Talk:Gina Miller

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

Notability[edit]

Ahem WP:BLP1E. Widefox; talk 00:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.[1] Qexigator (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and it's a pretty significant E. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it is one single element.
My thinking is that the combination "True & Fair Foundation / Campaign" and the court case might tip her towards notability. I did not start an article for her co-challenging party Deir Dos Santos.
Note, also, that there is an article on the Germanophone Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.... which, interestingly, uses as sources this interview with her (in German), and (fwiw) has a birth date (sourced from this article). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the notability tah given the snowball for rejecting the merging. Not only does press coverage make her notability crystal clear but the nature of the case makes it equally certain that her notability will remian ofr life and well beyond. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Die Zeit interview with her is indeed in German, it is a more thorough and up-to-date interview than others I have seen, and I suggest justifies inclusion as a link (see WP:NONENGEL). Translation services are easily available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use it as a source, much more useful than an EXT. Widefox; talk 16:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I've tried but dismally failed to edit the infobox at Wikidata (clearly I have no idea how that is supposed to work - I suggest using a standard infobox, that most editors will find easy to understand). Anyway, she was born in 1965, not 1964 or 1966, so someone more competent than I needs to do the editing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we cannot make an exception for this article. If you want wikipedia to abandon wikidata uou need to find a place to open the debate, here is not the place. Got to be the worst idea I have heard on wikipedia ever, though, and you'll get opposition, to say the least of it. The fact that you cannot use wikidata properly is not an argument for wikipedia to abandon it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata says she was born in 1965, as do we though the BBC ref merely says she is 51, which isnt a ref for being born in 65. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly "the worst idea" you have heard if someone who has edited here on WP for over ten years finds it unworkable. Anyway, the FT source I linked to above clearly gives her precise birth date, though per WP:BLP it would be best to give only the year, i.e. 1965. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you find it unworkable is irrelevant. But by all means take your concerns elsewhere, just dont expect us to abandon wikidata for you. I cant read the FT article, it is behind a pay wall. Do we have a dob? If so what is it? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not just me, then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And we dont hide dobs in BLPs. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be conscious of WP:BLPPRIVACY. I managed to access the FT article with no problems, and I'm not a subscriber. And I have never suggested "abandoning wikidata" - just noting that it didn't work for me, and gently suggesting that, without making its interface more intuitive, perhaps it might not work for other people either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out how to use wikidata perfectly well in a single session, it isnt hard. I cannot see the FT article at all. I am not signed in or in the UK, which is fair enough, IMO, a typical reader would be the same. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLPPRIVACY refers to people who are borderline notable, not the case here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1965 is now input in Wikidata, the infobox should short itself momentarily. Thank you! Rama (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that the Wikidata-driven infobox works the same as the normal infobox, it just falls back to Wikidata where it can. So you can pass it other parameters as normal, and also override values from Wikidata by setting them locally. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to use this type of infobox. I have never seen an article on a person use this type and there's simply no reason too. In fact, consensus is clearly against using this type otherwise more articles would use them. It seems just a couple of users are pushing to use this type and if they didn't no one else would be seeking to use it.

I dont agre with what you are saying at all, just leave it be, please, and stop edit warring while claiming a monopoly onconsensus, nobody is agaonst wikidata. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

What is this woman's nationality? 31.48.111.56 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British, as stated in the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: For the avoidance of any doubt, I've now added this reference, which states: "The case was brought on behalf of a group of campaigners but Miller became its face when she was assigned the role of lead claimant by one of Britain's top judges. The second named claimant is Deir Tozetti Dos Santos, a Brazil-born hairdresser. Both are British citizens." Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no reason for her not to be described in the lead as being Guyana-raised as that is factual and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.100.141 (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that says she was "Guyana-raised"? The current source says only that she was born in British Guiana, and went to school in Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It became Guyana in 1966 - do you have a reference that states she grew up somewhere else away from her Guyanese parents? And as a side note - the companies she is involved in aren't relevant/notable and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.100.141 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Guyana-raised" is imprecise, at least partly inaccurate, and not in any of the sources. She was born in British Guiana (which became Guyana when she was aged 1), and moved to Britain aged 10. Was she only "raised" between the ages of 1 and 10? The term is imprecise and there is no good reason to use it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do any editors think it would be a good idea to pipe the word "British" in the opening sentence to British nationality law, rather than to British people? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless we already do so in similar cases, if we do bring your evidence ehre, otherwise, no. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could but it strikes me as not so appropriate. The subject is a person... Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"raised in Guyana"[edit]

Sources tell us that she lived there to age 10. Without getting into nitpicking detail of what counts as being "raised" somewhere, it seems a little excessive to suggest that anyone's formative years only go up to to age 10. The infobox includes her birthplace and that should be enough, at least for the lede.

