Talk:Suella Braverman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"qualified as a New York Attorney"?

This statement is on her official government profile: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/braverman Kaihsu (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems legit: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorneyservices/search?0 Kaihsu (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Minister on Leave

Suella Braverman became the first person to be designated as a Minister on Leave today, but I'm not completely sure how to include this information in the article, particularly in the infobox. Could anybody lend a hand? Thanks FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that I've worked out how to incorporate this information now. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: I reckon her tenure as AG had ended since the beginning of her maternal leave. It is either occupied by either one or another for UK ministers of the Crown and law officers of the Crown; what the Act did was creating a cabinet capacity for the minister on leave to be paid as a cabinet minister but not retaining the position for the him/her. This announcement and the AG gov.uk webpage can, in my opinion, support my view. Cheers, -- NYKTNE _(talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment; in law, Braverman is no longer the Attorney General, but a Minister on Leave (and, according to gov.uk now, not a Cabinet minister). I am just worried that this might be an oversimplification of the real situation on account of the fact that, as far as I'm aware, the only real reason why she is no longer AG is for technical salary reasons. Outside of ministers, people on maternity leave don't stop being called "Assistant Manager" etc. as far as I'm aware. Braverman's gov.uk page says that she is "Minister on Leave (Attorney General)", as opposed to just "Minister on Leave" and this BBC News article seems to suggest, at least to me, that Michael Ellis's appointment is only temporary. I don't feel incredibly strongly on this issue, but I hope that you can see why I think that it might not be best to say that she is no longer Attorney General in the infobox etc. I think that the "On Leave" status tag works quite well as things stand. Have a nice evening! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the circumstances around the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 be included in this article? – Kaihsu (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There is already a sentence about how Braverman has been designated Minister on Leave, but if you want to add more (for example, the reasons why the Act was passed) then feel free! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Anonymous gossip and BLPs

@Emeraude: 1) The article is by Nick Cohen, who is a columnist. It is an opinion piece, and reads as a smear job. Opinion pieces are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, particularly for a WP:BLP. WP:RSEDITORIAL Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

2) See WP:BLPGOSSIP Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. The wording which I deleted presented as a fact an opinion of an anonymous informant. The article doesn’t even say that the informant heard Mr Johnson make any remark about Ms Braverman.

3) I originally considered changing the wording of this, to: According to an anonymous informant to the Observer, Boris Johnson chose Braverman as Attorney General because she was a “malleable” legal figure who “would do his bidding”. - which I have now done. But on reading this, I realised that this would bring Wikipedia into disrepute, so I deleted it.

4) What justification do you have for including unspecific anonymous gossip in a BLP?

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• So, is it your opinion that she is, in fact, a leading lawyer with an illustrious career at the bar? Why have you deleted the entirely uncontroversial sentence: "A particular criticism is that the attorney general, while a politician, has always had the role of upholding the rule of law, acting independently of government."? Whose unattributed "gossip" is that? Emeraude (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

For heaven’s sake, please stick to the point. My opinion of Suella Braverman is irrelevant to this article and so is yours. I am concerned about the lack of any suitable source for the statement: A particular criticism is that the attorney general, while a politician, has always had the role of upholding the rule of law, acting independently of government; Braverman was a malleable legal figure doing the bidding of Prime Minister Johnson without independent thought. The anonymous gossip is the second part of that sentence, and the first part has no significance without the second, and it makes no sense to include it. I take it you have no justification for including the opinion of an anonymous informant.

I have read the Cohen article twice, trying to find something which was suitable for inclusion, and I could not come up with anything. I think that the current wording which I added should also be removed, because Wikipedia articles should not be based on anonymous gossip. I do not understand why any experienced editor would disagree with me. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see both sides here: why Emeraude wants to use a Nick Cohen article-which is a reliable source for his opinion-and why Sweet6970 thinks the anonymous nature of allegations should rule them out. The original phrasing was too close to wiki voice for comfort, though it skirted round things slightly so it's not a blatant case of "remove on sight". So on the whole I think that the current phrasing is probably about right. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Triratna

https://mythoughtsbornfromfire.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/suella-braverman-cultural-marxism-and-the-triratna-sect/ 2A00:23C5:B3A2:A001:B171:EA86:14EA:FEFA (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That information is already included: if you have a more specific suggestion please make it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 12 September

Add {{pp-blp}} per protection reason [1]). 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Madeline (part of me) 08:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Transgender matters section

@Arcahaeoindris:

1. Transgender matters are matters to do with transgender people, ideas, practices, legal status etc.

2. LGBT stands for ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender’. The section says nothing about LGB matters. Your change to the heading means the heading no longer makes sense.

3. ‘believes’ is superfluous, and also suggests that Wikipedia is saying that her statement is wrong, so your wording is not neutral.

4. The links you added into the quotes imply things which she has not said.

5. You should self-revert and justify your proposed change on this page.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for taking this here.

1 and 2. "LGBT rights" is a broad topic heading that I think makes more sense. If Braverman had other views or things to say about LGBT people it would go here. Transgender matters is not a typical heading for this topic. Could rename it Transgender rights or Transgender issues if you're insistent with being more specific.

3. "Believes" is not a superfluous word as the section is about her views and political positions, not necessarily what is true. Framing them in that way is not non-neutral. The source describes this as something that she said, not what is fact. So we could change it to "said" instead of "believes" to make it clear that this is the case.

4. I linked to relevant pages to make this more informative.

5. Will not self-revert but me know your thoughts on the above and hopefully we can come to some kind of consensus. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly changed the section title to "transgender rights" for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

1 & 2. I would prefer ‘Transgender issues’, but I would accept ‘Transgender rights’ as per the recent edit.

3. You say the source describes this as something that she said. We should do the same – and this was the previous wording. This is neutral – by saying that this is what she said, we remain neutral about whether she is correct.

4. I appreciate that your intent in linking was to be helpful to readers, but I am wary of linking words and expressions in quotes, because we don’t know whether the person speaking would agree with Wikipedia’s description of what they are talking about.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It would make more sense to call this section "transgender rights" or "transgender issues" than "transgender matters." Also, I removed the reference to JK Rowling, since it isn't particularly relevant here. If there was more than one sentence in the article, then perhaps. Further explanation of why the quote is relevant would be teaching the controversy. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Since there appears to be agreement that ‘said’ is the correct word, I am deleting the reference to ‘believes’.

Are there any comments about my objection to using Wikipedia links for words contained in a direct quotation?

