Talk:Florence Mildred White

Cleanup needed

This article contains significant over-reliance on primary sources, original research, and personal opinions. Statements like "This however was not going to be as simple as perhaps she envisaged, as will be seen, but Chief Constable Richardson had the foresight to take steps to ensure she would get her pension...This was an irrefutable statement" are not encyclopedic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mildred White

Pigsonthewing: Thank you for your support in getting this article published. It is my intention to improve on it within the coming months especially with the sources issues. TimothyWF (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Timothy: thank you for your pledge to continue working on the article. I see Gerda has left you some helpful suggestions on how to address the issues of unencyclopedic tone. You might also find it helpful to consult such resources as WP:PERFECT, relevant template documentation and style guidelines, and examples of similar articles (particularly those listed at WP:FA or WP:GA, which tend to be good models). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

References cleanup

I've just corrected a url in a reference and I can see that there is a considerable amount of work to do in cleaning up the references. I'd like to help out in doing that but at present I find the mixture of text, references and annotations too dense to easily cope with. I'd like to seek consensus therefore to segregate the citations from the main text and place them in the References section as list-defined references; to separate citations from annotations (in a Notes section); and to make use of cite templates where urls or indexable journals are cited. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Do you propose using short citations for sources where multiple pages are cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

The request has been implemented - collapsing to refocus on needed improvements to this article (see for example sections above and below). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite having been asked more than once not to do such things; and being warned that continuing to so while the matter is unresolved would be disruptive ("Please desist, until this dispute is resolved, since such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."), one editor, User:Nikkimaria, an administrator (who should therefore know better), has repeatedly removed White's nationality from the infobox on this article. Her edit summaries when doing so include

• "fmt" (removing content from an infobox is not formatting)
• "rv: please don't add issues or remove tags without solving; see talk" (no mention of nationality had been or was subsequently made on this talk page)
• "issues unresolved" (what issues?)
• "cited essay does not apply" (what essay?)
• "per doc" (Documentation not specified)
• "per template doc" - the infobox template's documentation does not support its removal
• most recently, "'should not be used' under these circumstances" (the circumstances, and the source of the quoted words, not being given.)

The nationality, which is given as "English" in the lede, should be restored; and not removed again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As you are aware, the documentation for the infobox specifies that nationality should not be included when, as in this case, it can be inferred from the subject's birthplace. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, nationality cannot be inferred simply from birthplace. The UK is not the USA and not every child born in Warminster is automatically a British citizen. See http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/index.php?page=FAQ_UKBAandgovernmentpolicy_question_12 - the law prior to 1983 was even more restrictive than it is now. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that you reverted to restore that wording, after I removed it to reflect common practice (and because there seems to have been no consensus to add it). As you are aware the dispute on the template's talk page is unresolved; and as you are aware, every time you remove nationality from an infobox, you carry out an action that will be difficult to reverse if the outcome of the discussion is not in your favour; and as you are aware (because I have just pointed it out to you again) you have therefore been asked, a number of times, to desist. Not to mention RexxS' point, above, which reiterates and reinforces what I have told you previously, about the foolhardiness of making unsubstantiated inferences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, a months-old discussion cannot and should not prevent the implementation of guidance as it currently stands; I'm sure you could see the potential drawbacks of such an approach applied to other situations (like, say, a dispute about whether infoboxes should be used at all meaning that no new infoboxes should be added, despite guidelines allowing such additions?). While I appreciate you may feel strongly about this issue, your requests to "desist" from editing according to current standards have no basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You appear to once again have overlooked, if not ignored: "such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive."; not to mention "every time you remove nationality from an infobox, you carry out an action that will be difficult to reverse if the outcome of the discussion is not in your favour". Quite apart from that, and your removal of such data when the discussion was ongoing and recent, the disputed guidance on which you rely does not require or support the removal of the data from this article's infobox, even though you may feel strongly about this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that the template in question is used in this article, guidance as to its implementation is relevant to its use here. I don't think I've overlooked any portion of your demands; I simply find them incompatible with usual wikipractice, or indeed with your own approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not not say that the guidance as to the implementation of the template in question is not relevant to its use here; I pointed out that "the disputed guidance on which you rely does not require or support the removal of the data from this article's infobox". I note that you again do not address my point in "such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

