Talk:Camilla Tominey

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Tominey, Camilla (22 May 2021). "The public won't buy the Leavers for Lockdown's bid to rewrite history". The Telegraph. Retrieved 22 May 2021. I was astonished to discover that, as of last week, I have a Wikipedia entry.

Controversy section

@Sfggrhrteffnms, Jenniin, and Alilvlbee: I am again removing the controversy section because, as I stated in an edit summary, this content is contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced. Many of the citations cover what Tominey said, but the commentary on the aftereffects or controversies is unsourced and appears to be original research. Andysmith248 seems to agree that the sourcing here is problematic. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, this poorly sourced content should be removed immediately. Instead of edit warring, can the supporters of this content please engage in some discussion here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, I agree and thank you for addressing this. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False claims

Some of the examples in this article are worthy of inclusion, if they can be confirmed with more reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]