Jump to content

Talk:Lynne Featherstone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

More factual errors added to the biography by the looks of it. Isn't it a time to stop these politically motivated edits and start respecting what Wikipedia is here for - good faith attempts to write balanced and accurate articles? 212.35.252.2 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progesterex

[edit]

Is there a reason why there's no mention of the Progesterex incident from which most people know her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.172.249 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - seems to has been added in the past but then removed. I will add it again but rewrite it so it is more encyclopedic. --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why the Progesterex issue is here, but the information about Baby P is not? I think more people would know her from that (if the real reason for including it is what people will know her by)AnthonyFair (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant good point as in it should be included, rather than the reasoning given. An MP falling for a seven year old email hoax and then actually asking serious questions about the subject in the House of Commons is undoubtedly notable as it seriously questions their their competence. The fact that she continues to criticse the government afterwards rather than apologise makes it even more notable. --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you don't agree with Anon's reasoning, but instead are seeking to prove a point about a politician's judgement, then you appear to be breaching NPOV. As you say yourself below - this kind of information wouldn't appear in an encyclopaedia. I am going to add a section on Baby P and look into other biographies and consider deleting Progesterex based on your reasoning.AnthonyFair (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that we keep the progesterex info because it is notable - I am not seeking to make any sort of point whatsoever. Just suggesting one of the many reasons the issue is notable and that it is important to have balance in an article. I.e. it is good to cover someone's biggest successes and their biggest failures too. Just because many newspapers missed the story doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article. It is well sourced so unless you have a good reason then please do not delete it --Shakehandsman (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that you're undermining your own point by effectively pointing out that it's not that notable. On your balance point I agree - and including one stupid thing that someone has done in their parliamentary career, as pretty much the only notable thing about her, you are not exactly maintaining that balance. How many parliamentary questions has she asked, and how many of them are more notable based on a subjective view (afterall, all of them are well sourced)? I'm just not sure that this issue deserves raising to a level of prominence that you're effectively giving it - that doesn't strike me as balanced. I'm presuming you will be in support of additional material on Baby P (providing it respects NPOV and is properly sourced)?AnthonyFair (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the changes you've made to this page has made me see your comments on balance in a different light. To have taken such an active role in updating this page but to miss Baby P, at the same time as highlighting as many minor gaffes as possible, makes me think you are seeking to push a particular viewpoint.AnthonyFair (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I support adding whatever you like if it's notable, there certainly isn't enough content in the article (which is exactly why I've contributed to the article). Please note that I didn't really add the Progesterex information - people have been censoring it from the aticle and I merely restored and rewrote someone else's contribution. Also please read up on WP:AGF: "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith." It really isn't appropriate for you to condemning people for simply adding balance to an article (or in fact merely restoring it). If you think the balance is too far the other way now (it possibly is now I've removed non notable parts of the article) then that's fine but please just say so rather than making unnecessary suggestions as to people's motives. Even better, just go ahead and add the balance yourself. However, please don't add add a section on her "views on wikipedia" again etc. I hope you aren't offended by the fact that i removed it that content you wrote, but it really isn't notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shakehandsman, perhaps you should take your own advice about motives? I have no desire to reinstate the wikipedia section, so you have no need to worry about me taking offence, nor asking me not to reinstate it. I thought it was of interest, but I agree now it's not terribly notable[1]. And that's certainly not why I'm interested in some of the edits made to this entry. As for 'adding balance', please note I said it "makes me think you are seeking to push a particular viewpoint" - the context of our discussion about Progesterex is changed by looking at the other types of edit that you've made to this entry; you consider minor gaffes as notable, but don't seem interested in anything else. This struck me as odd - there is no real accusation of bad faith, and so your helpful reference to the WP:AGF is unecessary. I disagree that Progestorex is particularly "notable" unless a whole host of other information is also notable too. We should let the facts speak for themselves, but that still means choosing a certain level and amount of facts to fill up this entry - you have chosen to promote a list of minor, slightly embarassing incidents, all of which gained a small amount of press coverage. If the criteria we are using is a "small amount of press coverage" to equal notable, then there is much we need to add to this entry. Indeed in good faith, perhaps you are interested in helping to add this?. MPs often get a small amount of press coverage for the things they do, so I think we'll be here a while.

[1]with a sense of irony, I do think Lynne Featherstone's views on Wikipedia do meet your criteria of notability, however, in that they gained a small amount of press coverage.AnthonyFair (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that whist some UK newspapers have ignored it, at the same time the story has spread internationally. I.e. Featherstone is now the most notable component of the Progesterex hoax. If Progesterex is notable enough to have it's own wikipdia article, then undoubtedly the issue need to be covered here too. My reason for not adding much about Featherstone is that, unlike yourself, I do not live in or near her constituency thus don't have as much knowledge about her. The article has been censored over the years and I am mostly just restoring content that has been inappropriately removed/changed. therefore, please can you add new content to the article and I will just add the sources for what has already been written. --Shakehandsman (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If more information is going to be added to the Member of Parliament section, then I would like to propose a change to the structure. I think the voting record section is good, but I would like to draw the fire brigade and stationery out of the general entry into a section of their own (combined with Progesterex, possibly called something like "Political controversy") and in the interim I will add something on Baby P. I like the addition of the voting record from Theyworkforyou.com.

I don't really see the necessity of the partial quote from the Daily Mail in the stationery bit - you can read it in the Daily Mail article and it doesn't really add anything at all to the story - it's just someone saying "I'm shocked", which is why I removed it. Let the facts speak for themselves. I'm not too fussed about it though really, I just think it's a bit pointless. In any event, it's now missing the proper punctuation and is divorced from the Daily Mail article that's the source for it. I will make these changes.AnthonyFair (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usual practice would be to just call the section "controversies" , although some people favor integrating more minor events into the actual career section and just keeping it chronological. I don't really mind either way. The stationary quotes are particularly notable because it is an independent official making the comments as part of his job. Please add mroe material on Lynne's parliamentary work, I will restore some info on Lynne's career before politics.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just revisiting this, I see that the chairman of the Merton Liberal Democrats is one Anthony Fairclough!:

http://www.mertonlibdems.org.uk/contact-us-mainmenu-3/12-contacts/4--anthony-fairclough.html --Shakehandsman (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Wikipedia

[edit]

Do we really need an entire section on her views on wikipedia? I realise this is wikipedia, but in any other encyclopeadia that information wouldn't be included. Million_Moments (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it is pointless. --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lynne Featherstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lynne Featherstone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lynne Featherstone. 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:

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) 17:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lynne Featherstone. 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:

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) 08:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lynne Featherstone. 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:

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) 15:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynne Featherstone. 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:

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) 13:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lynne_Featherstone&oldid=1205994797"