Talk:Emily Benn

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

Name confusion[edit]

The phrase "...is the elder child and only daughter of Stephen Benn and Nita Clarke (née Bowes)" leaves it ambiguous as to whether her parents were married at the time of her birth, or are married now, or both, or neither. I don't know the factual answer in this case -- can a clearer phrasing be used? --mervyn 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • does it matter? Emily's mother is known as Nita Clarke, but was born Nita Bowes. Whether she ever married Stephen Benn, either before or after Emily's birth, is surely neither here nor there nowadays. 62.25.106.209 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the 19th century it would have been potentially defamatory! Whatever the situation nowadays, I think an encyclopedia should aim to be accurate rather than ambiguous. --mervyn 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest MP Record[edit]

Why is there such detail on the records this woman would break in the very unlikely event of her being elected? - V

She will, regardless, be the youngest (or, depending on when the election is and on who else runs, one of the youngest) candidates in history - she's 18 today, and the lower limit was 21 until the S.17 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (which came into effect on January 1st). -- 217.42.190.82 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions[edit]

Not being real familiar with UK politics, I don't know what "MP" is in this context. Would someone please put the definition of "MP" in here somewhere? Preferably with a link to the Wikipedia article about it. Thanks! 205.245.254.151 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)anon[reply]

What are her chances?[edit]

Does she have a shot at winning? jengod 03:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the answer lies in the huge lead of the sitting MP. I wouldn't bet tuppence on her. But it is a common practice to put rookies in for unwinnable seats to give them practice at running. BrainyBabe 08:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fifth generation[edit]

Emily Benn is the fifth generation of her family to be involved in politics - which is probably a record, even allowing for 'noblemen involved in central government administration (not having hereditary positions).'

Going more global, how many other political families are there extending beyond the parent-child set up? Offhand the run seems to be about three - the Nehru/Gandhis and the (US) Kennedys being the most obvious: are there others? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The various Earls Russell are up to 6, although they haven't all been elected, and Bertrand, the most famous one, was an activist rather than a politician as such. Across the pond, the Bush family are up to 4, although it's only a matter of time before the next generation come through politically. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along with "royals and politicals reaching 90+ and beyond (Otto von Habsburg is probably the current holder of both titles) - and there are only 'a handful' who have reached 100+) an obscure category that will never make a Wiki article. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

I can't see how this person is notable. Being the youngest parliamentary candidate at the time she stood, by virtue of the law having been changed, but not being elected, is ardly enough.87.231.185.157 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based on whether one is the youngest or the most successful. According to Wikipedia's notability guideline, a subject is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia when there are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited the notability guideline rather selectively - it doesn't say a subject is notable; it says a subject is presumed to be notable. Here is what it says verbatim:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.

In this case, I agree with 87.231.185.157 above that this topic is not appropriate for inclusion.182.240.34.34 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banker?[edit]

I have made Ms. Benn's job description more specific. "Banker" is perhaps a somewhat nebulous term. The page referenced didn't actually call her a "banker"; it just said that she "works at UBS investment bank", which could just as easily refer to a cleaner. She isn't a cleaner, though! I found a page that defines her job more specifically as being on the "multi-asset sales team" at investment bank UBS. I have therefore replaced the term "banker" with the more specific description. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Benn. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emily_Benn&oldid=1206244943"