Talk:Rowenna Davis

Selection as MP

Is anyone going to update with this article http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/10435458.Journalist_vying_to_become_city_s_new_MP/ ? or unnecessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbellazz (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article already mentions the selection process. As it will be decided soon, we might as well wait to see the result before commenting further. Andrew Davidson (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does not mention the reactions she has received for running as an MP. I believe it is a necessary part of the article. Feel free to add positive reactions to counterbalance the negative for a complete view (if you can find it). Dumbellazz (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Any evidence to support tagging this article?

Im perplexed to note that Advert and Fan tags had been added to this article. There doesn't seem to be any justification for this at all. The article doesn't go beyond basic biographical detail. Granted the subject has achieved a lot for someone so young – but NPOV is not being violated by a faithful reflection of her notable achievements. From a quick google Im not seeing any negative information about the subject that's being suppressed. We ought not to put derogatory tags onto our BLPs without good reason. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I reviewed all the material for this subject when working on the DYK and put most of it in. The one item which wasn't included was some discussion of her coverage of an operation upon Twitter, e.g. Twitter, comments, and the reaction to Rowenna Davis’ NHS surgery liveblog. I didn't include this because I didn't find a substantial source commenting upon the matter - just some comment on journalism blogs and forums. Anyway, without some specific issue such as that, the tags should not be used because they would not be actionable. We require details and evidence, not unsupported opinion. Andrew Davidson (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to match the frequent tagging of the article

The article had a lot of superfluous information which was not necessary in order to act as self-promotion for the subject's political career. I removed the self-promotionary elements of the article in line with wikipedia's guidelines; emotive and purposefully selected facts are no longer utilised in the article. I also removed the category of Feminist writer as from the articles listed on the page and after a quick google of her name, none are about feminism. Before changing my edits I would appreciate prior discussion. WilliamBaked (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I also removed category people from Peckham and Lewisham as it is clear that she is not from either of these two places, given the fact that it clearly states she attended school in North London. WilliamBaked (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted those bold changes and added a citation for her birth in Lewisham. For examples of her position on feminism, see Making feminism mainstream or LabourList is drowned out by ego-stroking testosterone – It’s time for a virtual feminist party. As for speedy deletion, please see details of the article's history above. It has been on Wikipedia's front page where it has been thoroughly inspected and reviewed. There was a deletion discussion and the result was that it was speedily kept, not deleted. Andrew Davidson (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Referencing two feminism articles which are both over three years old is making a mockery of the feminist writer category, please re-consider removing the category until the subject has provided substantial material on the matter which isn't just general parroting. Also, there are still biographical information which has been re-included which is superfluous for someone still mostly irrelevant, perhaps in a few years subject will be more relevant if subject decides to climb the political ladder. And in regards to the deletion discussion I was addressing the recent tagging of the article, not the tagging from 2012. People are still thinking it should be deleted due to the soap box element, hence my edit to remove the self-promotary aspects of the article. WilliamBaked (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Categories can be quite fuzzy, with overlaps and levels so we can try some variations. I have amended the list. Andrew Davidson (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that describing her as a feminist writer doesn't feel right. Unless there is more evidence than those two posts, then it's clearly not something she sees as a priority over other matters. Fluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 21:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Questionable late April 2026 edits

Per WP:BRD when an edit is reverted, it's the editor who made the controversial edit that ought to accept they've not immediately gained consensus, and if they feel strongly about it, start a section on talk. To save our admins some work and as the other editor is relatively new, I'll do the honours, but will note that IMO consensus remains for the status quo. Therefore, I'll likely be restoring the long standing version in the next day or so - even if the other editor still favours their change (Unless any arguments they make are convincing of course, or if any volunteer editor unconnected to next weeks election chimes in to support them).

The Resume tag | 'Data breaches' section contradiction
I'd not support a resume tag even if the whole 'Data breaches' section was removed. But having the two on the page together makes the page the biggest joke on Wikipedia. It's May 1st not April 1st. The 'Data breaches' takes about a fitht of the page & is obviously the last thing anyone would put on a resume. One or both have to go, per the spirit of WP:BLP we dont have to include -ve statements with mediocre sources. This said, I'd be in favour of removing the tag, at least some negative info seem NPOV to include, and gives the reader all the relevent facts to make up their own minds.

Charity
Id prefer to put back the charity paragraph but I'd concede that's the one area where there might be a policy case for a cut, so I probably wont restore that unless I happen to come across a suitable mention in a secondary source. It didn’t even tell 1% of her volunteer work to help others anyway.

Deleted 'Political interregnum' section
All this says is she became a teacher, working first in Southampton & then at Croydon. To me this isn't promotinal at all, it merely fills gaps in the biography that otherwise readers would worry about. It's the sort of non-controveral basic fact where a WP:primary source is fine.

I don't know her well enough to be 100% sure, but I've been told by folk with a close connection that for almost the whole of the past two decades, Rowenna's been putting in close to 100 hours per week on both paid & unpaid work trying to make the world better for other people - in the interregnum period this has included long hours doing low level work at foodbanks, to sitting on various think tanks, mentoring up to a dozen disadvantaged young people simultaneously. She's maybe the closest thing we have to a saint in UK politics right now. Huh, had we included much of this in the article, then sure we'd need strong secondary sources to avoid WP:promo. But to say she's a teacher? That's just basic bio material that doesnt big her up in any way, but fills gaps readers might otherwise be curious about.

I'm curious myself to hear the other editors reasoning - from a review of their edits they're obviously rather canny, which makes it all the more perplexing why they apparently want to defend the unconstructive edits. Will of course keep an open mind in case I'm missing something. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to completely remove the data breaches section. I think the fact Davis has been in the news twice in 15 years for two completely unrelated but similar incidents is not particulary notable.

Charity section was purely promotional. The status quo version used only primary sources which now have dead URLs.

Political interregnum: firstly, Davis is not notable as a politician per WP:NPOL, but passes WP:NAUTHOR for Tangled Up in Blue (book). It is WP:UNDUE to include every single job and role she has held, this is not a WP:RESUME and it's fine to have gaps. This was sourced to her own Twitter and a passing mention in an article about prospective council candidates - if her work as a teacher is notable then provide reliable, independent sources that cover it in some depth. Orange sticker (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Would have accepted your resolution to the contradiction, but looks like Carrite's took care of business with the optimal fix. (A veteran editor known for sound judgment on politics, and an awesome sense of humour - just check out his talk page.)

No worries on the charity para, I'd agree if anyone wants to add that back, they should sort any deadlinks first.

On interregnum - no it's not fine to have gaps, if they can be avoided without violating policy. For a public figure (Rowenna used to be all over TV back in the day) it's desirable to outline what they've been doing their whole life. That's like day one 'art of the biographer'. There's no need to find additional secondary sources - as per WP:N The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles This said, I heard what you said elsewhere about likening to enforce NPOV especially around election time, which is admireable. Other edits have suggested you dont want the article to over emphasise the extent to which she's a politician, and I can see why you might feel a "Political interregnum" section would do that. So I'm going to leave the section out till after the election. If she wins, you'd hopefully agree it warrants going back. Even the source you yourself added to the Tangled page, which is mildly critical overall, mentions her "commendably detailed Wikipedia page" and the political interregnum. It's an obviously worthwhile section to the reader. And service to the reader is what editing Wikipedia articles should be all about.FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)