Conversely, her business dealings and charity work are widely mentioned in sources, though they aren't obviously controversial. They have occupied much of her life up to 2016, and it seems perverse to leave them out of the lede. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree with both those points. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that we assume that as a child and teenager someone is brought up, we dont need to state this as we dont state the obvious. We can say she grew up in Guyana and England though how it is right now is fine. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I've reverted this edit as it seems likely, from the editor's user name, that there may be conflict of interest issues. See the contact information on this page. Any article subject who is concerned about the accuracy of an article may of course request other editors to make those changes, per WP:PSCOI, but it is strongly advised that neither they nor their close associates seek to make changes themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Outcome"?[edit]

The Outcome subsection doesn't actually state the outcome of the case. 84.248.218.89 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of children, different totals[edit]

The final sentence of the bio section states she has 3 children (source Nov. 4 Express article). However,the bio box shows 5 children (no specific source cited).

Hope someone can take care of this factual conflict. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of 5 children was made in this unsourced edit, which also included a falsehood about her birth name. Best to revert to the previously cited figure of 3, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She was born Gina Nadira Singh. Really? As a Sikh female she would normally have been called Gina Nadira Kaur. Could someone check this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.178.237 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common misconception that "Singh" (= "lion") as a surname is limited to Sikh males and that their womenfolk have to use "Kaur" (= "princess"). Among Sikhs, it is commonly limited to men, but among Hindus, the community the article ascribes to her parents, it may be used by both males and females. That her parents were Hindus rather than Sikhs is confirmed by her mother's having a traditional Hindu female name: Sikh women traditionally use Hindu male names. NRPanikker (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodean School[edit]

This seems to have been written out of Wikipedia despite being recorded by the BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Times and other sources.

It appears that Ms Miller now denies that she went there but this appears to be either a previously falsified history or an attempt to rewrite history. I think that there is sufficient recorded evidence for this to be included.

86.163.76.131 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There'll be plenty of sources then. Why not add a few here. This is Paul (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lie about the Law Degree[edit]

On the website of her firm SCM50, the following statement appeared: ‘Gina has three degrees in marketing, human resource management and law.’ A similar statement appeared on her ‘Moneyshe’ website and in an online brochure for SCM Direct. In truth, Gina Miller does not have a law degree. She did study for one at the University of East London, but left before sitting her final exams. (She does have the two other degrees.) When asked about the discrepancy, her lawyers told the Mail she was unaware of the false claim prominently displayed on the website and said the responsibility for the mistake lay with a freelance copywriter. Nevertheless, that reference to a law degree is included in some of the flattering profiles compiled with her co-operation, including one in the anti-Brexit Financial Times.

However this is from the Daily Mail so I suppose we can't include it right? Reaper7 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...political campaigns aimed at reversing the result of the referendum.[edit]

Is it correct to say that she leads campaigns to reverse the result? What does "reverse the result" actually mean here?

Is it not more accurate to say that she campaigns to frustrate the result of the referendum by thwarting its implementation?89.207.1.20 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct to say that she believes she should have more say on UK policy than the 52% - 17,410,742 brexit voters.

Is it correct to say that she is part of the money elite whose net worth will be greatly affected when the UK leave the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.113.234 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the sentence about "reversing the result of the referendum" - it was both unclear and unsourced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for leaving law degree[edit]

This is ambiguous. It offers two reasons for her leaving her law degree: her wish of her parents to return to Guyana, and her sexual assault. Needs clarification; perhaps both were contemporaneous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.196 (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More specific birth place[edit]

Does anyone have any sources with a more specific birthplace listed than just "British Guiana"? I would assume she was born in Georgetown (by that point her father was already living there) but I can't seem to find any confirmation. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17 August reverts[edit]

Hello Praxidicae, I don't understand your revert [2]. Why should we include an opinion piece published in the Daily Express absent secondary coverage? I believe it is common practice to include opinion pieces only if their relevance is indicated through secondary coverage or if published in notable RS.

Including her opposition to Brexit in the "motivations" subsection suggests that this was the reason behind her lawsuit. Without a reliable source to make that connection we are engaging in original research. 82.132.241.2 (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters, it's been there for quite a while and second, it's an op ed written by her, so it's not like we're attributing it to an op-ed written by someone else. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it having been here for quite a while is a reason for its inclusion, given that I am not trying to edit-war it out there is no need for appeals to WP:STATUSQUO or similar. I don't doubt that she is against Brexit, I find the inclusion in the subsection improper because it suggests a connection to the lawsuit when she (or anyone else) do not say so: My concern is WP:OR, rather than WP:V. 82.132.241.2 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gina_Miller&oldid=1210118300"