? The tag you just added calls for "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention", which this article already has. She has gotten headline-level coverage for more than one event, with the earliest mainstream news source from November 2016, well before the Women's Officer situation, and major coverage until at least February 2018. Attention is still being accorded her; this week, she got shortlisted for a Gay Times award. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

After almost 3 years (hope you've been well), I've opened the deletion debate up again. Alssa1 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, and I wish you well as well. However, if you feel a debate is likely to be at hand, WP:PROD is not the process to use, as that's for uncontroversial deletions. This page is no longer eligible to be PRODded, as it has been PRODded in the past, and "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." So if you wish to try for deletion, WP:AFD is the path to take to start the debate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)