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

My view is that using Wikipedia links for words in a direct quotation needs to be done with caution, and suggestions to remove such links should be considered carefuly. But in this case I can't see any links in direct quotations in this section. Am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I recognised the wording of the section as being close to words used in the source, but I see now that there are no direct quotations. I’m sorry for the trouble. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

State comprehensive Uxendon Manor Primary School

Only secondary schools are referred to as comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.132.135 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is wiki, mate. Errors and ignorance are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

POV lead

I think the last three sentences of the lead are pretty questionable with regard to NPOV. The IP who added them has now been temporarily blocked, but I would value some third opinions before simply reverting this. Obviously some of these matters might belong in the article, but it would be good to see a carefully referenced discussion in the main body first rather than just leaping to quite lurid language in the lead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you have assessed this correctly, there should be coverage in the body but the frothing rhetoric in the lead is probably a bit OTT. Perhaps it is TOOSOON for the lead at the moment. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed the section for now. I'll also note that much of the content was sourced to a single opinion piece, not to mention one source only mentions Braverman once, in an aside and another is just a category. Woodroar (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be there somewhere. That a senior legal officer has been accused (and has not denied) of misrepresenting their career by reliable sources is a serious issue. Emeraude (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Much of the content currently in the lede (it'll probably be gone again by the time I finish writing this) certainly needs rethinking, but to completely omit her position on the current Brexit legislation, which is the by far the position this hitherto-obscure politician is best known for, is definitely not appropriate either. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

'hitherto obscure politician' (there is no hyphen) ... LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Transgenderism

@Sweet6970: The passage under the Attorney General section:

In May 2022, Braverman was criticised by Caroline Derbyshire, chair of the Headteachers' Roundtable, for remarks she made in an interview with The Times about how schools should deal with transgender pupils. The interview included a comment by Braverman that some teachers were effectively encouraging gender dysphoria by taking an "unquestioning" attitude.

has some overlap but overall is quite different in terms of content and emphasis from the passage reverted under the Political and legal positions section:

In an interview with The Times, Braverman said that schools do not have to accommodate requests from students who wish to change their gender, including the use of the pronouns, uniforms, lavatories and changing facilities of a different gender. She has sided with J. K. Rowling, who has campaigned to protect female-only spaces, and argues that, legally, under-18s are only entitled to be treated by the gender of their birth. She said that the "unquestioning approach" adopted by some teachers and schools is the reason different parts of the country have very different rates of children presenting as transgender.

That Braverman sides with JK Rowling is based on a quote from the interview where Braverman described the writer as, "Very brave, very courageous. I'm on her side." Do you need verification?

References

CurryCity (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion.

1) Firstly, all the text about this interview should be in the same place. If we are going to expand the wording about this, then I would agree that it should be in a separate section under ‘Political and legal positions’ as you had done. But I’m not sure ‘Transgenderism’ is the right heading. I would suggest ‘Views on transgender matters’.

2) The wording ‘She has sided with J K Rowling’ is misleading, because it implies that she has intervened on a legal case on the side of J K Rowling, and that is not the situation. But it may be appropriate to include a quote.

3) I don’t have access to the Times. Could you supply actual quotations from the article on which you based your wording?

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

1: Agree with the suggested heading. 2: The JK Rowling reference doesn't necessarily need to be included, although it's somewhat notable IMO.

3a: Fourth paragraph of the article:

She described JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author who has campaigned to protect female-only spaces, as a “heroine” of hers. “Very brave, very courageous. I’m on her side.”

3b: Caption for a photo of the writer:

JK Rowling has the backing of Braverman and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD

3c: Two consecutive paragraphs deeper into the article:

It is not a view endorsed by Braverman, 42, who said that teachers and medical professionals should take a much “firmer line” on gender dysphoria”. She added: “You can see that by huge disparities around the country. Some parts of the country there are very low rates of children presenting as transgender, in some parts of the country it’s quite worryingly high. That must be to do with the way teachers and local education authorities are approaching this subject. I think there is something to be said for young people seeing what their peers are doing and being influenced by that.

“Medical professionals, teachers should be taking a much firmer line. They shouldn’t take an unquestioning approach, they shouldn’t just take what the child says. There could be a whole host of other causes to why that child might be coming forward with these issues. It might not actually be that they want to go down the line of gender reassignment.”

The Guardian piece appears to have adequately covered the rest.

CurryCity (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quotations. I agree that Ms Braverman’s reference to J K Rowling is noteworthy. I suggest combining the 2 wordings as:

In an interview with The Times, Braverman said that schools do not have to accommodate requests from students who wish to change their gender, including the use of the pronouns, uniforms, lavatories and changing facilities of a different gender. She argues that, legally, under-18s are only entitled to be treated by the gender of their birth. She said that the "unquestioning approach" adopted by some teachers and schools is the reason different parts of the country have very different rates of children presenting as transgender. She also expressed admiration for J. K. Rowling, referring to her as ‘a heroine ’of hers. Caroline Derbyshire, chair of the Headteachers’ Roundtable, criticised Braverman’s remarks about schools, saying “Schools do all kinds of things to safeguard the welfare of young people that they are not ‘bound’ to do by law”.

Any comments from anyone? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! The positions section appears to simply list and describe what she stands for, as opposed to a more comprehensive treatment of each position including, for example, any criticism. So it might make sense to still mention the criticism or even the JK Rowling reference under Attorney General while the rest goes under Political and legal positions. CurryCity (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I see your point, but I think on balance it is better to have all the text about this subject in one place – and now that you have provided more inf about her position on transgender matters, I think it is better to put it under the ‘Political and legal positions’ section. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

On the whole I think it best to keep this on one section unless any comments impinge directly on her role as Attorney General. You should also look at MOS:CURLY. Otherwise fine. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright. BTW do straight quotes just mean ' or " or something else special? CurryCity (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"The wording ‘She has sided with J K Rowling’ is misleading, because it implies that she has intervened on a legal case on the side of J K Rowling" - it implies no such thing. 92.21.247.115 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"nor had enough experience to seek such appointment"

Can the phrase "nor had enough experience to seek such appointment" be removed? It is a matter of opinion that Braverman is not experienced enough to be a QC, not a matter of fact. Unusual.Octopus (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is the opinion of Joshua Rozenberg, who is an established legal commentator. Perhaps this opinion should be attributed to him. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine if attributed but not in wiki voice. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a fact. No one gets QC so early in a barrister's career. And it is attributed. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

When I said 'this opinion should be attributed' I meant that the article should explicitly say that this is the opinion of Joshua Rozenberg.

