Talk:Duncan Baker

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.

This page is about a 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. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

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

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 (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paid editing

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Jmpyn111 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Duncan Baker on their behalf. https://twitter.com/Direthoughts/status/1326925635760123904

.

I've reverted the article to the state it was in before the undisclosed paid editing began. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And undid a lot of good edits in the process. More care, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheyWorkForYou as a source.

Third to last para currently reads: "Baker's Parliamentary voting record, as documented on TheyWorkForYou, includes that, as of November 2020, he had consistently voted against measures to reduce tax avoidance; consistently voted against measures to prevent climate change; and consistently voted for a stricter asylum system." I removed this content, giving the following reason: "Removing this para – TheyWorkForYou looks at voting patterns by bundling certain legislation together and then makes a *subjective* call on how a particular MP leans. However, this type of content really isn't encyclopaedic. It's okay to include things like scepticism on climate change legislation IF we have either quotes, or even just reporting of it from reliable sources. TheyWorkForYou is not an appropriate way of confirming someone's views on an issue" @Tagishsimon: restored the paragraph with the following edit summary: "I respectfully disagree. There is nothng very subjective about TWFY's analysis, and the reporting of it is neutral and clear about its source." Let's discuss this in more depth:

There are 9 voting "summaries" in that source (I put summaries in " ", because they're a take on voting patterns, and are totally subjective – regardless of the neutrality of TheyWorkForYou).
The fact that there are 9 issues laid out on the TheyWorkForYou source, and 3 have been selectively focussed on for that Wiki para suggests the user who added it was being selectively bias. Don't get me wrong – I don't suggest we lengthen it to all 9 issues covered in the TWFY source. That's silly. I just think we should take it out altogether.
Some of the "voting behaviour summaries" on TheyWorkForYou are based on 3, 2 or EVEN a single vote on a piece of legislation concerning a subject. This is why TheyWorkForYou is a rubbish source IMO. It draws conclusions of MPs based on very little supporting evidence. In the case of longer-serving MPs e.g. Harriet Harman or Peter Bone, I'd be more inclined to SUPPORT its inclusion, because there are long histories of voting patterns to go by for each of them respectively, and as such summarising their support/opposition to a particular issue is easily done.

Interested to hear the views of others. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stance is found through an automated process (see here), more akin to a primary source of info with no analysis from reputable sources who have determined the MP's stance or ruled the stance significant by including it in a newspaper article. It relies on us individually determining a stance is significant and adding it, which brings up subjective views and is best avoided. Solipsism 101 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]