To rephrase: this article uses the template, and the template documentation supports the exclusion of that parameter under the circumstances present here. Your "point" is addressed above (00:59, 21 March 2014). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, you're wrong. In this case, the place of birth, Warminster, is insufficient to infer Florence White's nationality. The documentation states this: "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace - note that many countries do not automatically grant citizenship to people born within their borders.". The UK is one of those many countries where nationality cannot be inferred from birthplace, as the guidance explains. --RexxS (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that the subject's nationality is in accordance with her place of birth, Andy's change to the guidance notwithstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no such thing as "in accordance with her place of birth" in the UK. You cannot infer Florence White is British from a birthplace of Warminster. Being a British subject is determined by the status of parents, or by naturalisation, not birth. In this case the parameter needs to be restored. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The parameter should only be used when its value is other than what would be expected given the subject's place of birth. In this case, it isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. What do you mean by "expected"? Expected by whom? The documentation says "inferred" and if you want to change that, you need to get consensus at Template talk:Infobox person. Inference is a process of logical deduction and expectation is guesswork with or without actual foundation, so expectation is not a sensible means of providing information for an encyclopedia. To infer Florence White's nationality, you need a lot more information that simply her birthplace, and that is precisely the point of having that information in the infobox. The parameter needs to be restored. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored? Such a restoration would not serve the reader, and would be contrary to the MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It would serve the reader by making clear her nationality. And what bit of the MOS? I give you the courtesy of supplying links when I quote policy, why can't you? Anyway, that's deflection. The question is whether Florence White's nationality can be inferred from Warminster - and the answer is it can't. The parameter needs to be restored. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not "contrary to MOS" if citizenship cannot be inferred from birthplace - in the US and Canada, it can, but not in the UK, no jus soli; the parameter is needed where you have the problem for people who change citizenship during their life. Nationality is an OPTIONAL parameter, and hence respect should be given to the editors doing the content work where there are clear exceptions to the rules. WP:IAR exists as does the reality that MOS is not one of the Five Pillars, particularly when it can be so easily edited by people who then go on to enforce their own interpretation of their own edits. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am watching this article and want to improve it. Whether the infobox shows her nationality is not my first topic. It should be discussed (again) in the template talk. My personal view: I NEVER add a nationality to an infobox ("the only real nation is humanity"), but I ALWAYS respect if others enter the parameter. In such a case I would only change it if it was wrong or unsourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Never" seems to have gotten a lot shorter. In this case, it's wrong. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly you misunderstood "add", or I was not clear enough. "Add" means - at least for me - have the parameter where it wasn't before, - restoring a parameter wanted by someone else is not adding it, and in this article, I didn't even do that. You might want to help readers of this discussion by supplying a diff for your "wrong"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The average reader, given a British birth and death place and no indication to the contrary, infers a British nationality; that's what I referred to with "expectations" above, and so what falls under "exclude unnecessary information" per WP:IBX. Furthering the confusion with which this discussion was begun, though, it appears that there are different understandings of "nationality" at play - both interpretations are unnecessary in the infobox here, but would affect what is meant by "restored". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Inferences are often inaccurate. My own feeling is that inserting nationality should be, like infoboxes themselves, the decision of the individual editor. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The naive reader may well do so; but they would be foolish, for the reason RexxS and I have pointed out, several times: "Being a British subject is determined by the status of parents, or by naturalisation, not birth." The template documentation already deals adequately with the distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship", where applicable.) For an editor to do so, having had that pointed out to them, is inexcusable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The template documentation didn't define which interpretation of "nationality" was meant, and the potential for confusion was amplified by your "clarify[ing]" addition of a reference to "citizenship" in the "nationality" field. You yourself confused the issue at the beginning of this section: you proposed restoring the parameter with a value of "English" (suggesting this interpretation of nationality), but your argument (and the addition that Rex edit-warred into the documentation, without either fixing your confusion or clarifying whether that was the sense meant for the parameter) is predicated on the legal definition of the term, which would allow only a value of "British". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You may find English people #English nationality helpful, as you are quite likely to be lynched if you "infer" that British is the only value of nationality available for the Welsh, Scots or Northern Irish. nationality=English is an equally valid option. --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and the solution is to tweak the parameters, not remove material from infoboxes. Montanabw^(talk) 23:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Rex, you may find it helpful to note that I linked that exact section in the comment you reply to. But thank you for highlighting the problem with the sense of nationality you and Andy have imposed on the template. Montana, a) I tried to revert the problem that Andy added to the template documentation, and was reverted, and b) sometimes a removal is the best solution - if the broader sense of nationality is meant then the parameter should not be included per the documentation, and if the legal sense then the parameter that was removed was wrong, so either way it's out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, the solution should be to add both as options. Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that both should be possible interpretations, and have made that change to the documentation - let's see if it sticks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