There is also the point that the lead of the article should follow the body, so this should also be included in the body of the article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this should be explicitly attribited, and have done so. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Which reliable source has ever said that this is not correct? She is unquestionably unqualified to be a QC on merit or by experience, hence her grant of QC by dint of office. Unless there is a source that says otherwise, Rozenberg is not a sole voice but merely staing what is fact, not his personal opinion. Emeraude (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Then you'll be able to find a second independent reliable source that says it. Until then it should be attributed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There was, of course, the Prospect article which was also used as a reference, but that has very conveniently been removed from the article as well! Oh well, I suppose we just have to accept that she is the best lawyer that ever worked at the English bar with decades of experience and totally worthy of a QC, as opposed to an honorary QC by reason of appointment. Now I will spend my time searching for sources that show her depth and length of experience as a leading barrister. I'll report back in 50 years!! Emeraude (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

We get it - Emeraude detests Braverman, is the most qualified legal commentator in the galaxy on matters pertaining to what qualifies one to be a QC, and believes that hysterical sarcasm proves anything at all. Still insufficient for what purports to be an encyclopaedia article (in what purports to be an encyclopaedia but emphatically is not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Name change

When and why did she change her name from Sue-Ellen? There's no reference to it in the article. It is pertinent if she is running for office under a false name on the ballot paper. 185.13.50.215 (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that in the UK "As long as it is not done for fraudulent or other unlawful purposes, a person may assume any forename without any formalities and can identify themselves with, and be identified by, the assumed name." She was known as Suella in Cambridge in 2000 so it's hardly a recent thing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"running for office under a false name on the ballot paper" - LOL. You evidently have no idea about the legal situation in this country as regards first names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancient accusation

This is trivial gossip. The accusation was in Varsity in the year 2000. There has been no other report of this. There is no reason to believe the accusation is true. Since I don’t have access to the magazine, I don’t have the context as to what exactly she was accused of, and whether any evidence was provided. This is a BLP, and we should not be hosting dubious accusations such as this. Sweet6970 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

22 years ago is not "ancient". If you do not have access to Varsity that is your problem, but the Wikipedia way is to assume good faith on the part of the editor who did. It is NOT a BLP issue to say that she was accused of something - she was - it's a fact. That she was cleared, or not, would make for completion, but the fact remains she was accused. Emeraude (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, note that I have reverted your other deletions re-ECHR withdrawal. Your claim that you couldn't find any source for SB wanting to withdraw from the ECHR is empty - I found four in less than two minutes and have added them to the article (minus the Daily Mail, which is not usually regarded as a reliable source but I think could be on this occasion). Emeraude (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a student newspaper, it doesn't belong as it doesn't have gravitas. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What? Of course it's a (Cambridge University) student paper. Where else would stories about a Cambridge University student election appear? Gravitas is neither here nor there. Emeraude (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a detailed discussion including scanned copies of the original allegations and the subsequent rebuttal in The Spectator [2]. I don't think the story really stands up. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my removal even more then. You need exceptional sourcing for a charge of vote rigging and bribery. Here, the egg appears to be on the face of the Varsity student editors. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Varsity's editor may have an eggy face but, nevertheless, the accusation was made which is all the article says. If there is evidence the accusation was wrong, that can be added with the appropriate citation. Might even boost her reputation! 12:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think a student newspaper can be considered reliable. — Czello 12:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Then it's a shame The Spectator devoted so much space to it......... Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Which per WP:RSP can't always be considered reliable either as it's largely opinion pieces. — Czello 12:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A student editor is still a student, learning, and not reliable. Putting the student accusation in the article smears her.Gilgul Kaful (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal here: the sourcing is inadequate for the allegation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Emeraude's vendetta against Braverman is becoming rather tedious. Signed: Gilgul Meshulash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

KC, not QC?

Why KC? She is a Queen's Counsel. MurrayGreshler (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II has died, therefore, Suella Braverman is a King's Counsel , considering King Charles III is now the monarch.

References to 'Queen' will be replaced by 'King'. 2406:E003:E1E:1701:7910:5E39:1B52:7B25 (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But she wasn't made a KC, as misleadingly now stated in the article. At the time the appointment was as a QC. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Have a read here; https://twitter.com/thebarcouncil/status/1567941550289592329 .

No new Letters Patent will be issued, as the change from 'Q.C.' to 'K.C.' is automatic.

This applies no matter whether the King's Counsel is in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. or in the British Overseas Territories. 2406:E003:A09:6101:4D3A:35FA:64BF:B8AD (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Queen's Counsel and King's Counsel are not two separate things, by which a person can only be one or the other but not both. Any QC automatically becomes KC the moment there's a K instead of a Q, and any KC automatically becomes QC the moment there's a Q instead of a K. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

LOL. 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Unclear usage

This poorly constructed sentence, "Following Truss's appointment as prime minister, she appointed Braverman as Home Secretary, she resigned in October." leaves ambiguous who resigned. It should also be two distinct sentences. Good grammar, expression and punctuation have never been a strength demonstrated by Wikipedia's hotch-potch of amateur editors. 185.65.27.236 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Good grammar, expression and punctuation have never been a strength demonstrated by Wikipedia's hotch-potch of amateur editors" - hear, hear! Nor have adherence to facts and avoiding propaganda and personal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Updated BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

They both resigned in October. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Name

Cruella Braverman??? How has this change of name come through? 2A02:A459:90BD:1:6017:B5C8:739:3E1F (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

There has been no 'change of name', only infantile smears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

OUT OF DATE!!!!!

She was reappointed by Sunak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Should the text "who has served as Home Secretary since 25 October 2022, having previously held the position from September to 19 October 2022 under Liz Truss, a six day break" be "who has served as Home Secretary since 25 October 2022, having previously held the position from 6 September to 19 October 2022 under Liz Truss." - I can't edit due to being a newbie!

Yes, and I have made the alteration you suggested. Thank you. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

We now know the facts of her resignation. Should state that she made a security breach through use of personnal email.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/19/suella-braverman-departs-as-uk-home-secretary-liz-truss 80.209.138.139 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The current wording on this is: Braverman left her cabinet position as Home Secretary on 19 October 2022. She said that her departure was because she had made an "honest mistake" by sharing an official document from her personal email address with a colleague in Parliament, an action which breached the Ministerial Code. Braverman was also highly critical of Truss's leadership in her resignation letter.

