This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Given over the allegations of Islamophobia. So far, every single source cited is from a left-wing perspective. I recommend we create a new ‘controversies’ section as per basic Wikipedia guidelines and move any allegations there. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CSECTION, a "Controversies" section is not appropriate. You seem to have overlooked the BBC source (neutral) and The Independent (centrist). Nonetheless, I've added sources The Jewish Chronicle and the right-wing Times, which were not in the article before because they didn't exist when the rest of the content was written. I haven't found any more reliable sources but you are of course welcome to introduce any well-sourced content that is missing. — Bilorv (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came along to update Hart's article following her interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy yesterday. I noticed that great swathes of information had been removed on the basis that: "The Guardian is (a) known publisher of fake news and frequently passes opinion as fact. Not a valid source for information which is clearly political biased. Spurious biased information removed". diff
I've put most of it back in along with other sources, but now I'm pondering whether it's too much. I was thinking of removing the investigation para from the lead section and the comments by Gove, for a start. I'm also not sure whether the issues around the investigations should perhaps be in a separate section. I recognise that it looks overloaded but, to be fair, I'm struggling to find any positive media coverage. Can someone else take a look, please? --DSQ (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, the IP edit should have been caught weeks ago. If there isn't any positive media coverage then we shouldn't attempt false balance, and just include the major points made in the most reliable sources on the topic. I can't see how we would justify removing the investigation comment from the lead since it's the most significant part of her short MP career so far (this will probably change over time, at which point we can update the article). The Gove comment, however, does strike me as not particularly informative or significant so I've removed it for now. As for restructuring, perhaps it would make more sense as the article becomes larger, but we shouldn't fork all the negative content into a controversy section—secondary source reaction to her statements is what shows due weight and should be incorporated inline at the points at which they are mentioned. — Bilorv (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thank you for those useful links. I was just a bit mindful of it looking like overkill, but your rationale makes perfect sense. Thanks for looking at it for me. --DSQ (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
