Talk:Andrea Jenkyns

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrea Jenkyns article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1

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. This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians / Politics and Government 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Animal rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Yorkshire Mid‑importance Yorkshire portal Andrea Jenkyns is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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 in Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Removal of information about Net Zero Watch

DeFacto you just removed content with the message "not sure that DeSmog is a suitably high-quality reliable source as demanded by WP:BLP for these sort of claims". It's unclear what claim you think DeSmog is sourced for. Could you elaborate? Furthermore, there is no need to remove the whole paragraph, as there is a primary source for her joining the board of directors. You could have amended the paragraph to reflect that and remove DeSmog. As it happens, DeSmog was only used to source the date she quit. If you are uncomfortable with the statement: " The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which has been characterised as practising and promoting climate change denial." That's what is says in the lede of the article about GWPF, do you want the sources there copied here? DeSmog was only used as a source for termination date, DeSmog links to a primary source [1]. How shall we rectify this? --Jabbi (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, primary sources should be backed by high-quality reliable secondary sources. In the removed text DeSmog was playing the role of that secondary source.

That means that we were relying on that DeSmog article to support that:

• Between May 2023 and May 2025 Jenkyns was a member of the board of directors of Net Zero Watch (not found in it)
• Net Zero Watch is a lobbying organisation associated with The Global Warming Policy Foundation (not found in it)
• Net Zero Watch has been characterised as practising and promoting climate change denial (not found in it)

and that it, as a biased activist single-issue publication, could be considered as a high-quality secondary source for this particular content in this context.

Hope that helps. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, thanks that's super helpful. However, I think you have misunderstood WP:BLPPRIMARY. It does not preclude the use of primary sources, it urges the editor to "Avoid misuse of primary sources". I refer you to policy point 3 for primary sources. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." That is exactly the case here, these are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verifeid by any educated person with access to the primary source". There is no OR, there is no interpretation involved whatsover. There is ample 2nd sources to back the other two statements. I take it you would like those? But it is clear, the primary sources are fine in this instance. --Jabbi (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, I accept that the dates are simple facts and can be verified with that primary source, although it needs a secondary source to give it due weight. Is this fact widely reported in reliable secondary sources? However, the other two statements contain subjective opinions which need secondary sources for both verifiability and due weight, and the third one needs full attribution too. Who characterised them as doing those two things? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto One thing at a time. Why would the statement, "Between May 2023 and May 2025 Jenkyns was a member of the board of directors of Net Zero Watch." need anything other than the primary sources? This is a factual statement, much like "an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label". This is a public figure who has joined the board of directors of a noteworthy organisation. Please explain why this might be undue. --Jabbi (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, not all facts are worthy of inclusion and the way we decide which are is by their prevalence in reliable secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, no, that's incorrect. I have to repeat myself. A primary source is sufficient to make a factual statement. WP:BLPPRIMARY says to use extreme caution and "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." So it is not a requirement to provide a secondary source, the only requirement is to use caution. But there is no OR and no intepretation. The statement is therefore valid in itself. --Jabbi (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, we risk going round in circles now on the first point. Let's see if anyone else has a view on it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto Your intepretation of the use of primary sources is obviously wrong, it's not a point of intepretation or ambiguity. It clearly states primary sources are acceptable for factual statements used cautiously. I have added a source for the second two statements you were uncomfortable with. --Jabbi (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto what's the problem this time? Why's Companies House not acceptable for termination date? Is that your sole issue? --Jabbi (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, it's good practice to give a diff, so I assume you mean this time.

Please see the edit summary for the problems.

Have you read WP:BLP? There are stringent requirements on the quality of information included in these articles, including strict adherence to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, each factoid you restore needs to comply with all of Wiki's content policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of of the relevant policies. Your revert message is: "this is a BLP, and needs POV to be fully attributed and only high-quality reliable sources to be used (see in WP:BLPPRIMARY that Companies House is a no-no)". But earlier we had established that primary sources are sufficient for factual statements. Your earlier three points and responses:

• Between May 2023 and May 2025 Jenkyns was a member of the board of directors of Net Zero Watch (in primary sources: Net Zero Watch and Company House)
• Net Zero Watch is a lobbying organisation associated with The Global Warming Policy Foundation in (The Climate Change Counter Movement)
• Net Zero Watch has been characterised as practising and promoting climate change denial (in The Climate Change Counter Movement)

Please explain explicitly what the issue is with Companies House as a primary source? --Jabbi (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto:, just pinging you in case you're lost somewhere in Wikiworld. Thanks for your time. --Jabbi (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, let's look at this from a different angle. Let's think about due weight and balance too. Looking at WP:PROPORTION, WP:BALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES (all parts of WP:NPOV]]), are we sure that there is enough weight given by the body of "reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" on the subject to her being a member of the board of NZW (just for 2 years whilst she was a member of the conservative party) to justify our mention of it at all? I've not found any, so I'd say there is not. If you manage to convince us otherwise, we'll need the same again supporting, and attributing, the claim about NZW and climate change denial, balanced proportionately by similarly attributed alternative views.

