Talk:Layla Moran

Pansexuality is not bisexuality

I removed the category of bisexual politicians because the word bisexual is not in the Guardian source, nor is it in this BBC source . Sexual orientation is a personal description and although some people - including LGBT people who I know - don't understand and equate the two, the fact is that Moran has publicly called herself pansexual but not bisexual Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a solid answer here but there is a very significant overlap between the terms such that they can often be used as synonyms but don't always have to be.

The Pansexuality article says "Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a branch of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity. Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary, it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual".

The Bisexuality article says "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality."

These definitions allow for an interpretation that everybody pan could also be considered bi, but that not everybody bi is necessarily pan. Of course, that's not the only interpretation.

I suspect that a lot of people who identify as pansexual now would have identified as bisexual in the past but prefer the newer term because they feel that it is important to explicitly reject the gender binary, and to acknowledge nonbinary people, so that their identity can not be perceived as erasing anybody else's.

We don't have a category for "Pansexual politicians" so I think that maybe the "Bisexual politicians" category could be put back on but I also think that the "LGBT politicians from England" category covers it well enough that we probably don't need to. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The article on pansexuality is in fact in the Category:Bisexuality but the fact is that this case is categorisation of a living person (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). Moran has publicly called herself a pansexual and not a bisexual. It is not public knowledge whether or not she also accepts the term "bisexual" (for example, some bisexual women also accept being called "lesbian" and can therefore be categorised as both per the note in Category:Lesbians) Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Unproductive argumentation The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Isn't the best way to proceed to note that she refers to herself in these terms, rather than asserting that she *is* pansexual - given that the latter is a contested term? Not sure why my edits on this have been reverted. 92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we also write on Ed Davey's article that "he refers to himself as heterosexual"? Why can we not take it as fact that somebody that identifies as pansexual is in fact pansexual? She presumably identifies as pansexual and not bisexual for a reason. WP:EGRS implies that we should not try to infer what that reason may be. As for why your edit doesn't stand, we follow the WP:CYCLE. --Domeditrix (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My suggested phrasing is more precise, for two reasons: first, pansexual is a contested term and asserting that she is this leads unnecessarily into a discussion about whether that is preferable to bisexual, etc; second, it is clear that is other people referred to themselves as various things - a prophet, the new messiah, a unicorn - we would not automatically say that they *are* these things, just that they *claim* to be such things. I'm not sure what your objection to this is - unless you are wanting to make a political point about self-identification, which doesn't belong here.92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Moran isn't claiming to be a prophet, a messiah, or a unicorn though. She is identifying as having a defined sexual orientation. I think there needs to be an incredibly strong reason in a BLP to override a person's stated sexual orientation, and I'm not convinced you've offered such a reason. I don't see that her identification automatically leads to a discussion of whether pansexuality is 'preferable to' bisexuality, I think that's something that you yourself have read into the article. --Domeditrix (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course she isn't claiming these things, but as a basic principle, it is clearly more objective to assert that she claims to be something. I think you are not offering a reason to override that objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Jv0314 How is my edit WP:NPOV? It is objectively and indisputably true that she *claims* to be this; that is documented and surely more objective than any assertion that she *is* something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not a contested term. We were just discussing how best to cover it in this article. If she says she is pansexual then she is pansexual. While the differences between pansexuality and bisexuality are subtle, and the boundary is not always clear, they are distinct topics. This is why we have separate articles about each.

What you are proposing a weasel worded way to dispute the validity of her identity which is clearly unacceptable behaviour and, if you continue to push your luck, is likely to start earning you warnings for non-neutral editing and/or vandalism. I had been the one to have discovered and reverted your edits to the article then you would already have a couple of warnings against your IP.

We will not be using the construction "She refers to herself as..." in relation to anybody's sexuality, gender, race or whatever. Such a construction is only even vaguely appropriate when a person is using a term of their own invention which clearly does not apply here.

Having reviewed your edits to the article, I think it is very clear that you hold considerable animosity towards Moran and that you should step away from editing this article as you can not do so in a neutral and constructive manner. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Untrue. I have no animosity to her whatsoever, nor am I using weasel words; I am using precise words. There is plenty of evidence that pansexuality is a contested term, and regrettably your own position seems to be driven by a personal agenda regarding gender and sexuality, which is outweighing objectivity here.92.40.173.38 (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Our IP based friend is now hopping their IP and continuing to attempt to vandalise the article. This is clear evidence of bad faith editing. This is basically just trolling so I have requested page protection and I'm rolling this undignified "discussion" up in order to avoid wasting any more of anybody's time on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Layla Moran MP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of partner's dismissal from Lib Dem job

Thought it best to try to hash things out here @Ralbegen:. Personally, I fail to see the relevance of Moran's current partner's dismissal from her job (working for the Lib Dems). Though the dismissal occurred around the same time that Moran coming out as pansexual – thus it being included in the article in The Guardian – there isn't a strong enough link to the event to Moran personally for it to warrant inclusion on a page about Moran. I'd also question whether naming Moran's partner at all is warranted. Reading over WP:BLPNAME, there appears to be a strong presumption in favour of privacy, especially in cases where having a name adds nothing to the article, even if the name has been mentioned in 'news media'. I'd argue the inclusion of Moran's partner's name could be replaced by 'a former Lib Dem staff member'. Domeditrix (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Moran's partner's name is widely disseminated (it's in multiple national newspapers) and it hasn't been intentionally concealed. She is also directly involved with the article's topic, and her investigation for forgery has been covered in the New European, the Guardian and Time amongst others. All of those sources mention this material and their main topic is Moran. It hence seems due to include the material here. The email forgery was a widely covered event in and of itself, but I don't think that additional material about it should be included here unless the sources are about Moran. A single sentence like Cobb was head of press for the Liberal Democrats until 2019, when she was accused of faking an email to a journalist is plenty for this article. Ralbegen (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Article lead section

The opening sections of many Wikipedia articles are written as 'leads' - see the Manual of Style (MOS:LEAD). SwayShunt felt it repeated content given elsewhere in the article, it was actually fulfilling one purpose of the lead: to "summarize the body of the article". I reverted their change and left a polite note on their Talk page. Paul W (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I note that SwayShunt reverted my change saying "Cut down lead section, so similiar to other MPs. All information is already in the rest of the article". Numerous UK MP articles - Boris Johnson, Kier Starmer, Rachel Reeves, to name but three - begin with significant summarising lead sections. SwayShunt is therefore going against consensus in such edits to biographies of living people (see MOS:BIO). Paul W (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)