...and citizenship

The documentation of the infobox used in this article is quite unambiguous: "Nationality... Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ." White's British (= United Kingdom) citizenship is clearly not the same as her English nationality. I have therefore again restored the latter, per the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, the documentation does not support the restoration of that parameter: British is the nationality in the legal sense justified above, and English in the non-legal sense of nationality can be readily inferred from birthplace. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no explanation above, and no template documentation, which supports the removal of this data from the infobox on this article. Who says that the nationality parameter is used in this infobox "in the legal sense"? You recently removed wording about "legal nationality" from the template documentation for this very parameter. And no, "English in the non-legal sense of nationality" cannot be inferred from birthplace, let alone readily so. While this matter is currently under discussion; please stop removing the data from the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Practically speaking: I know English people who would object to being described as British instead of English (and there are Welsh etc.). Why do that to the poor subject of this article who can't defend herself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, the arguments above are based almost entirely on British nationality law; these arguments are not applicable to support restoring the parameter with a value of "English". The non-legal sense of English nationality as a shared, location-based culture allows us to infer it from birthplace, which according to the template documentation means that it should be excluded. As you have not presented any coherent argument in favour of ignoring the template documentation by including the parameter with a value of "English" (as opposed to "British", which is now redundant to the listing of citizenship as British), it should remain out. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "The non-legal sense of English nationality as a shared, location-based culture allows us to infer it from birthplace"; this claim is utterly without merit; nonetheless I invite you to provide evidence to support it. You go on say "which according to the template documentation means that it should be excluded"; since that form of nationality cannot be inferred from birthplace, there is nothing in the template documentation which says this (again, please feel free to cite evidence to the contrary). Quite the contrary, as I quote above: "Nationality... Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ". Finally, you protest that I have "not presented any coherent argument in favour of ignoring the template documentation"; indeed I have not, since the documentation supports my stance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If someone is born in England, absent evidence to the contrary we conclude that their national identity would be English. Omitting some of the documentation as you do in your quotation does not mean that the rest of it does not exist; just because your proposal satisfies one part does not mean it satisfies all of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

First documented policewoman?

This source suggests that the first policewoman in the UK was Edith Smith in 1915. Our article describes her as the first female police officer in Britain with full power of arrest. A number of other sources seem to agree that she and not White was the first documented British policewoman (ex). How should we address this in this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

First Documented Policewoman.

As I understand it there is no documentation that Edith Smith was attested. Also she did not pay into the police pension fund nor receive one when she retired. Mildred White, on the other hand, did pay into the police pension fund from her first day of duty and received a pension from the police pension fund when she retired in 1937, dating back to 1918. Her problem was that no other policewoman had done this so the administrative machinery had to be created. Also, again from day one, she received all the various allowances and benefits of her male colleagues making her their equal. I have deliberately inserted the word 'Documented' into this article because that is what it is. TimothyWF (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Florence Mildred White, proposed deletion of heading note on sources.

