Talk:Joanna Penberthy

Page name

@DBD:, you've moved this page from Joanna Penberthy to Jo Penberthy. However, I don't think the references you have given show that Jo is her WP:COMMONNAME rather than simply a nickname. It maybe that in day to day life she has used the name Jo, but having been appointed a bishop, she is now to be known by her full Christian name (as was the case with Nicholas Chamberlain): in this case, WP:NAMECHANGES applies and the title of the article should be the new common name. A google search of "Jo Penberthy" doesn't come up with anything recent, where as a search of "Joanna Penberthy" shows all the news coverage of her recent election to the episcopate. In the sources you have given, only one refers to her as Jo only. The other begin by referring to her has Joanna, thereby making that her common name, with Jo being a nickname that she is referred to only after she is identified as Joanna. I would suggest moving it back to Joanna Penberthy as that is what satisfies WP:COMMONNAME; IE "it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

But her election has only just been announced... Surely suddenly adopting the longer form based on a series of articles which will all be based on a single press release might seem to be recentism. Oughtn't we to wait and see how she actually chooses to be called once in post? DBD 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that they have a choice as to what they will be called in the official press release. In addition to Nicholas Chamberlain that I mentioned above, there is Jan McFarlane who was referred to as Jan in all the press coverage and was only called Janet when her full name was used (eg the GOV press release). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 02:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Election result

88.109.47.244: I see that you have amended the citation to the South Somerset District Council District website. I did in fact deliberately choose the Andrew Teale elections site (which is widely cited in Wikipedia on the basis that it is meticulously accurate - as indeed are local government sites). I know from experience that if any omission is brought to his attention he updates it promptly. I thought there was an advantage in citing the Teale project site, because it is likely to remain in existence long after local authorities have misguidedly cleared away old election results from their sites on the basis that they are "obsolete results", or the local authority has ceased to exist because of mergers (I am surprised that South Somerset DC managed to survive the recent mergers in that area without ending up as part of a Unitary authority). I suspect that your real question over the accuracy of the result is that I took the percentage vote from Teale rather than SSDC. This raises an interesting point. This was a two-seat ward. This means that if half the electors vote for candidate A, A will (on the council method) be shown as having polled 25% of the vote, which I would say is misleading. It would be fairer and more accurate to take the view that A has achieved 50% of the votes case, as half of those who could have voted for A have done so, and you can't cast two votes for the same candidate. The convention that Andrew Teale has followed (and if anyone understands psephological conventions, it is he) is that, in a multi-seat ward, you work out the parties' share of the vote by taking the votes cast for the highest-placed candidate for each party. So 1738 + 1245 + 275 = 3,258, and on this basis Rev Penberthy, as the sole Labour candidate, polling 275, achieved 8.4% of the vote. I have no particular wish to exaggerate her popularity, but neither Andrew Teale nor I made a mistake here. It is just a more accurate and sophisticated way of calculating vote share in a multi-seat ward.Ntmr (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal life - political activity

An IP editor has removed the paragraphs relating to Penberthy's political activities. The edit tag is somewhat misleading.

I believe this should have been discussed here first. The removed material was predominantly factual and, at least locally (I live in the diocese), noteworthy.

Accordingly, I have restored it - with the removal of one expression that could be considered POV. I invite the IP editor to give their reasons for removal here, and others to discuss. .John M Brear (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@John M Brear:I added the bit about her standing for election in South Somerset, so I entirely agree with you that Bishop Penberthy's political engagement is both a factual matter and notable. That paragraph, and the paragraph about her tweet, ought not to have been deleted, and certainly not without first being discussed on the Talk page. I would agree that the words that you have deleted do tend to be POV. Clearly the tweet was not a "one off", in that she has been committed to the Labour Party for a long time, but if that point is to be made it would be better to cite examples, with references.Ntmr (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)