Jump to content

Talk:Molly Scott Cato

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

Untitled

[edit]

I'm disputing neutrality based on the username of the author... Philippe Beaudette 09:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is - the content is quite neutral.Dejvid 01:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Notability

[edit]

Having substantially updated this page, I think it reflects a NPOV (in fact, its content was always neutral).

I also think that there are many less notable academics and political activists on Wikipedia, and therefore this article is clearly notable enough for inclusion Aled Dilwyn Fisher 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on my changes

[edit]

Following her election as MEP, I have substantially expanded and (mostly, but not completely) re-written this article. Some remaining concerns:

  • I have generally removed material not supported by sources, but I have left in material that I think is probably true (partly because it's been in the article for a long time without challenge), provided it is also important and relevant, marking it with a {{Citation needed}} tag. The most glaring of these is her place of birth, for which, despite a lot of work, I have been unable to find a source.
  • Similarly, some material is cited to "This is Wiltshire", a consortium of local newspapers. Some of this is doubtful, as I suspect their journalists may have lifted it from an earlier version of this article. It should be replaced by a better source whenever possible.
  • The "Publications" section still needs some work. I made some changes as and when I disovered relevant info, but I suspect most of it is copy-pasted from publicity material.
  • More work will be needed when it becomes clearer what additional positions/responsibilities she is giving up in order to function as an MEP.

--NSH001 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth

[edit]

As mentioned above, I struggled for a long time to find a source for her place of birth. However it is not "Stroud", which is her current residence. Its presence on her European Parliament profile is just a simple clerical error (or, in wiki-speak, it is not a reliable source because it has not been subject to fact-checking). I suspect "Wales" is more likely to be correct (having been in the article for a long time), but it would be nice to have a more specific location with a reliable source. I've therefore reverted the recent change, leaving it as "Wales" with a "citation needed" tag (unfortunately). If anyone can find a definitive source for her place of birth, I would be very grateful. --NSH001 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Further note: the EP profile doesn't even say "place of birth". --NSH001 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the European Parliament reference to Stroud is a clerical error? Having said that, I've just thought I'd look at some random MEPs. Daniel Hannon says Lima, which matches Wikipedia. On the other hand, Nigel Farrage says Farnborough, but his page says Downe. And one more at random is Keith Taylor, where is says Rochford on EP, but on his Wikipedia page it says both Rochford and Southend in the main body!! Nevertheless, don't we give some credence to the European Parliament website? And I'm also not totally convinced about the point that longevity of the "Wales" as uncited means it's more likely to be correct. (By coincidence, I read this today: Wikipedia's longest hoax ever gets busted after more than ten years). Are there any polices about finding reliable sources of people's place of birth? Seaweed (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the key point is that the EP profile doesn't actually say "place of birth" at all, so it can't be used, but we do know that her residence is Stroud. Probably when she arrived in Brussels/Strasbourg, she was asked to fill in a load of paperwork, and somehow her residence got appended to her date of birth. The fact that she spent so much of her life in Wales tends to support Wales, but we can't be sure of that either, hence the "citation needed" tag. I suppose I could e-mail her, but I've always been very reluctant to contact personally the subject of a BLP I'm working on. Or it's possible I might bump into her at some Quaker or Green Party gathering. Either way that wouldn't be enough, as neither would be a WP:RS, we'd have to wait for her, say, to put up a full CV (currently empty) on the EP site, or have the details published in some other RS. I suppose if I got the info in person from her I would use it in the article, but with a tag until a RS appeared. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Molly Scott Cato. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcroft ref

[edit]

This reference is no longer used as of edit over last couple of months so I removed it:

ref name="Ashcroft 2017-05-12">Ashcroft, Esme (12 May 2017). "Molly Scott Cato - Green Party candidate - Bristol West general election 2017". Bristol Post. Retrieved 5 January 2018./ref>

Jonpatterns (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nickname

[edit]

Footnote (d) at MOS:NICKNAME states:

As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism § English subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix ..."; consider treating names listed in the "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. A few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not. Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe and Mischa for Mikhail) are not familiar to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture.

Note especially: 'A few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not'.

The question thus arises: is "Molly" a common hypocorism? In my view it isn't, as it doesn't suggest the name "Margaret" in the same way that "Bob" does for "Robert"; it is one of the "most" that "are not". It can even suggest a different name such as "Mary", or simply stand in its own right as a name. There is also the point, important in a BLP, that the subject doesn't want to be known as "Margaret".

It is true that "Molly" is listed in the first list cited "Shortening, often to the first syllable", but in the subsequent list, "A short form that differs significantly from the name:", the version "Moll" is listed; a fortiori "Molly" should be listed here, but in an oversight it has been omitted. The first part of the block-quoted text above is ambiguous, but the second part is clearer: 'consider treating names listed in the "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames'. "Molly" is a non-hypocoristic nickname. --NSH001 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably by that logic you would also not accept Jack or Harry as hypocorisms for John or Henry? Despite the fact that they are always regarded as being. As is Molly for Margaret. What on earth does the subject's preference matter? Her full name is listed in the lede and her hypocorism is listed in the article title. Your argument makes no sense, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Molly_Scott_Cato&oldid=1206205543"