Talk:Angela Eagle

Untitled

"Maureen Colquhoun, another lesbian MP, did not declare her sexuality until after she left parliament [3]. "

actually the article linked confirms that she has been outed before leaving parliament (it quotes articles from 1976 and Maureen lost her seat in 1979)

"Eagle is a lesbian, coming out in a newspaper interview in September 1997."

Neither of the footnotes back up this statement. If she came out in a newspaper interview, a footnote should give details of that newspaper interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flibberdy (talk • contribs) 16:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Last Statement

I'm new to Wikipedia so I am not sure about etiquette and procedure but the last statement regarding the 1992 election seems out of place and could be considered defamatory. Is it ok to simply delete it?

No because it was a true statement.

Notice

Please refrain from making slanderous or libelous comments unless you can substantiate them with reputable sources. Until then, I have reverted the article to an earlier version. ThePointblank 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Chessplaying

I believe Angela's a better chess player than even that reference indicates (she has if I remember rightly won international as well as national chess competitions though she hasn't made it her career).

Meltingpot (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Promotion

SkyNews just said that she was, along with her sister promoted to a Secretary of State rank. I updated the page.--Duffy2032 (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down, dear" incident 27/4/2011

This account doesn't seem very encyclopedic! See Hansard 27 Apr 2011 : Column 169 Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Memes

Are memes part of the story that Wikipedia covers?

For example:

Popular Angela Eagle meme

If they are considered irrelevant can someone cite the thinking in wiki rules? EDLIS Café 11:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia relies on sourcing content to reliable published sources in an unbiased manner. The "meme" you have posted represents the precise opposite of both of those principles. Few memes to achieve lasting significance or notability outside the internet communities they originate in; the example posted certainly isn't going to be one of them Dtellett (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

challenge

Eagle to announce challenge on Monday 11 July - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/jeremy-corbyn-set-for-leadership-challenge-after-peace-talks-fail - Govindaharihari (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits - discussion

Regarding this edit, I don't think it is an improvement, but i think it would be worth having other editors weigh in.

• "though not having previously shown an inclination to rush the selection vote," - I find this phrase to be problematic: it feels like someone is trying to build an argument here. How accurately are we able to measure the NEC's inclinations? (And "previously" is redundant here. If you take it out, the meaning doesn't change.)
• "With Duffy out of the running, next came the actual selection vote." The article, and the section meeting, are not just about Duffy, so do we need to repeat the point about him being out of the running, which is clear from the paragraph immediately preceding?
• "next came the actual selection vote" - that is a narrative style that is not encyclopaedic in tone.
• "The NEC ignored all constituency complaints about this" - "all" seems to have been added here for emphasis, which we would do if we were trying to build a case, but we're not, so let's just stick to the facts.

Other opinions? Ground Zero | t 18:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey!

"though not having previously shown an inclination to rush the selection vote,"

This I just took straight from the source, p. 281.

"With Duffy out of the running, next came the actual selection vote."

Eliminated "With Duffy out of the running".

"next came the actual selection vote"

If you don't approve of the style, it can be redone.

"The NEC ignored all constituency complaints about this"

I actually did delete the "all" after mistakenly re-adding it (you removed it first).

I'm not going to lie: I don't like politicians like Eagle who seem to only get their Commons break thanks to machinations (parachuting into safe seats, or whatever) of the centre. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well it is good of you not to lie, however Wikipedia is not a vessel for you to broadcast your personal dislikes. This forgotten trivia is not noteworthy in any way. Mezigue (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"though not having previously shown an inclination to rush the selection vote,"

This I just took straight from the source, p. 281.

It still seems dodgy to me. How about if we attribute it, e.g., "According to ________," ? Ground Zero | t 20:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, OK. That seems fair. I'll make the alteration now. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your version of the article article now discusses some allegations about how Kinnock's Labour party handled the selection process in more detail than any aspect of Eagle's 24 year career as an MP and minister. That's ludicrously WP:UNDUE, and since it was by your own admission inserted for partisan reasons I suggest you recuse yourself from further edits. Dtellett (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Can't argue on that one. I and another editor have slashed it down to about one sentence now. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Between you, I think you've got it down to the appropriate level of weight and tone. Dtellett (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angela Eagle. 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/20101006141847/http://www2.labour.org.uk/shadow-cabinet-election to http://www2.labour.org.uk/shadow-cabinet-election

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) 23:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

new portrait

Could someone upload the portrait one one version of this photo to add to this article https://beta.parliament.uk/media/cqAm4CyH I have no idea how to , thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Done by User:Salix alba , many thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)