Jump to content

Talk:Melanie Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New Hospital

[edit]

I have removed this line "Jonnson also secured a new hospital and cancer centre in Hatfield." The hospital was never built and the plans to build it have been scrapped Bangers 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect as it was only subsequently scrapped after Johnson had lost her seat and therefore was lost under Shapps. Cookingapples (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the hospital plans were scrapped then no one secured it in the end thus it is not "incorrect" at all. The removal of the phrase in question was completely justified. --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All female short list

[edit]

Let's be clear about this - that she was on an all female shortlist - suitable for a BLP article. The merits and arguments about all female shortlists - doesn't belong here, it belongs in the relevent subject article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]Indeed. We also need to clarify that it was different from today's all women shortlists which are in fact now completely legal. Any from 1997 were unlawful thus more notable. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to emphasise that the shortlist were declared illegal well before the 1997 election - i.e. in early 1996, thus this is hugely relevant. After the ruling Labour could easily have chosen candidates through legal methods but chose not to do so.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary career and Neutrality

[edit]

I added the POV-check tag to the Parliamentary career section. Feel free to remove the tag if it's unjustified. However, I feel the tag should remain in place, for a while, to encourage discussion.

The section on Johnson's political career leans toward negative statements about her with little mention of her accomplishments. The negative statements are well-sourced — Johnson's political opponents made these statements; that's not the problem. Politicians are a unique breed. It's easy to find negative news about them, and hard to find much that's positive.

For example, David Evans' criticisms of Johnson are well-documented. But the context of his statements is critically important. He was the incumbent in an election that he lost to his opponent, Johnson. The 1997 election was a landslide victory for Labour. Were his statements a deciding factor in Johnson's victory or were other politics involved? Is Evans really an important milestone in Johnson's political career? I think the article relies too heavily on remarks made by Evans. What's missing are Johnson's statements, and documentation of the issues in the 1997 election that relate to Johnson's career.

In the article, the water fluoridation issue is biased toward negative statements about Johnson. Again, her statements and others' critical remarks are well-sourced, but what is the broader context to this issue? Did Johnson accomplish a significant change in policy despite the controversy?

Fluoridation is a contentions issue (considering the documented problem of dental fluorosis). In the UK, a major event was the Water Fluoridation Act of 1985. The act set standards for fluoridation at the request of health authorities. However, there were problems with the implementation of this act that lingered for 20 years.

Johnson supported a change in policy that would remove water suppliers from the decision-making process. The act she supported, The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 was passed by Parliament, and signed by Johnson in her position as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health. It seems this fact is at least as relevant to Johnson's career as the politically-contentious statements by her opponents.

The fluoridation debate in Parliament continues: UK Parliament on the subject of fluoridation.

Thank you for considering my suggestions. Mtd2006 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there needs to be slightly more balance in some sections, though the article is still developing. It's only recently that we've found sources and actually gone through everything to make get the facts straight (even today I've found factual errors). Not so long ago the article was incredibly uncritical and 100% positive so it is certainly a great deal better than it was. Also obviously we've had some serious issues with disruptive editing which is bound to have an impact.
I think your ideas on the fluoride issue are particularly good and that is the least balanced section. I would encourage you to incorporate you ideas that into the article as it would add useful balance. I think you might be less correct regarding Evans - his comments are about the only thing you can find when reading about the election and it seems they might have been a key factor. The article was actually quite unfair to him in a way as it only highlighted his more controversial claims about her yet ignored the more valid (and accurate) points he made i.e. the fact she didn't live near the constituency. I have since fixed this.
There is also one element that I believe needs restoring. While I realise we mustn't have a discussion about all-female shortlist and their merits (as some have tried to do), we do need to distinguish between MPs who were on legal all-women shortlists as opposed to the ones from 1997 who's selection was found to breach the law. They are completely different and articles need to reflect this - it is no undoubtedly notable if someone came to power through an illegal process.
(BTW you might want to edit your comments above so they refer to the 1997 election as I'm sure that's what you meant)--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1991 versus 1997 noted and fixed. Thank you.
I've learned everything I know about Johnson and Evans from this article and the references in it. As I'm on the other side of the Atlantic, I don't feel qualified to dive into the details of UK politics, except to offer some suggestions. Those of you who know more than I need to decide what's useful. Mtd2006 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. It's good to get an outside, completely neutral perspective. --Shakehandsman (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Records

[edit]

Following discusions on other wikipages citing theyworkforyou is not neutral nor helpful.

