Jump to content

Talk:Natascha Engel

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

Archive 1- 2006-2009

Expenses and article neutrality

[edit]

I note other comments relating to wp:undue about expenses. The section fails the first test in that it doesn't put expenses in context. Nor does it indicate what percentage are office costs. We don't need trivia in an encyclopedia so I intend to replace wine glass and DVD costs etc. with numeric information from Theyworkforyou.com and the Legg report -as I do with MPs of all parties. I also intend to ensure that the right of reply is included where appropriate in each newpaper article. Anyone disagree? JRPG (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it's stretching a point to say that there's a serious dispute about this article - there was at one point, but in the absence of the only true disputant on one side of the argument, there doesn't seem to have been any dispute since October 2009. (And if you think the expenses section is too long and trivial now, you should have seen it then. If you think the article can be improved by further pruning, then prune away, but I have to say that I think it may be better to use balanced press references to provide context for expenses claims than using the bald numbers and rankings provided by Theyworkforyou. No doubt the end result will be an improved article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sam has said some of what I was about to add.
I'm not persuaded that the raw figures from Theyworkforyou are a good idea, because they miss out a lot of the relevant context, such as the huge variations in travel costs.
I'm also a little wary of trying to putting the expenses claims in context, because there are several strong POVs about what the context actually is. For many MPs, the context was they got an allowance in lieu of pay rises in a sort of agreed legal fiction, and for other MPs the context was they were heavily pressured into keeping their costs up, while for some there was a sense of entitlement to a good seat on a gravy train; for many of the public, the context was that taxpayers were directly paying for luxury goods for their representatives; for others the context was not so much the money itself as the lack of transparency ... and the whole thing was overlaid with a lot of political jostling.
I think that the section as its stands is not bad. It sets out some of the story of what happened -- how particular items of expense became a matter of public debate, and how Engel tried to deal with that. As Sam says, balanced press press refs seem like a better approach than seeking objectivity on a topic where there was such wide disagreement about what the object actually was. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS I suggest that approach to wine glasses and DVDs and so on should be whether those items became notable in themselves. For example, Douglas Hogg's moat was a lot cheaper than many MPs' huge mortgage bills, but it became a prominent part of the public debate, so it would be wrong for us to impose an analysis which tried to say that the moat controversy was somehow wrong. Same for Peter Viggers's duck house: fair or not is an editorial judgement, but the furore happened.
So with Engels's items: did some editor have to burrow in the small print to find them? Or did they become notorious? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly thanks both for the useful advice and I believe this version is more accurate. Engel was naïve enough to publish her expenses when as a 2005 entrant her office and 2nd home costs would be high. The Derby Telegraph scooped its Sunday namesake and they would not have been pleased. Her "meet the people" was ill advised but its recorded.
Nothing we can do about it but in the Legg report Michael Spicer, Baron Spicer with £15,109.37 and John Gummer, Baron Deben with £29,398.46 have one line entries whilst neighbouring constituent Patrick McLoughlin £4058.54 ranked 68 isn’t mentioned at all.

JRPG (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On '... two years of hell ...' and being '... out of touch...'

[edit]

This new section has a useful link from a reliable source, thanks to 86.149.90.255 for contributing -and persisting in getting the link right. I feel it should be incorporated in the Parliament section and should be expanded to properly summarise the article and maintain a neutral point of view and I'll do that. JRPG (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel isn't a UK national

[edit]

Born
9 April 1967 (age 46)
Berlin, Germany
Nationality
United Kingdom is what the article says. If that information's correct, then according to the law in Germany at the time, Ms. Engel is a German national, and not an English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish one. My source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law 178.98.156.167 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Sheogorath[reply]

There is no such thing as English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish nationality. And no German nationality law, however much it dislikes dual citizenship, can prohibit someone taking United Kingdom nationality. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Natascha Engel. 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) 16:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Natascha Engel. 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) 23:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The photo currently used of Engel on this article doesn't seem appropriate. She's in the middle of talking with her mouth open. Can it be replaced with a more formal posed headshot?--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natascha_Engel&oldid=1207115320"