Talk:Lucy Allan (politician)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucy Allan (politician) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shropshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire 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.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for creation Start‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article was accepted on 14 March 2013 by reviewer Shearonink (talk · contribs).

Out of context sentence - more clarification needed[edit]

In the section Political Career appears this out-of-context sentence:

Two and a half years later, Wandsworth Council concluded that Allan's son had not been at risk, and had been 'happy, safe and well'.

It makes no sense without background to the case and dates. I recall this case being aired on radio news but have nothing in print I could use. It seems it may have been part of a longer series of sentences but the others got removed either by accident or vandalism.Cloptonson (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the rewrite tag as most of the article is OK, but this point does seem to be missing something as you say. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricated Email[edit]

Ms Allan Fabricated an email from one of her constituents and placing it on her Facebook page. She removed the post after the constituent. protested the change from , 'In which case there is no hope.Think about it Yeah?. to In which case there is no hope. Unless you die.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346220/Tory-MP-voted-bomb-Syria-Facebook-death-threat-row-adding-unless-die-constituent-s-email.html#ixzz3tXJDj2CG Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.59.17 (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to edit anything / overstep any mark. But this section implies that it's all an allegation and not a fact, and bizarrely references that the constituent used a pseudonym. It just seems like someone has edited this to shift focus from what the story is actually about. There are more details here which confirm that she lied: http://evolvepolitics.com/tory-mp-should-resign-after-faking-death-threat-email-from-constituent/ 77.98.43.254 (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is a clear case that she catenated at least two emails without initially noting that fact, and after the writer of one of the emails complained, noting that he had not written he problematic part, she said she had done so. We do not have a source saying that the other email involved did not have those words, so saying "fake" in Wikipedia's voice is not borne out by sources - only that she had, indeed, catenated posts. And there is no value in using Wikipedia to fight political campaigns, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_TWH1MiseLQ on YouTube

might be helpful to anyone wanting to make this political fraud clearer.

109.153.88.228 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we have is that she said she received another email and combined them... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "not noting" and an accusation. She prefaced the death threat with "this [singular] is from Rusty from Dawley". The sources don't present the controversy as a slip-up or a faux pas, but focus on accusations of fakery. Blackguard 17:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the word fabricated rather than faked for a reason. I would like to see it used.
82.37.59.17 (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you desire to make use of "fabricated" and have edited the section to make absolutely sure readers know how evil she is, does not mean your edit comports with WP:BLP. The prior version was both neutral and accurate, and I ask you to revert your modifications which are decidedly and (apparently) deliberately violative of policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Descended from ...[edit]

The Shropshire Star used the words "descended from a radical socialist Suffragette, Janie Allan", but do they mean "related to", or "descended from the grandfather of the radical socialist Suffragette, Janie Allan". Does anyone know the exact connection? Dbfirs 07:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've googled for other online sources, and failed to find anything. I used "descended from" as those were the words the source used, but further googling "Janie Allan" I cannot find any reference to her having children (or her private life in general). I have no objection to the wider-term "related to" being used if you think this would be better given the single source. Rwendland (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the reporter misunderstood, and that Lucy is actually descended from a brother or uncle, but it would be good to find the exact connection. Like you, I've drawn a blank. Dbfirs 14:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (page mover nac) The editor whose username is Z0 16:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The other two articles are stubs and the politician crushes them in viewing figures.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although subject is better known that the few other Wikipedia subjects who bear this name, she is not a nationally renowned or internationally known political figure. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Jess Phillips, but we moved her page. Unreal7 (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result of each nomination representing this type of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC proposal must be considered as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bad move. But not as bad as this would be In ictu oculi (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose common name, non-notable outside UK, minimally notable even in UK, classic no primary In ictu oculi (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a common name, with several articles having the same or similar title. This politician is not widely known, and the viewing figures presented by the nom show that on several occasions in 2016 page views for the producer substantially outnumbered the politician (390-28 on one day). AusLondonder (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Opposes above - non-notable outside UK (at least at present), common name, etc. Shearonink (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per In ictu oculi above. Rwendland (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.