Talk:Heidi Allen

POV content

I have repeatedly removed content added by Umbra Shadow which is POV and clear WP:OR. Can someone else revert/comment on here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Being an MP carries with it certain responsibilities. Heidi Allen's Voting record vs her stated position goes to the nexus of what it means to be an elected official. Nothing in the comment was incorrect or showing a POV other than a logical conclusion drawn from the facts. If there is anything contentious then I would be happy to amend but the voting record and its trend is clear--Umbra Shadow (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you have a read of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If you draw conclusions which aren't stated in the sources, that is original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a fact that she cried in parliament over UC. Her voting record also speaks for itself. Perhaps you could suggest exactly what you find objectionable about the facts stated? --Umbra Shadow (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that she cried in Parliament and that she voted to reduce benefits. If you draw the conclusion, which isn't stated in the facts or in any reliable secondary source (i.e. not a blog), that these two facts make her hypocritical, then that is WP:OR. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Coming from the request for comment at the UK politics WikiProject, although the current version is not acceptable, I see no problem with a "Voting record" section discussing her voting record (which should be expanded to cover all the areas mentioned in the source). I'm not sure the bit about her crying in parliament is worth including anywhere in the article (currently it's in two places). Number 57 13:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Responding to the request for comment: The current voting record' section violates WP:SYNTH and should be removed. I'm sceptical of the need for a voting record section in general — either it's selectively drawn from a larger whole or it's indiscriminate. There are places other than Wikipedia where that material is covered. Ralbegen (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If there were several secondary sources which commented on her voting record, then there might be a case for it, but not otherwise. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The source in question is sufficient to reference her voting record. Number 57 01:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally secondary sources are needed to establish notability in this case. If Allen had voted in a way that was particularly notable for a Tory MP then it would picked up in a secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what notability means on Wikipedia. It refers to the subject of the article rather than individual facts about a topic that has an article. Once notability is established (which it has been in Allen's case as she meets WP:NPOLITICIAN), the relevant policies for the content of an article are WP:V (which is clearly met), WP:OR (which this isn't) and WP:NPOV (which a straight rundown of her voting record would be). And the source is a secondary source. Number 57 09:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that theyworkforyou.com is a secondary source? I think including a list of her voting record would probably fail WP:UNDUE as there are so many different vote types it would be impossible to have them all but not neutral to select just a few. Hence why (as far as I know) no other MP has a list of their voting record sourced only from here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a secondary source. But even if it were a primary source, it wouldn't be problematic to use it as a reference for her voting record. Number 57 10:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

My general rule for including content with primary sources is whether it would be notable on its own. For example if someone resigned their position then primary sources would be fine to source that. The contents of a random speech they made in Parliament would need a secondary source to show notability. Allen's voting record doesn't seem to be particularly notable in its own right, so I think a proper secondary source (i.e. a newspaper report) is needed. [I think you could perhaps argue that theyworkforyou.com is a secondary source because it is not written by those in Parliament, but I don't think it has "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" per WP:ANALYSIS.] Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If that's your personal rule, that's fine for your own contributions, but please don't apply it to other people's edits – it's a perfectly legitimate source to use and content to add. Number 57 10:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

German mother

Adding the correct category. Reaper7 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

"Displayed tears"?

"Displayed tears" sounds odd, if not derogatory. I'll change it to - "cried" or "was tearful". --Glissando1234567890 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)