Talk:Rosie Winterton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.

If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Affair with Prezza

Can't be long now before there's a section on this.

I think it certainly merits one.

82.22.69.195 10:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The allegations, such as they are, have all been made indirectly, and none have been made in a reputable source (or, for that matter, the tabloids). As and when it becomes widely-reported, then we can consider it for inclusion on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

James F. (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that allegations have been made, even if they are unproven though the entry should make clear it's merely hearsay. 219.89.39.235 08:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Or we could wait 'til they're printed, and we can blame someone else for the potential libel. WP:OR and all that.

James F. (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

James is right, she's threatened to sue for any mention of it, and English libel law being what it is, you can get sued for printing something as false; John Major did it and killed of the trust that then owned the New Statesman. Libel law is an arse, but until it's changed, WP can't print it, as you can sue in any jurisdiction that it's read. -MatGB

Bloggers are publishing the Rosie Winterton affair story, and one of them (Iain Dale) has been on numerous current affairs programs to discuss the allegations. WP may not traditionally comment on blogs, but when they are publishing stories that the press are afraid to, then surely they deserve to be mentioned? - Bloo

As Guido Fawkes (blogger) points out, it has been two weeks since he reported the story, and there is no sign of a writ yet [1] DWaterson 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the current sentence because it made no sense. Also the source needs to be a bit wider and more conclusive than the opinions of one (albeit renowned) blogger. Please feel free to re-write a comprehensible sentence if necessary.Matthewfelgate 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the best sentence, was it? :-) Something like "She is alledged to have engaged in a long-term affair with John Prescott by several political activists and commentators, notably the bloggerGuido Fawkes.", perhaps, but... eurgh. Let's wait 'til PE (or whomever) print it, hmm?

James F. (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to a MoS story has just been added by User:Catchpole: see diff. AFAICS, the only grounds for the story are that he visited her house a lot, and they widely known to be old friends from her days working for his office while in opposition. A man visiting a woman's house is poor grounds for alleging an affair, especially when there is no sourced allegation that he stayed overnight. This is merely a rumour based on flimsy circumstantial evidence, so I have reverted Catchpole's edit. Unless the story is better substantiated, it is unenclyclopedic: wikipedia is not a scandalsheet. --BrownHairedGirl 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)