Talk:Miriam Stoppard

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 sourced must 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.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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 is supported by the science and academia work group.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Half Man Half Biscuit[edit]

Is there someone, possibly a member of the band or an obsessed fan, deliberately going around Wikipedia referencing Half Man Half Biscuit? Think of a famous but cultish person from 1980s popular UK history and you can bet that HMHB get a mention, sometimes at greater lengthh than the actual person the page is about. It's tedious. Guv2006 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Weird Al Yankovic for the US. Some people seem to treat him as test of encylcopaedic notability.

Notes on "Controversy"[edit]

To call something a controversy you need independent reliable sources identifying it as such. Also; can I point everyone at WP:BLP (which requires sourcing on biographies of living individuals to be exemplary), WP:NPOV (which cautions us against soapboxing our views) and WP:OR (which discusses how we are not supposed to do our own research). The sourcing in question here is bad; lacking secondary sources discussing the matter, synthesising material to reach an originally research conclusion, and non-neutral terms attacking the subject. --08:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Recently she similarly stuck her neck out about circumcision, and I considred adding something but didn't think it was notable enough, although in that case Christian Jessen spoke out against her; I'd say about the latest issue that there isn't really anything to make it notable, although it would seem worthwhile to give an account of advice she's given that's remarkable. It could be especially difficult to find a source reliable enough to be cited as an example of condemnation of Stoppard because of the policy not to use self-published material as a source about a living person even if the writer is well-regarded.Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is editorial oversight; which is why personal blogs/sites aren't acceptable sources. But if a critic writes an article for a reputable outlet (i.e. news/media/magazine) there is no reason in theory why that would not be acceptable. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for including the breastfeeding section, especially with the hint she puts Nestle above good health, as there are no third-party sources to refer to – the inclusion reflects the fact that the article has caused uproar, with many people deeming her incompetent, corrupt, etc, but that uproar isn’t reflected in something that could be cited.Billwilson5060 (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the key issue; it seems to be a lot of hot air from insignificant commentators. I can't find any reliably published criticism of her words. Storm in a teacup, that sort of thing. I wouldn't be opposed to removing it. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure how the Independent article can be said to use Wikipedia for the info that she works with Nestle – it quotes "Jayne Threlfall, Midwife and International Board Certified Lactation" (word missing?), who would appear to be aware of the matter. It’s also open that she works with them here: [1]. Interestingly, she chaired a discussion on the issue last year [2], which appears to have concluded that sustained breastfeeding should be promoted.Billwilson5060 (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True; it has been pointed out she clearly is working with Nestle. I'm not sure about the "promoting formula milk" bit. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It now refers to a reference to a “possible conflict of interest”; there could perhaps be slight tweaks to this. To accuse her of changing advice for Nestle or promoting forumla milk at all (the Nestle page is behind a disclaimer that it is information not advertising and that breastfeeding is better) are serious accusations. It could be interesting to see if there’s any response.Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note; editors at The Independent have removed the article most of that section was sourced to, so I've had to cut our content here (obviously). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miriam Stoppard. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]