Talk:Sam Carling

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.

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.

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.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

A fact from Sam Carling appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Sam Carling was the first UK member of Parliament to be born in the 21st century?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Carling.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Sam Carling was the first UK MP born in the 21st century? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/06/labour-sam-carling-22-first-mp-born-in-21st-century
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rashmika Mandanna
- Comment: Drive-by nom. Some editors are allergic to "first" hooks, but as there is only a finite number of MPs and all of their ages are in the public domain I think we're safe.

Created by Roc0ast3r (talk), JeffUK (talk), Yngvadottir (talk), Jyeboah77 (talk), and Akpqegoj (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 238 past nominations.

Laun chba ller 20:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment only. It's interesting that you say that all of their ages are in the public domain. I spent a few hours yesterday clearing Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency of dozens of links to disambiguation pages. Very, very few of the new MP bios included a year of birth. I don't doubt that The Guardian has got its facts straight, but I do doubt that your statement holds true. If it was true, those bios would presumably have included birth years. Schwede 66 05:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was a very clumsy way of putting that. I meant that all of the information would have been available to the Guardian for them to fact-check their claim (especially given that baby of the House is a thing). It's very unlikely someone else is going to sprout up and prove us wrong.--Laun chba ller 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: The Guardian's just published an article saying that two further MPs were 24 at the time of election, and sniffing around some less than reputable sources (the @Tomorrow'sMPs Twitter account, which appears to be operated by Michael Crick) says that both Josh Dean (politician) and Euan Stainbank were born in 2000. ~~It would appear that Carling's constituency declared first, but I'll do a deep dive into live results when I'm finished with Dead Pony.~~ I do note that the Guardian has not retracted the article cited on this page.--Laun chba ller 15:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Economist, Stainbank's Falkirk declared at 3:47, Dean's Hertford and Stortford declared at 4:03, and Carling's North West Cambridgeshire declared at 5:59. However, I did some further digging, and it turns out I've got the start of the 21st century wrong as there is no year zero in the Anno Domini system. So I am right, but not for the reason I expected.--Laun chba ller 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the provided QPQ is valid because no hook was actually reviewed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there were no hooks on the page for me to review and because I was explicitly invited to propose one - the only valid hook on that page is ALT2, which is my hook. Reviewers often propose new hooks and call for new reviewers, I fail to see the difference.--Laun chba ller 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to preempt a possible 'it's been a week without a QPQ' comment, my view remains that the provided QPQ is valid, on the grounds that the only hook on the page was mine, and I consider this no different to a reviewer saying 'this hook would be better, someone else needs to approve it'. I don't plan on doing a second. An actual reviewer can adjudicate on it.--Laun chba ller 11:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up with a good hook is as much work as reviewing a hook. Hence, this is a valid QPQ in my books (at least in spirit, and if others see it differently, then I suggest IAR). Schwede 66 04:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the QPQ provided above should be fine. Yes a new opinion was requested, but that was only with regards to signing off a hook. Launchballer still did the actual article checks, which are ultimately what are most important to filling the QPQ requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree with NLH5 and Schwede66 :) full review needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - Unsure if there is a policy I am missing but some details in the infobox seem to be unsourced anywhere in the article, e.g. the exact date of him assuming office or the percentage of his majority
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Earwig highlighted some concerns with a specific site, particularly with the last sentence of the first paragraph under Political Career.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Reviewing this after there seems to be agreement that the qpq is acceptable. Also noting that the 21st century started in 2001, so the fact other MP's were born in 2000 does not negate the validity of the hook.

Currently Executive Councillor links to a disambig page. Please can this be updated to point towards a specific article?

@Launchballer: Please let me know if you have any questions about this review? CSJJ104 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flicking through the page's history, I am 100% certain they got it from us. I'll do the rest when I get back from shopping.--Laun chba ller 14:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see a link at Executive Councillor when I got there, so I guess that's fine, and I think I've taken out everything in the infobox not in the body. Also, that 'joint-youngest Labour MP ever' fact may make a better hook, but I'm disinclined to propose it given how close it is (the Telegraph piece cited says "almost to the day") and this will almost certainly change when we know dates.--Laun chba ller 10:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date he assumed office (5 July) is still in the info box but is not given in the article. CSJJ104 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I've added the date of the election to the article.--Laun chba ller 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @GuardianH: took it back out again. I don't think it matters that it's already in the election article - for verification purposes, it should also be here. Is there some WP:SKYISBLUE thing I'm not aware of?--Laun chba ller 05:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would consider the date someone started a new job to be covered by WP:BLP. I would question though if 4 July is the correct date? I know it is the one we are using for new MP's, but would the day they were sworn in, or the state opening of Parliament not be a better choice? CSJJ104 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 4 July per his Parliament.uk profile.--Laun chba ller 19:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised that the official start date is the day of the election, but that is indeed the case. Otherwise all issues raised in review have been resolved and no new ones were found. CSJJ104 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I think we need to have a discussion of if the allegations made against Carling relating to (elided) should be added to his page. They've been removed and added several times so we should reach a concensus. Muddyviolet (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have been removed several times as no reliable source has picked up on these claims. If there is coverage of this in reliable sources, then it can be added. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have elided part of the above comment per WP:BLP.--Laun chba ller 22:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but coverage of them will just link back to the original source deemed unreliable, so would that not stil be unreliable? Muddyviolet (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but as of yet I've not seen any mention in non-primary sources, so (with the greatest respect) the question is rather irrelevant until there is any secondary coverage of the allegations. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified claim of Salters sponsorship

In "Early life and education", the article that Sam Carling received a sponsorship from Salters to attend Cambridge. The citation attached to Salters is a link to their members portal, for some reason. The overall citation about attending Cambridge with sponsorship from Salters just a link to an article describing Carling as a Cambridge postgrad, with no mention of Salters.

The same claim is made on the Salters article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Salters#Salters'_Institute) where again the citation is simply a link to a city councillor profile of Carling with no evidence of Salters sponsorship.

As this article is semi-protected I cannot fix these citation issues myself. PositiveCharacteristic (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can, and have from both articles.--Laun chba ller 15:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical Scientist please remove from main article,

Biomedical scientist is a protected title in the UK. Sam Carling is not on the HCPC register as of 12/07/2024 17:50 https://www.hcpc-uk.org/check-the-register/register-results/ so this job title should not be attributed to him 146.200.209.218 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a fair enough cop. Removed.--Laun chba ller 17:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add section about Cambridge SU / Christ’s JCR Presidency to Education section:

Source (Cambridge student newspaper) https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/24838

Carling served as president of Christ’s College JCR for two years and raised concerns over Cambridge SU’s handling of LGBTQ student data. 185.108.171.47 (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]