Exactly what change are you proposing? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done – unclear what (if any) changes were requested to be made. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Resignation: Technical breach v security matter

@Proxima Centauri: I am deleting your addition because (a) I don’t think that this detailed discussion is DUE, and (b) if we are going to have this kind of detail, then we should also include the comments from the source provided by the IP above [3], the Guardian of 19 October, which includes several comments saying that the breach was a minor technical matter: The security breach was met with raised eyebrows from some of Braverman’s backers. Steve Baker, who co-led her leadership campaign and is now a Northern Ireland minister, said the use of a personal email had only been “technically” a breach of rules, and that such liaison with other MPs on policy was “perfectly normal”. One Tory MP said it seemed “very minor” and that most cabinet ministers had been guilty of the same thing. Another admitted: “If they wanted to keep her and she wanted to stay, this wouldn’t be a resigning matter.” A former No 10 aide also said it was “bullshit” that she would have been told to stand down for sending a draft written ministerial statement. “Special advisers and ministers, including the PM, have done much much worse,” they said. “Team Truss obviously handed her the revolver.” Sweet6970 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Further story in the Guardian today [4] Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The source provided by Proxima Centauri:[5]. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Since this was written a great many sources have suggested the breach was serious. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, that's a journalist's prerogative though, to spice up their story with a bit of sensationalism (Some tactics include being deliberately obtuse, appealing to emotions, being controversial, intentionally omitting facts and information, being loud and self-centered, and acting to obtain attention), or even defamation. We have to see through all that though, this being an encyclopaedia and not a leftist tabloid or satirical blog. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

'antisemitism'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(a) In the first place, there is no such thing as 'anti-Semitism', since there is no such thing as 'Semitism' (or 'Semites'). Antisemitism = hatred of Jews, by definition. The article itself spells it 'antisemitism' later on, but nobody expects consistency in Wikipedia. (b) It is utterly absurd to equate the fight AGAINST cultural Marxism with antisemitism, since cultural Marxism itself is deeply antisemitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York License

@Michael Drew: You have added to the article: She was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York on 20 September 2006. That license was suspended on 7 October 2021.

1. I tried to read the reference, and I got ‘Page expired’.

2. The reference is described as ‘The New York State Unified Court System’. This sounds like a primary source.

3. There is no information on why the license has been suspended. Saying that a license to practice law has been suspended suggests that this has been done as a disciplinary measure i.e. that there has been some sort of misconduct. So this suggests a defamatory meaning. Therefore, I am deleting this text.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So, I slightly altered the addition to remove the New York State Bar Association (which is a common mistake), but I tend to agree this material is not particularly WP:DUE. The link is to a primary source, as mentioned, and I agree, the suspension sounds dodgy. It is certainly possible that something untoward happened, but more likely that she stopped paying biennial fees once she no longer practiced in New York, which is not ideal, but happens all the time. Absent some secondary source pickup, I concur with this deletion. Cheers all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have re-added this content as The Times is now (belatedly) covering the story: [6]. If others think this is undue, please feel free to remove. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

Page states she was home secretary from 2019-2022 which is incorrect, it was Priti Patel. 86.180.30.10 (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I can't see anywhere that this article says she was home secretary from 2019-2022. Nthep (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

'Controversy' section added 6 April 2023

I am deleting the section added recently, for various reasons: 1) There should not be a separate ‘controversy’ section – any inf about Ms Braveman’s attitude to grooming gangs should be a subpara to the ‘Political and legal positions’ section 2)The main source is an article by Ella Cockbain in the Guardian. This is an opinion piece, and therefore not suitable as a source. 3) The other sources do not feature as reliable sources on RSP So – if information on this aspect of Braverman’s views is to be added, non-opinion sources from recognised reliable sources should be used. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It is important to note that several reliable and recognized sources, including Aljazeera, Middle East Eye, Dawn, The Independent and Anadolu Agency, have reported on this topic. None of these sources are considered opinion sources, making their reporting a valuable and credible contribution to the discussion. In addition, the criticism of Dr. Ella Cockbain, an associate professor of crime science of the Gaurdian, and former chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal should be noted, as it brings a valid and notable perspective to the discussion. Her comments have sparked outrage on social media, and Pakistan has condemned her remarks. Given the importance and relevance of these viewpoints and reactions, the controversy section is necessary and relevant. It belongs on Wikipedia and will stay here.

I have also provided an additional sources of the The Independent and News International, both of them are authentic news report and not an opinion piece. StarkReport (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Some of this material might find a home as a subsection within "Political and legal positions", but as written it is an over excited coatrack which is WP:UNDUE and confuses opinions with facts and so certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, as I said before, any material on this matter should not be under a separate section called ‘Controversy’: many of Ms Braverman’s views are controversial, and if we include anything about this, it should be in a subpara under the Political and legal positions section.

Secondly, there is no foundation for the opening statement ‘Suella Braverman caused an uproar….’ The paucity of coverage on this shows that hardly anybody is interested. (David Blunkett responded in a letter to the Guardian [7] referring to her ‘completely unwarranted attack on Labour in relation to child sexual abuse ‘ i.e. his complaint is that Ms Braverman is using the grooming gangs scandal as a political stick to beat Labour with. I am not suggesting that we refer to Mr Blunkett’s view in our article.)

The source The News International appears to be a publication in Pakistan i.e. not Rupert Murdoch’s outfit.

The only serious source is the Independent. This does not say that anyone was outraged. The bits which seem to me to be most relevant are: [Braverman said:]“We’ve seen institutions and state agencies, whether it’s social workers, teachers, the police, turn a blind eye to these signs of abuse out of political correctness, out of fear of being called racists, out of fear of being called bigoted.” and Sir Peter Wanless, NSPCC chief executive, welcomed the government’s focus on tackling child abuse but also stressed that race should not be the sole focus on the issue.

So even the NSPCC is not outraged – in fact, they welcome the government’s focus on tacking child abuse.

My conclusion is that this incident is not significant enough to be included in our article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with most of that, but don't want to leap to the conclusion that there is nothig salvageable here. Most of the reporting is just republishing outraged tweets, but there may be useful nuggets buried in the dross that could be included in a suitable subsection of the Political and legal positions section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Boris Johnson has a Starmer slur controversy section just because of a minor backlash. And wrong, it does not belong in Political and legal positions, because everyone is against those child abusers and as they should be. We are talking about Braverman's statement that were pointed elsewhere and were enough to cause controversy. It is important to accurately represent notable controversies in the public figure's life, and this particular incident should not be dismissed as a minor backlash or lumped into a broader section. This controversy has gained international attention, with Pakistan itself condemning the remarks as hateful and racist. NSPCC did talk about her remarks with strong disapproval.