On the question over the Companies House source, WP:BLPPRIMARY rules it out saying "Do not use public records that include personal details...". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: Brilliant. Thanks so much. I think we should stick to one thing at the time. WP:BLPPRIMARY says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." but the source includes nothing but the subject's name. It obviously not too sensitive, as there needs to be some way of conveying who the document is about - right? There needs to be some way of saying "This is a source about x". This means then that the statement about her having been a board member is valid. So the use of that primary source is fine, right? But are you suggesting that this is not enough to justify the inclusion of her having been a board member because there aren't secondary sources explicily referencing her board membership? --Jabbi (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, the subject's name is a personal detail. You have ignored the requirements of WP:NPOV that I also mentioned. Even WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies". Read the secondary sources and see if they cover this detail about her. If they don't then neither should we. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: if what you are suggesting is the right interpretation of policy, it would be inadmissible to use publishers pages for information about biblio, disco or filmography if they included the author/s real name. I hope you're not suggesting that. But I get the sense that this is becoming unnecessarily complicated. The mention of being a member as a director of a notable lobby group can hardly be undue. It's just statement of fact. --Jabbi (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi, what you may assume about data from publishers is irrelevant here. The solution here is simple though. Do a survey of quality reliable sources discussing Jenkyns's life, and note all the data about NZW you find. Then weigh it up, and if there is due weight for any aspects of it, summarise it in your own words and add the appropriate amount into the article, duly attributed and sourced, of course. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think an RFC is in order. --Jabbi (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement over whether it is okay to include the factual statement that "Between May 2023 and May 2025 Jenkyns was a member of the board of directors of Net Zero Watch):

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on Andrea Jenkyns and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. The dispute seems to centre on this edit by Jabbi, which added the following text and citations to the article: Between May 2023 and May 2025 Jenkyns was a member of the board of directors of Net Zero Watch, a lobbying organisation associated with The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which has been characterised as practising and promoting climate change denial.[1][2][3] References McKie, R.E. (2023). "Disseminating Ideas: European Countermovement Activity". The Climate Change Counter Movement. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_3. "Andrea Jenkyns MP joins Net Zero Watch board". Net Zero Watch. 31 May 2023. "Termination of a Director Appointment". Companies House. The dispute seems to have started with this edit, also by Jabbi, which added the following text and citations: Between May 2023 and May 2025 Jenkyns was a member of the board of directors of Net Zero Watch, a lobbying organisation associated with The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which has been characterised as practising and promoting climate change denial.[1][2] References "Andrea Jenkyns MP joins Net Zero Watch board". Net Zero Watch. 31 May 2023. "Andrea Jenkyns". DeSmog. I'll start with the DeSmog citation. It points to the same NZW source used in the most recent edit. The NZW source is primary, which can be used for uncontroversial claims about a living person. As a secondary source (albeit with a clear editorial bias) DeSmog affords the primary Net Zero Watch source some WP:DUE for inclusion, but only just. McKie, R.E. (2023) seems redundant to me. Is it here to establish that Net Zero Watch is the campaign group of the GWPF? The Companies House source is also primary, being used to establish the date Jenkyns left NZW. There's nothing particularly controversial about the statements of fact here, though it feels a bit WP:SYNTH to me, especially using two different primaries to establish the dates Jenkyns was with NZW. I would feel better about having another reliable secondary source here, that isn't as overtly activist as DeSmog for purposes of DUE. I note the DeSmog article cites the Graun four times. If her involvement were really worth mentioning we should be able to find at least one. If that will get DeFacto over the hump then hopefully we can avoid an RfC here. Xan747 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I missed it earlier that the Companies House document contains personal information disallowed by BLPRIMARY. However, her personal about page gives the dates she was with NZW, so we wouldn't need the government filing to establish that. The question is still one of DUE. If we have to grind this hard for one factoid in a sea of other coverage about a subject, it means basically no one cares and neither should we. Xan747 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Xan747 thanks for diligently looking through this. I agree with all your results. There is a recent interview in PoliticsHome that mentions this [2]. Is that sufficient, do you think? --Jabbi (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes that will work. And if you wish, you can use her official website to establish the dates since that piece only mentions that it was during her time as an MP. Xan747 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]