See discussion Talk:Harriet_Harman - by Annexed - on the topic of theyworkforyou and uses on Wikipedia.

...Talk:David_Lammy, where the final decision was removal. 1a) The information is subject to considerable change and whilst TWFY is updated automatically, Wikipedia is not. Keeping it up to date for all MPs is too big a task for editors, and is unnecessary given the information exists elsewhere, on a well-known site that we already link to. This is particularly relevant as I've just compared the info in the current revision (228403824) to that on TWFY for Harriet Harman and it is different - the current revision says "Has not voted on a freedom of information act", whilst the TWFY page says "Voted for a transparent Parliament". It appears the criteria for this policy issue has been amended, or that it has been replaced altogether with a different one. 1b) TWFY.com is not the source of the information anyway. The data comes from The Public Whip and is interpreted by TWFY (although the two sites are have close links). Individual voting details may be relevant for particular politicians (Iraq for Harriet Harman is probably one, given her change of heart) but block copying is not. And I didn't think it was Wikipedia policy to directly copy blocks of information from other sites anyway. 2a) The choice of topics on which voting has been tracked is definitely POV, as they could almost all be construed as anti-government. There's nothing, for example, on whether an MP voted for/against more money for the health service, or for/against the schools rebuilding programme - issues that Labour supporters might point to to show their MPs in a better light. Who should decide if an issue is 'controversial' or not? TWFY.com have made a decent effort, but it's still their POV. For example, "introducing student fees" used to be one of their controversial issues - but now student fees are widely accepted and considered controversial. It has been replaced by "introducing student top-up fees", the controversy over which has declined and maybe that too will be removed in time. 2b) The anti-government POV aspect is reinforced by the fact that voting record summaries are almost only added to Labour MPs and not those from other parties. And from what I've seen it's often added by the same few editors. 3a) The way the summary of the voting record is calculated lacks subtlety. For example, an MP who voted in favour on all the votes on national smoking ban legislation, but voted against the legislation for bans that would have applied just to Wales or just to taxis in London is considered to be 'moderately in favour of banning smoking'. There is an argument to be had here (and a POV one at that) as to whether voting for a complete ban should over-ride not voting for smaller, piecemeal measures. The context is important for the data to be meaningful, and these crude summaries cannot always do justice to complicated issues. 3b) On this particular article, all the 'moderate', 'strong' and 'very strong' qualifiers to voting behaviour have been removed. This potentially makes the information inaccurate, as MPs may vote for one measure on banning smoking and against another. Having just 'for' or 'against' on Wikipedia is potentially misleading. 4) There is no appreciation in the voting record on the quality of legislation. MPs may approve of the intent behind the legislation, but not the wording of the bill in front of them. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is an excellent example, as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats publicly backed the intent of the legislation to remove burdensome regulations from business, but voted against the government's bill on numerous occasions until the text was improved - and then supported it at the end. A voting summary could be produced that showed MPs as indecisive on key issues, when actually the way they vote each time is entirely consistent with their principles and reflects them doing their job of scrutinising legislation well. Principle and practice can justifiably be two different things in this context, and voting summaries cannot take into account. 5) The information is of particularly little value in relation to ministers and shadow cabinet members. It is unnecessary not only because there is an overt expectation that they will vote with the party line - it is the nature of being in party politics at the highest levels - but also because senior figures rebelling against the party line on important votes is so rare that when it happens it gets plenty of media coverage. Those occasions are certainly noteworthy, but there will be better source material (e.g. newspaper articles) to explain what took place and why, than a simple voted for or against checklist. Enanen (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melanie Johnson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Melanie Johnson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melanie_Johnson&oldid=1203116967"