I concur that the section in question would benefit from some revisions, particularly as noted by @Sweet6970 regarding the phrasing of "Suella Braverman caused an uproar." but the section is apt and to the point. StarkReport (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any noteworthy controversy in the report in the Independent, which is the most significant source in the deleted wording. If this was a noteworthy event, there would be more coverage in the British media. WP:NOTNEWS, and this has barely made it to the news. I do not think it is appropriate to include material on this in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"Tory peer urges Sunak to distance party from Braverman’s ‘racist rhetoric’" seems worthy of mention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see that there has been some further comment on this, though I'm not yet convinced that it is worth mentioning in our article. Do you have a suggested wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Anther source: [8]. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Can we have a different image than the current one? There are many available here: c:Category:Suella_Braverman. Dympies (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

Change “AS” to “As” at the start of the second paragraph in the Immigration section. ErlandCooperHusband (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Czello ^(music) 12:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Complaints in "Immigration" section

Instead of appending as is normal in Talk, I am editing the proposed text to try and get it right in a less cumbersome way; see History of Talk for previous iterations. If this is considered unacceptable I won't continue this way. pol098

There has been to-and-fro about complaints of "racist sentiments and discriminatory narratives", with correct summaries per WP:BLP as that was only part of the reason given for the referral - NPOV requires the full context to be given and per WP:BLP as this is not the whole reason given in the source. Is the following wording considered acceptable for the Immigration section, with a brief summary in misconduct? If not it can be edited to improve it. It gets a bit wordy with full context.

In 2022, as Home Secretary, Braverman referred to people reaching the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats as an 'invasion'. Braverman's comments attracted criticism from an 83-year-old Holocaust survivor who in January 2023 accused Braverman of using language akin to Nazi rhetoric. Braverman stood by her comments and declined to apologise, stating: "We have a problem with people exploiting our generosity, breaking our laws and undermining our system."

In response to these comments and others about sexual grooming gang members being predominantly British-Pakistani men who "hold cultural values totally at odds with British values", nine organisations—London Muslim Community Forum, Natasha Lloyd Owen and Chiara Maddocks - Co-chairs of the Society of Labour, Lawyers Crime Group, Society of Asian Lawyers, Association of Muslim Lawyers, Muslim Lawyers Action Group, Luton Council of Mosques – 23 Muslim organisations, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and Sunni Council of Mosques—wrote a letter to the Bar Standards Board in May 2023 about their deep concern that Braverman (a barrister before becoming an MP, and still subject to certain professional rules governing conduct despite not practising as a barrister since 2015) had breached the body's code of conduct with "racist sentiments and discriminatory narratives". The letter urges the Board to investigate and take action against what they claim is racist and inflammatory language used by the home secretary about British men of Pakistani heritage and asylum seekers, citing their view that three Bar Council code of conduct rules were breached: CD5 - behaving in a way which is likely to diminish trust and confidence, C8 - conduct which the public may reasonably perceive as undermining honesty, integrity or independence, and C12 - a breach of the instruction not to discriminate against any other person on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin or other grounds.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) Pol098 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It's more complete now, but still needs to list the nine organisations which lodged the complaint - without naming them it is nothing but weasel words. Also, the 'Imigration' section isn't appropriate for this as it is not solely imigration related. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the previous brief wording is better: As a result of her comments, Braverman was referred to the Bar Standards Board in May 2023 by nine organisations which claim that she has breached the code of a barrister due to alleged "racist comments and discriminatory narratives". The proposed wording above is, in itself, more informative, but because of its length, it gives the impression that a major investigation is underway, whereas we don’t even know if the Bar Standards Board is treating this as a serious complaint – the story only comes from the complainants. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

(Editing rather than appending may not be a good idea. I had edited the text, and my edit crossed with the previous addition, which I haven't yet considered. I wrote the following before Sweet6970's contribution) Thanks. Text now amended per previous comment. I didn't think the sectioning was right, and will look to changing it. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the suggested text to reflect the actual letter, not news reports about it. It's a letter, not a formal complaint, expressing views. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Not "Immigration", in Allegations section add subsection "Statements deemed racist"? I'll put it in, it can be edited or removed. Pol098 (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A comment about sources: text has been criticised as relying significantly on a WP:primary source, which Wikipedia deplores. As the text is explicitly about "a letter saying ...", the best source in this case is the letter (primary) itself. My personal opinion is that the primary source guideline is quite inappropriate here; I invoke WP:Ignore all rules, and am considering removing "non-primary source needed". I'd also comment that in this particular case (and many others) the WP:secondary sources are inferior. Reading the letter, it is quite clearly putting forth opinions; while a "complaint" (natter) in ordinary usage, the implication of the word is a formal complaint invoking a standard procedure. All the news media reports (nice secondary sources, not just the POV-accused Guardian) use words that to me imply that a formal procedure has been invoked, with specific breaches reported and accusations made which must be investigated; I agree that they are unreliable sources for the fine detail. Actually the letter alleges that SB said certain things, the only actual allegation, clearly true as widely reported. It is then worded indicating that the signatories' opinion is that SB's remarks were racist and breached rules, with no allegations as such. There is no explicit allegation or accusation of law- or rule-breaking, just "it is our opinion" (correct me if I misremember). Apologies for the rant; I slept badly last night, and kept myself awake thinking these thoughts. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The interpretation of primary sources should be supported by only secondary sources to ensure we avoid OR and undue weight. Opinions which the secondary sources will inevitably introduce should be carefully attributed and, where appropriate, balanced with alternative opinions from other secondary, per WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

1) I agree with DeFacto that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources.

2) Pol098 says above that the letter is putting forth opinions, rather than a formal complaint. But the way the text currently reads, with details of the code of conduct rules allegedly breached, makes it look like a formal complaint. And the section heading is Complaint to the Bar Standards Board. So I think that our current wording is misleading. I would still prefer the much briefer previous wording.

3) As a practical matter, it would be better to list the names of the organisations in a footnote.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged breach of the ministerial code

Could someone add the links to Laurie Magnus (executive), National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme and possibly also Speed limits by country? Thank you. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added links for Magnus and the offender retraining scheme. I think the Speed limits by country is irrelevant and over the top. Thanks for suggesting these links. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly irrelevant, but probably not needed here. Many thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Way too verbose

pieces of writing like this are just objectively bad. It's writing an encyclopaedia article as if we're a minute-by-minute live news feed of an ongoing event.

