Talk:Miriam González Durántez

Given the rather extensive media coverage of MGD lately, and the significant articles on Sarah Brown and Samantha Cameron, I thought I'd get this one rolling. Hopefully we can get it to A class by the election. SmokingNewton (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not sure at the moment she is Notable in her own right. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue that given the focus of the British media on leaders' wives lately, and that she has appeared in interviews with multiple major news sources over a series of years, she's definitely notable. I can find more than passing documentation of her in more than 5 serious news outlets. SmokingNewton (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Think you are right the media have made her notable.Codf1977 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who said that PP was a center-right party? They have always been right and I may say far-right. Its founder was a Minister under the Franco fascist regime and they have not condemned that regime. They are now supporting the radical movements that were created under Franco's rule (Falange Española). Unless you guys have a better argument, I am going to change that part. 71.198.35.250 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you edit the page, it shows that she was born "Jill Tracy Jacobs" (although this doesn't appear to readers) which is actually the birth name of the American vice-president's wife. I'm assuming this is an error and removing it. Earldelawarr (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Please remove errors when you are certain. When the wrong name has been added deliberately, it is called vandalism. The edit summary "rvv" is widely understood to mean "revert vandalism". Snowman (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

It says in the article that "she would be unable to take time off from work and her family life to take part [in the general election campaign], although linguistic barriers also seem to have influenced this decision". This last claim does not have a source and, mind you, it would seem rather odd for a partner at a top UK law firm to have problems communicating effectively in English. If nobody opposes, I favour deleting the reference altogether. 212.124.244.131 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did this woman cast undue influence on Nick Clegg to allow Roman Catholics to marry into the British royal line? Clegg himself is an atheist with absolutely no interest in religion yet he pushed that part of the Bill hard. Twobells (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This seems to continue to be changed, and then reverted, but by all accounts Miriam "Clegg" is only referred to by her husband's surname by the press in order to identify her as Nick Clegg's spouse. She has made clear that her name remains "Gonzalez Durantez" (not just "professionally", but legally and for all purposes). Should this article not therefore be for "Miriam Gonzalez Durantez"? 89.206.227.99 (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely agree, I've changed the body of the article to reflect this and would like someone to move the page itself to a place that reflects her actual name. 77.86.55.217 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted it. The current location reflects her WP:COMMONNAME as it's how she's best known. No source has been offered to support a change. Has she complained publicly about the usage? 82.132.217.83 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re "how she's best known": "Miriam Gonzalez Durantez" 224 000 results compared with "Miriam Clegg" 15 600 results, so you may wish to reconsider. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here she is writing an article herself in The Daily Telegraph about www.inspiringthefuture.org and using Miriam González Durántez. Also BBC News "Samantha Cameron and Miriam Gonzalez Durantez inspire at jobs' fair", 22 January 2014 and The Guardian "Lib Dems deny Nick Clegg's wife was behind challenge to Lord Rennard; Party insists stories are baseless suggesting Miriam González Durántez had role in Lib Dem leader's call for apology", 22 January 2014

Taken together they are strong evidence for the correct form of her surname. Nedrutland (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also worth noting that bodies such as LibDem Voice never refer to her as "Miriam Clegg" [1]. The Telegraph also notes that she uses the name Miriam Gonzalez Durantez rather than Miriam Clegg [2]. Gov.UK does not refer to her as Mrs Clegg [3]. The Observer uses Gonzalez Durantez in its profile [4]. All in all, I think there is a far stronger body of evidence to call her by her actual name, rather than the mistakenly attributed name used by some media outlets. 77.86.55.217 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Telegraph [5], Evening Standard [6] and Sky [7] all note in passing the different professional use, which probably causes the confusion and some of those articles are reflecting the professional use. 82.132.237.233 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be significant evidence she is NOT Clegg and that naming her here as such is incorrect. If anyone has evidence to the contrary can they speak up or I will look to move this page and correct the name to the one the woman herself uses.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Currently the article has a citation from the Daily Mail to verify that she is a Spanish citizen, and another that says this requires a better source. But does anyone really dispute that she is Spanish? I see no evidence on this talk page that her Spanish citizenship is in dispute or has been challenged. Later in the article there are sections where it talks about her not being a British citizen, and a long quote from a Guardian interview where she talks aboit being from Spain. As per WP:V

any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

has her Spanish nationality ever been challenged, and is it ever likely to be challenged? If not, let's just remove the citation. Some things are not actually in dispute. Alun (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miriam González Durántez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418061127/http://www.senado.es/senadores/10501/index.html to http://www.senado.es/senadores/10501/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225211227/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23925563-legal-firm-that-employs-nick-cleggs-wife-advised-gaddafi-regime.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23925563-legal-firm-that-employs-nick-cleggs-wife-advised-gaddafi-regime.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710160125/http://www.dlapiper.com/miriam_gonzalez/ to http://www.dlapiper.com/miriam_gonzalez/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply