Talk:Angela Smith, Baroness Smith of Basildon

message: I have removed the sentence about the fact that Evans Smith was selected through a process that was later contested in the courts, as it is misleading. It implies that the process remains illegitimate and thus makes the MP's place in Westminster seem more controversial than it is. It does not continue to state that political parties are allowed to use AWS until 2015, and thus I consider it to be a violation of NPOV. What'smore, it does not provide any biographical information of relevance about the subject. AJMW (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but it does not suggest the process remains illegitimate in any way whatsoever, it just shows the facts - i.e. that illegal sex discrimination occurred in 1996. The fact is that the shortlists were illegal right up until 2001 - in other words the whole of the term served by politicians elected in 1997, thus it is hugely notable.  The change of the law in 2001 is i totally irrelevant to this discussion anyway as it was not retrospective at all - i.e. it did not seek to excuse and thus did not legalise any of the illegal selections that took place in 1996. To summarise - the law was clearly broken, thus the MPs place in Westminster IS controversial (or at least the first term they served was)- that's why it is notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is completely unfounded, MPs selected through AWS have been democratically selected as candidates by the CLP, and then democratically elected by thousands of members of the voting public. They have been reselected, reelected and continue as MPs, having stood through three general elections in a number of cases. If you wish to claim that the supposed 'controversy' surrounding AWS is of significant note to include in a biography of an MP (I suggest it isn't and should be mentioned solely in the independent AWS wikipedia article), then I suggest that you find reputable sources that can indicate the topic is quite as notable as you believe it to be, so far this has not been done. I highlight here that the source used in relation to the sentence about AWS does not even contain a reference to Evans Smith, frankly you are attempting to incorporate information about a topic that has its own wikipedia page, into an article where it is unnecessary. Furthermore, you have not contextualised the supposed controversy, above you concede that the controversy was pretty much during "the first term they served", yet there is no reference to this in the article, quite frankly the fact that you can't decide yourself whether the matter IS or WAS controversial demonstrates that the entire nature of it isn't as clear as you think. That said, I suspect if I once again attempt to make this article more relevant and neutral, it shall result solely in a 'edit war', and I am not prepared to be so immature. AJMW (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly the distinction between whether something is still controversial right now or was in the past is irrelevant. We need to avoid recentism - her being in a position for five years as a result of an illegal selection process is undoubtedly notable regardless of how many legal selections she has gone through since - the fact that something took place 13 years ago doesn't make it any less notable. As for you other points - yes the topic has it's own page, that's exactly where the contexutualisation you rightly highlight the need for should go. The issue has been discussed int the past and we've tried to keep just to the facts for a bio, with the advanced detail and discussion of issues such as the legalisation of the lists kept out as if they are irrelevant to a specific case (i.e. Evans Smith has never had any involvement with any shortlist after they were legalised - the onyl shortlist she appeared on was in 1996). I completely agree that Smith was of course legally selected in 2001, and once again at the following election and this isn't disputed in the article at all. However we should bear in mind that she only got the opportunity to be reselected because she was of course a sitting MP, and of course she originally gained that position through the illegal shortlist, which is further evidence as to why the issue is notable and also a reason why the issue isn't necessarily just restricted to the first term. Anyway, thanks for you input - I will attempt to improve the AWS article as it does indeed need more detail, accuracy and contextualisation.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that all women shortlists are notable and still often controversial today. Thus even if an MP was elected as a result of a completely legal post 2001 shortlist, then even that would still clearly be notable enough to mention on their bio. The fact that Evans Smith's shortlist was ruled ot be illegal just makes something already notable even more so.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: All Women Shortlists

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Angela Smith, Baroness Smith of Basildon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061001130826/http://www.essex-fire.gov.uk/pages/index.asp?area=4&id=55 to http://www.essex-fire.gov.uk/pages/index.asp?area=4&id=55
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the statement in connection with 2010 election that "Labour would have possibly held the old Basildon seat" is highly dubious. Firstly, I would expect a statement like this to have something to support it (eg a reference to the work of political scientist). Secondly a quick check of the figures would not seem to support this. In 2005, the old Basildon seat had Labour ahead by 7.3%, meaning the Conservatives required a swing of about 3.7% to take the seat. In fact in 2010 the national Labour to  Conservative swing was just under 5%, and the swing in other seats in the area tended to outrun the national average. This does not of course mean the Conservatives would have won on the old boundaries, but it does mean that the case for saying Labour "would have possibly held on", seems to be a very weak one. Dunarc (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable unsourced claim