Similar for the other section I rewrote. It doesn't make sense to list out 9 non-notable organisations in prose, to write sentences about how a single Holocaust survivor disliked some comments, or to list out excerpts from the Bar code, especially when the Bar hasn't issued any statement indicating it's opening an investigation, or giving an outcome. To be honest, I think the whole section should go, it's a news cycle that existed for a grand total of two days. But the least that should be done, out of respect for our readers' time, is to detail the affair in as straight-forward a manner as possible (as with anything we should write about, on any topic). The current three paragraph long description is a total waste of readers' time. And aside from being poor writing, it's a complete failure of WP:DUE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I support your latest edits shortening the text. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you removing the holocaust survivor incident? It's fully sourced. Aimilios92 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Far-right politics

I think it is important to critically examine Suella's far-right association with certain political ideologies and her stance on migration and progressive values in the UK. In the introduction, it would be beneficial to provide a balanced and nuanced perspective, mentioning how her rhetoric is often referred to as far-right by many scholars and journalists. In discussing Suella's political positions, it's essential to provide specific examples and evidence to support the claims made. Mentioning her statements, speeches, or legislative actions would strengthen your argument. A few academic [9] [10] and journalistic references [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Any thoughts? Aimilios92 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to quickly note that Novara media is not a reliable source, neither are opinion pieces (the Guardian article). — Czello ^(music) 13:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Depends on who is giving the opinion. If it's an acknowledged expert on the subject.... Emeraude (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There is widespread consensus that she represents a nativist and far-right approach in conservative politics. I can bring more sources into the discussion. The whole migration debate is fuelled by extreme xenophobia. Aimilios92 (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

One more [18] Aimilios92 (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You have assembled enough sources of enough quality to say with attribution that some people have described her in these terms; you haven't got enough to present this view as widespread or a consensus, never mind as true. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"Your assertion of 'never mind as true' seems to stem from the content and patterns observed on your social media usage. It gives the impression of a certain detachment from the UK political scene due to the incorporation of some rather unconventional and quite fringe views. To foster a more productive exchange of ideas, it would be beneficial if you could offer specific examples, as requested below from another user. Providing such instances would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of what you perceive to be untrue or lacking consensus beyond the boundaries of the ultraconservative sphere in which you participate. It is essential to refrain from making sweeping generalizations, especially when using phrases like 'never mind as true,' as it can inadvertently lead to accusations of dishonesty. Encouraging a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to the discussion on the nativism debate surrounding Suella Braverman can lead to a richer exchange of ideas and prevent any perceived manipulation of the talk page to advance a particular point of view. Cheers Prof. Jones. Aimilios92 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, we do not have support that any of the things she is accused of having done were intentional, and per the primary authority on the English language, the OED, 'dog whistle' is defined as A subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular demographic group: ' dog-whistle issues such as immigration and crime '. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting for those examples. Aimilios92 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, examples of what? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I will leave it for others to decide whether the comments from Aimilios92 are consistent with WP:NPA, noting the warnings on their talk page [19]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, Prof. Jones! Aimilios92 (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones, I'm afraid that I have a similar issue with them. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Same @DeFacto, I also have a problem with them. Aimilios92 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92: You've been asked before to assume good faith. You shouldn't be making judgements on other editors based on their social media. Again, comment on content not contributors. — Czello ^(music) 16:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks sufficient to me to be included in the article. That said, a "has been described as" qualifier is probably appropriate here instead of Wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP issues

A source noting that both she and the BLP used the word "invasion" when talking about immigrants is not support for the assertion that her "rhetoric has been characterized as hard right". At best it is a source that supports the notion that [whoever it was] has used the use of that word to accuse her of using such rhetoric. And as this is a BLP, any denials need to be given equal prominence. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The usage of the term "invasion" to describe the migration wave from Europe is a matter of concern, and this viewpoint is well supported by various reputable sources. Avoiding an accurate portrayal of events by sugarcoating such views can lead to a distortion of the context. Regrettably, reliable academic and journalistic sources were entirely removed without any attempt at initiating a discussion. While the BLP policy is essential for maintaining fairness and accuracy, it should not be used as a pretext to dismiss all sources as biased and to impose a personal point of view. In the interest of presenting a comprehensive and balanced perspective, it is vital to restore the whole section and ensure it is grounded in credible sources and sound evidence. Encouraging constructive discourse and considering different viewpoints will lead to a more nuanced understanding of Braverman's rhetoric. If you wish to delve deeper into the concept of nativism and related rhetoric, you can further educate yourself by consulting Wikipedia or exploring other reliable resources - cc Nativism (politics). Aimilios92 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, reliable sources are not expected to be neutral, but that is not the problem here. The problem is that the content written using them was not neutral, and was asserting, in Wikipedia's own voice, subjective opinions from those sources as if they were incontrovertible fact, and that is not allowed per WP:VOICE. Some of the allegations, accusations, and attacks made in those sources may have due weight, but need to be neutrally presented as the opinions of whoever's opinions they are, and any rebuttals, denials, etc. made in response to them must also be included per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide specific details about the aspects you disagree with? This will allow us to thoroughly review your concerns and address any issues with the phrasing and content. As for the accusations and attacks against Suella Braverman, she is being described as a nativist due to her consistent use of highly xenophobic rhetoric. What kind of content has launched an attack against her? It's important to note that this characterization is not an accusation but a factual observation. The word 'invasion' to describe migration movements has historically been employed by far-right political parties. It's essential to recognize the similarities that these articles are pointing out. Aimilios92 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Leaving the clear NPOV issue to one side for the moment, the WP:BLP issues are:

• including her use of far-right dog whistles uses Wiki's voice to assert this subjective opinion as if fact.
• Her political stance on immigration has also been identified as.., well that might be someone's opinion, but "identified as" should not be put in Wiki's voice.
• The name of the section this was added to implies, in Wiki's voice, that the content reflected Braverman's political position, which as it is nothing more than unattributed third-party criticism cannot be implied as such.

WP:BLP says Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. None of that content is verifiable or neutral as it is all OR.

BLP also says that denials should be reported, and they were not. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

To begin with, the use of far-right dog whistles (probably, you're not familiar with the term) refers to a well-documented issue identified by several publications, including academic sources, as previously highlighted by another user. The term 'invasion' is particularly noteworthy as it aligns with rhetoric commonly employed by far-right political parties, as also pointed out by academic scholars. It is evident that her approach to immigration during her tenure at the Home Office has been highly aggressive, evident from the policy responses adopted in the past year. Can you provide any academic sources that dispute this claim? I am sure you can't. Analyzing the Rwanda Plan, for example, raises significant concerns about its feasibility and potential legal ramifications, as there are accusations of violating international treaties. Even without being a political analyst or expert, it becomes apparent why such a plan is problematic. Regarding the removal of the section, it is essential to clarify that it was not merely "third-party criticism." Instead, it consisted of well-supported information from reliable journalistic and academic sources. The deletion of the section was done without prior discussion of its contents, which undermines the principles of neutrality and fairness in this discussion. While you raised concerns about verification, it is worth noting that the deleted section contained lengthy analyses establishing a clear link between far-right rhetoric and the radicalization happening within certain factions of the Conservative Party. In summary, the points raised are well-grounded and supported by reputable sources, making it crucial to consider and address them in a fair and balanced manner. Aimilios92 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, the definition of "dog whistle" includes the word "intent" and whether there was intent is a subjective opinion - and so cannot be asserted as fact.

WP:BLP states very clearly that: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Intent is not sourced, so it had to be removed. BLP also says that Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please provide some specifics. All direct characterizations of her political alignment were dispensed with in this last rewording (at your behest) in favour of extremely cautious language fully in line with the sources. An academic journal source is also repeatedly being casually removed. I do not find this constructive. Whatever issues you may have with other content that has recently been added to this page, I would request that you consider this specific piece of content, which I find very much verifiable and due, more sincerely. If the only issue is that you believe that the material is not WP:NPOV then that policy would have you balance it, not remove it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That "rewording" introduced BLP issues, hence my edit. See my post above for specifics.

Another point is that it was the citation overkill that raised the red flag on this issue. Anywhere there are 8 cites suggests OR is at play, because if the point was clear and verifiable it is almost certain that one or two good sources would adequately cover it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Citation overkill" - Due to the sensitivity of the issue, I have included a substantial number of reputable sources to support my arguments. While this may appear excessive, it is crucial to substantiate my claims and avoid potential misunderstandings. Prominent scholars like Alex Clarkson and researchers like Julia Ebner have extensively discussed the topic, and by providing ample citations, I aim to establish clear links to their research. I invite you to take a step back and critically evaluate the information presented, considering the weight of evidence provided. Aimilios92 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, please supply the quotes from those sources that you think support the Wiki-voice assertions that I raised in my bulleted list above. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the above discussions are attempting to hinder the addition of new content and divert attention from the discussion focused on Suella Braverman's political positions. It seems unproductive when a user claims commitment to rules but refuses to provide the requested examples after deleting a whole section. Nevertheless, before I proceed with reverting disruptive edits and reinstating sourced content, I will provide context from the included sources that support the text.

Le Monde characterizes Suella Braverman's anti-migration stance as ultra-conservative, emphasizing her association with the Rwanda Plan and her rhetoric. The article also labels her as the most controversial member of Sunak's cabinet. Open Democracy solely focuses on the "invasion" term she used, and links it to previous allegations, including references to anti-Semitic tropes such as Cultural Marxism (!), Hard-Left Extremist networks, and attacks on Roma travellers.

The Independent delves into her association with the National Conservatism Conference, a widely acknowledged hub of ultra-conservative politics on a European level. Suella's appearances at the conference are viewed not only as controversial but also as an attempt to push the party further to the extreme right.

CNN begins its article with the phrase “That’s my dream. That’s my obsession," which Suella used when discussing the deportation of refugees from the UK. Additionally, Professor Tim Bale from Queen Mary University in London, a respected political expert, describes her as the cutting edge of the populist, radical right-wing strain within the Conservative Party.

Moreover, Professor Alexander Clarkson from King's College London sees Suella's presence in the Conservative Party as a take-over by the far-right, a view also shared by Byline Times, which refers to her as hard-right. Dr. Julia Ebner, a well-respected academic researcher from the ISD, explains the rise of far-right extremism in conservative politics and cites Suella as one of the main examples within the Tories.

Finally, Professor Philip Hubbard of Urban Studies at King's College London discusses Suella Braverman's far-right rhetoric concerning the "invasion" and how the government normalizes such discourse.

This section aims to provide a comprehensive explanation of the established links, presenting an academic perspective from reputable researchers and scholars in the field, also backed by some high quality journalistic sources. The intention is not to attack or threaten Suella Braverman, but rather to transparently and analytically demonstrate the far-right turn within the Conservative Party, with Suella Braverman exemplifying this shift. Any deletions or lack of examples that can dispute the above evidence is a clear violation of WP:POV. Aimilios92 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, your belief seems unfounded to me. The content removal was because of WP:BLP violations and the discussion above is wholly aimed at trying to clarify that as it has been disputed.

If you add content that complies with Wiki policies, including WP:DUE as much of it it seems to be based on the opinions of non-notable commentators, and it is accepted by the editing community, then I'm sure there won't be any problems. OTOH, if, as with previous additions, it fails those tests, then I guess it may be modified or deleted as appropriate.

Finally, it seems to me that you misunderstand WP:NPOV. The onus to add policy-compliant content is on the contributor, not on those who see policy contraventions in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The entire discussion appears to use language to obscure and soften the fact that content was removed without providing specific examples of the disputed parts. You accused other users of unjustly attacking Braverman and proceeded to revert several edits without actively contributing to the conversation. Repeatedly referring to the policy without addressing the specific issues raised about content and phrasing doesn't add much value. Unfortunately, the conversation has become confusing and unclear. Lastly, it's contradictory to keep mentioning the policy when there is a history of blocks in your record. Aimilios92 (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, all of my edits are provided with an explanatory edit summary and I itemised my specific concerns above when I was questioned. What more do you want? And policy applies regardless of who may have contravened, or not, them in the past, and we should all strive to stick to them. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide examples from the sources you disagree with and dispute specific parts of the text that were labeled as "attacks" on Suella. However, despite multiple attempts, you have refused to do so and instead attempted to distract the conversation in an effort to hijack this thread. Additionally, you later started citing Wikipedia policy. Are you trying to provoke a reaction on this talk page, or have I missed something here? So far, it appears that both you and another user, a well-known TERF/climate change denier account from Twitter, are accusing others of lying or attacking the subject of this article without providing any evidence. At this stage, I am going to stop responding, as it is unclear what you are trying to achieve other than causing a flame war, which you have evidently achieved. Aimilios92 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: You could have readily simply removed excess sources and reworded further as you saw fit. As for the applicability of the section, you could also have moved it. Hopefully this addition will not raise any further eyebrows, because as far as I can tell, all points are addressed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, I could do a lot of things if I had more hours in a day, though I'm not sure that any of them would be the things you suggest.

As for your addition, I do have some reservations over it...

1. Per WP:NPOV the accusations should be attributed in the text to particular sources.
2. I don't see the Ebner reference supporting the assertion that the use of either "invasion" or "grooming gangs" has "prompted accusations of racism".
3. Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics, and per WP:BLP we should be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.
4. I don't see the reference to The Guardian supporting the assertion that "grooming gangs" has "prompted accusations of racism".
5. The accusation of breaching the barrister's code is already covered in more detail in the 'Allegations of misconduct' section.