I have continued to improve this article over the past months with the help of fellow members of Wikipedia. It is my intention to continue with improvements. I wish to delete the statement in the article's heading that it relies on Primary sources as I do not think this is now correct. If anyone disagrees with my proposed actions please let me know in Talk. TimothyWF (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)TimothyWF (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi TimothyWF, thank you for your work so far. I disagree with the proposed deletion: the article continues to rely heavily on primary sources. If further changes are made the issue may be reconsidered. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Although the article relies for a majority of references on primary sources, there are several books and newspapers cited. This particular tag is nowhere near as important as {{unreferenced}} and similar, because many topics will exist that are (a) notable and (b) encyclopedic even though few or no secondary sources exist. The purpose of the tag atop the article is to attract other editors to help with the suggested improvement, but since the tag has been there for the last half-year, no-one other than Tim has added any sources, let alone secondary ones. At what point do we accept that the tag is not serving any purpose other than to disfigure a decent article on a very niche, but important, subject? --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Backlogs for most cleanup tags go back months if not years, so I'd say it's fairly well accepted that just because a problem has existed for a while without being fixed doesn't mean the problem no longer exists. There is no deadline for fixing things, after all. (As an aside, WP:GNG requires secondary sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course backlogs exist because drive-by tagging is much easier to do than to fix the perceived problem - there's a humorous commentary on that by Harry Mitchell at User:HJ/CBA. As an aside to GNG and "requires": there are sufficient secondary sources to establish notability here, but I think you're reading too much into the 'should' in GNG "Sources". We should always use secondary sources where available, but it is commonly accepted that we may use primary sources in their absence, as long as we use them carefully to avoid OR. Have you ever seen an AfD result in 'delete' solely because the references were primary?

In the case of this article, what if there are no more secondary sources to be found? Are we simply to accept that the article has to have the tag forever? --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If that were the case we would need to discuss next steps, but fortunately it doesn't appear we're there yet. Timothy says he plans to continue with improvements, so let's see how that progresses. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work on this article. So much that Ive alarmed the prime author and I've agreed to stand back. However in my opinion the advice against primary sources is not to avoid POV but also to try and ignore minor details. It seems obvious that secondary sources contain less than primary sources and they are the most notable bits. I have removed some primary sources from this article by just raising the bar over what needs to be included in the biography. I'm willing to do more but it will be alarming. I'm happy as Nikki says that Tomothy should be allowed to further improve the article, and I hate 90% of all templates, but this article contains a lot of detail. It needs to be more concise and the triage of primary sourced text would help. IMO. Victuallers (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Florence Mildred White. Update at 21 October 2014.

I am writing to fulfill the statement I made to improve the article on Mildred White and specifically to look for further secondary sources. I have been busy these last few months doing this. In the UK Police force there were three peer internal newspapers/magazines starting from the late 1800's until about the late 1940's. Females within the Force, for several reasons, were just not written about in these internal police publications. The exception was The Police Chronicle which took up the cause for employing women as police officers between 1918 and 1925. Thereafter it changed, possibly because there was a change of editorship. A few quotes from the Police Chronicle are of interest: 1918: Female Commandant :"In the meantime there is little possibility of the question arising as women police are not authorised to make arrest. Women police do not desire to possess the power of arrest until it is legally and properly vested in them." 1925: Article, Chief and Women Police. Chief Constable states  : "In my opinion the employment of women in police uniform are entirely useless." 1925: "Women police patrols were, of course,a different body, not forming any part of the police service." Article quoting a speech by Lady Nott-Bowers, Police Chronicle, 1918. (Lady N-B was a well known political and social reformer of the time.) I could give other examples including the prevalence of Chief Constables to state that women police would make good chauffeurs - for them. Even though Mildred White held the rank of Inspector her retirement (1937) was not noted in any secondary source such as internal police news, nor indeed any other female officer at this time as far as I can see. Last week I satisfied myself I had exhausted all sources when Lo and Behold I have found, by chance, a further source to investigate. Apart from this I do not think there are any other sources to be found. TimothyWF (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Age

The infobox gave her age at death as "82 or 83" but I have corrected it in line with birth death dates to 84 and I have adjusted the age where stated at points in her lifetime accordingly.Cloptonson (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Attestation wording

I have deleted the section which talks about White making the attestation. The attestation quoted in the article was the new one introduced under the Police Reform Act 2002. It should have been a dead giveaway that the new attestation talks about "fundamental human rights". Nobody in 1918 was going around using terms like "fundamental human rights".--2A02:C7F:F663:F000:8D77:3DAD:A3D2:CFB3 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Human rights was discussed at various official meetings in 1900 especially in the Police Force who were wanting to connect with the public after realising how important it was to do so. To state that 'nobody was going around using terms like 'fundamental human rights' is incorrect. Granted it did not mean quite the same as it does today but I know for a fact that Florence Mildred White had to be attested as were her male colleagues. TimothyWF (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)