Talk:Grace Blakeley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grace Blakeley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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: Politics and Government / 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 politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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 scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Employer

Just thought I would point out here her dates for when she has been employed at Tribune have not been included in the infobox as I'm unsure of when she became employed by them. Her earliest articles for Tribune are two from January 2019, however, after this she does appear to have written for them again for around 6 months. Therefore it seems unlikely she was employed by them at this time and more likely just wrote these as sort of one-off's. She then seems to have written consistently every month for Tribune from August 2019 to the present. However, I haven't been able to find any information that states when Tribune actually employed her. My guess would be in August 2019 since this is when she seems to have started regularly writing for them, but I can't find anything that states when they employed her. If anyone can find this information please post it here. Her Tribune pieces can be seen here - https://tribunemag.co.uk/author/grace-blakeley Helper201 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted page to how you left it. Response Source give her start date with them as 13 January 2020 - https://www.responsesource.com/bulletin/news/grace-blakeley-joins-the-team-at-tribune/ See also her personal announcement on twitter saying she'd start 'in the New Year' - https://twitter.com/graceblakeley/status/1206284811750510593?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebsdee (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

I agree with Boredintheevening. Seems like a vanity piece. There are hundreds of such people - in the UK alone - who make appearances on morning shows and have bylines in various magazines and newspapers. I don't see why this particular individual deserves an encyclopedia article ahead of all the others. I can't find any notable publications by her. Her book was published by a non-mainstream outfit (https://www.watkinspublishing.com/about/) that specializes in self-help, alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, and associated claptrap. TomReagan90 (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her views should be represented by independent reliable sources, not editors picking material from her writings. Take it to WP:AfD if you do your due diligence first and are sure it doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Notability (people), but I'd be surprised if it didn't. I'm not being rude I hope in pointing out that you, User:Boredintheevening and others such as User:Turbo174 are so new you haven't had much experience with our notability policy and guidelines or of writing articles which include people's views. I used to do the same thing, pick out bits of something someone had written rather than look for good independent sources discussing their views, and my edits were deleted because of that - or should have been! I'm not criticising anyone, just looking at Turbo174 who has tried hard to improve the article and I applaud that, and the two of you who are questioning her notability. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the kind words and yeah, I apologise for using her own articles as the sources for her views, I kinda followed how it was done on the Owen Jones page (though that wasn't as exstensive in detailing his views). I just wanted to take the page out of Wikipedia:Stub status, but I'll keep this in mind the next time I edit a political figure's article in such a way.--Turbo174 (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Turbo174: no need to apologise, there are experienced editors who do the same thing. And there are too many articles that I'd never use as examples. Thanks for your efforts. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Is seniority a consideration when editing articles? i.e., the longer you've been on Wikipedia, the more weight your opinion carries? (genuine qestion). TomReagan90 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TomReagan90: the more edits you do the more you should learn about our policies and guidelines. Are you really suggesting that your 23 edits could give you as much knowledge of how Wikipedia works as my almost 216,000? But, not to boast, I served 2 terms on the WP:Arbitration Committee and am a WP:CHECKUSER and WP:OVERSIGHTER, ie one of a very small handful of Administrators trusted with those powers. I'm definitely not always right, no one is, but yes, you don't have the experience with notability issues, eg at WP:AfD to claim any significant knowledge of them. Or do you really disagree? Doug Weller talk 14:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words: "Yes"? TomReagan90 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I've seen bad editors who have been here many years - I assume you measure seniority by time. Most don't have the experience I do though. And you didn't answer my question. But I don't understand the point of this discusssion. You are free to take this article to WP:AfD, free to ignore my comments. It won't make any difference to the article. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to enter into seniority discussion, though you both bring up valid points. I've been going through the article and at present it largely reads like a CV and the only connection I can see to the wider world is her membership of a 204-member policy forum within the UK Labour Party. The first significant chunk is about her educational background, and the second chunk just seems to regurgitate her views from her articles. If we went through the article and stripped out the promotional elements, would there really be anything left behind? Would anyone else like to contribute their opinion/reading to this?Boredintheevening (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boredintheevening: I don't have a firm opinion on this. Although I think it would pass AfD, it might not. Did you read the link to notability of people, as that is what needs to be met to keep this article? Doug Weller talk 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Re: basic criteria, the only sources I've found which refer to her are the journalistic outlets that she has contributed to in addition to a couple of reviews of her recently published book. The primary sources used in the article are from a school newsletter, and a university newsletter - which I don't think support notability. Definitely doesn't meet notability for Academics. For creative professionals, she certainly doesn't meet 1,2, or 4 - I need to search around to confirm 3, but unless something has slipped past me she hasn't "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". My current overall reading is that she has two good degrees, she's a staff-writer at a quarterly magazine with a subscriber count of about 2,000 and additionally contributes to other political commentary outlets, she has published a book, and she is an active member of a political party. I'm not entirely fussed whether the article stays or goes, and while I personally dig her politics...I don't entirely see why she needs a Wiki page. It's not like every early-career journalist with a book-deal and an MA is automatically notable.

@Boredintheevening:looks like you are doing your due diligence. If you confirm she doesn't meet 3, then an AfD might be a good way to decide it. The reviews don't look enough to establish her notability. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

Why is this person tagged to ‘Women scientists’ when she has a PPE degree and no scientific background? Andrew ranfurly (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist

@Doug Weller: Since when did someone advocating Marxism equate to that person being regarded as an “evil Marxist”? I don’t understand why you reverted my edit.--LeftiePete (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Marxist economics" is actually a very broad term. A lot of uninformed readers are going to assume means Soviet. Informed readers would know that one can't be an economist these days without taking Marx's ideas into account. It's like how most Westerners would at least unconsciously agree with first wave feminism (women can vote and work), but we don't explicitly identify someone as a feminist unless they explicitly identify as feminist and are recognized for specifically feminist interpretations of works. There are also article subjects who are Christian, Atheist, or whatever, and while that might be notable enough to mention in the "Personal Life" section, we don't put it in the lede unless that's what they're specifically known for. For example, see the Chadwick Boseman article. Or for a comparison, compare Irving Finkel with Christopher Hitchens.

The source cited really only shows that Marx has had an influence on Blakeley but it doesn't include her explicitly identifying as a Marxist^(TM) and it also shows that she isn't a straight Marxist. She explains how Marxist feminism branched off from historical (and patriarchal) Marxism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]