Talk:Rebecca Lush

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

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

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Resume?

This article reads a bit more like a resume, I would be interested to know who wrote it. [unsigned]

If you are asking if this article was self authored, then the answer is that it wasn't. I have been authoring a lot of articles around transport, roads, road protest and aviation protest (check my contribs link) and this article was one of the ones I have created/worked on. Before you ask, it was written with her approval, and yes, she did provide some of the raw material but I only including content that was verifiable. What would you suggest should be added? Btw, who are you? PeterIto (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Bias

It's factually biased - the road building programme hasn't stopped at all. I travel regularly on the new Leighton Buzzard Bypass, eventhough that was subject to some half-hearted protests by a similar group (see http://users.cooptel.net/SeanKelly/bypass/pressrelease/roadblockpress1701.html) - who appeared to give up when faced by a community actually in favour of the bypass.

In order for it to have more authority the article should not simply cite the successful campaigns, but also the unsuccessful ones too, and not just the Leighton Buzzard Bypass either. There was a recent very good Westminster Hall debate on upgrading the A47 from Great Yarmouth. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2008-03-12a.106.0 - which indicates that there is still Conservative enthusiasm for a road building programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgb62uk (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What phrase are you objecting to exactly and what bias? The article does mention that in 1997 'most remaining road schemes were cancelled' (references) and then that new road program was proposed in 2002 (referenced). There is no mention of conservative transport policy in the article at all so I am not sure where you are coming from on that one. I suggest that the Road protest (UK) article is a better place for some of the issues you are raising. PeterIto (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Firstly you don't need someones approval or input to write an article about them on wikipedia. Secondly the article reads like propaganda describing a relatively unimportant person of little noteriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.83.228 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 May 2008

You may not agree with her POV, but if you follow the references I think you will have to agree that notability is not an issue for this person. PeterIto (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded claims

The article makes unfounded claims about her that just aren't true about her individually, nor that one person could have done that - eg "She was a founder of the UK's 1990's direct action road protest movement.", "Rebecca co-founded Road Alert!" (if co-founded means 2 people, because there were a handful), "She also co-founded the M11 direct action protests ".

And bits like "In December 2006 Rebecca highlighted four priority protests" make this whole article sound like a vanity piece, even if not written by her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.226.6 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have recovered the article from some earlier vandalism and reworked some of the content. I agree it was a little to puffy in places and I have toned some of it down. Also, I think the claims do all stand up to scrutiny now. PeterEastern (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.o.B?

Date of birth, please, as standard on Wiki pages. Valetude (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]