I propose correcting your addition per these observations. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of the reference placement is best fit-based for simplicity's sake and in line with the preference for clumping refs at the end of phrases and statements, and yes, not ever source picks up on every detail, but collectively I believe they do, and there are obviously also more sources out there for all of this stuff, should it be required ... I just stuck with the readily available RSP - on which note, as far as I can tell the HuffPost disclaimer is fairly specific to US politics, and HuffPost UK hasn't actually specifically been crunched through RSN AFAICS. The link between the grooming gangs language and the accusations appears in the #10 denial piece. And yes, the barrister's code part appears again later, but in don't think a brief mention where the incident occurred chronologically is undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't answer the concerns, so removed it for now per WP:BRD. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I have answered you, and I wholly disagree with your assessment. If you don't like the text, I would invite you to suggest your own version here, modified to present what you think is substantiated by the sources, as you clearly have an opinion on this. However, these are WP:RSP you are now removing and a statement along the lines of the text already provided is supported and entirely verifiable. You seem to mainly disagree on source positioning and wording. Such as it is, I would appreciate a collaborative effort to produce a version you find palatable. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, all I see in the sources is stuff that's already covered in the article - accusations that some of the language used is offensive to some communities. What other accusations do you think there are that have not already been covered? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't remove content without consensus first. This is unacceptable. Aimilios92 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It is the addition of new content that needs the consensus, not its removal. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're REMOVING whole text without proposing revisions! It's all backed by reliable sources, yet you are attempting to distort this conversation claiming that consensus is required for content that derives from academic sources! Aimilios92 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto is restoring the original form. The burden is on those who wish to make this change. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Point out what you disagree with and we will take it from there - so far, your contributions are quite vague. Aimilios92 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, your addition fails verification. Or can you provide the quotes that I failed to find from each and every one of the unnecessarily numerous cites that support the phrase characterized by observers as a sign of an increasingly extreme shift within the conservative party's politics, particularly the as a sign of an increasingly extreme shift bit. We also need to know who each of the "observers" were. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Ok, in response to your specific points, I have amended the text further. The accusations were from senior conservatives, as this new source makes plain. The same source references both terms, among a slew of harsher condemnations of Braverman, including that she is a “real racist bigot” - so the current wording is frankly the mild to innocuous version of the proceedings. HuffPost has been removed (to eliminate contention). Ditto the barrister material. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, it's getting better. I still think the accusers need to be identified though, more of the context of her remarks provided, and her defence of the remarks added. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There appear to be many senior Tory members that have made comments, and it would surely be overly detailed and undue to list them. The sources refer to them in a collective, so it seems reasonable to do the same. I cannot see any specific responses from Braverman in the sources, but if you are aware of other sources that provide some, please do provide them. The No. 10 rebuttal is the obvious thing that cropped up. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to know who they are. See WP:WEASEL, and WP:SUBSTANTIATE says Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. And yes, it might turn out that individuals amongst them are undue if they are non-notable or their remarks are only covered in a small number of sources.

Another point to remember is that, per WP:HEADLINES is that News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. So even if the headline says Senior Conservatives hit out at Suella Braverman’s ‘racist rhetoric’, we cannot take that as being a reliable source, we need to find the substantiation in the body of the source article and use the details (names, or unnamed, or whatever) from there. This is the only way we - and readers - can judge the weight to give to these opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Various accusers are mentioned in the sources - they're all there: who would you like to mention? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, all of them, why not? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Omg Aimilios92 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Critics specified. Response added. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: It's not reflecting the source to make the text suggest that only two party members have laid accusations against Braverman on these grounds. Two accusers have been cited, but all of the sources clearly note the multiplicity of the accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If the sources name individuals we whoudl attribute to those individuals. If the sources aren't prepared to name individuals then we should be cautious, and attribute to the source itself. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: What is the purpose of WP:RSP if not to outline those sources that we do not need to attribute for simple things like this? We can go on if everyone prefers, quoting Tobias Ellwood and one Albie Amankona as well, but I thought better to summarize at least a little. We also have two sources, the Guardian and the Evening Standard quoting a source calling her a "real racist bigot", which I've avoided, despite it being double verified -since it was my overall thought that a slightly simpler summary would be preferable. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, this isn't a "simple thing" - it is highly controversial and politically charged. We need to very careful to ensure verifiabilty, and not just that one (apparently dodgy wrt politics) source has convinced us. And as the ES is citing The Guardian for this, it isn't really a second source. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian source (the one that WP:RSP says of that Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics) uses the plural and names one and leaves one as anonymous - so that is plural. The ES source is reporting what The Guardian says, so is redundant anyway and the BBC News source refers only to the one, so is singular.

If the sources don't substantiate more that two, even if they imply that there might be by their skilful wordsmithing and editorialisation, we should not imply there are more than two either as it's nothing more than hearsay. You can be sure that if there were more than two, they would be named.

And remember, WP:BLP requires editors to Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources, which, combined with what RSP says, sounds like it could rule out The Guardian for this type of politically charged and controversial content.

Perhaps find some undisputedly reliable sources that name more than one critic, and use those. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It is is pretty irrelevant if the Guardian is perceived to be bias or opinionated in the specific context here, because these are direct quotes and the quotes largely already speak for themselves - "racist rhetoric" is a quote, as is "real racist bigot" for that matter - the Guardian's "inflaming racial tensions", which is the part that you have suggested is editorialization, is really a step down from this. Biased or opinionated also does not mean factually inaccurate or unable to be reliably used to quote sources. CNN incidentally also writes of her "inflammatory language" attracting criticism from colleagues, so we can always add that in too. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added CNN, which uses terminology that closely parallels the Guardian, as well as another piece in which the subject defends her comments. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian doesn't name names, so we should be very careful about using this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, as for her responses, surely you read a broad cross-section of sources to try to build a neutral picture of what was going on here before you formulated your wording? Many of those would have contained her defence of the language she used. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

One defense is included. What others did you have in mind? Again, it's not a matter of having one throwaway example; it's about what's due. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP you need to give her side, not just that of the accusers. And WP:NPOV requires a due balance between accusers and defenders. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What is her side? That the UK is under invasion? Aimilios92 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Even the fact that you are referring to academic observers and journalists as "accusers" for a policy that is -without any doubt- illegal and has been blocked by various courts in the UK, indicates that you are desperately trying to insert your nPOV. This ain't right, dude. Aimilios92 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, eh? I never said it's the journalists or "academic observers" (whoever you mean by that) who are the accusers.

And we aren't talking about a policy here, we're talking about reported opinions and accusations of what various opponents are saying she 'really' meant by the use of various words in her comments when questioned about government measures.

Have you read any of the mainstream reports on any of this? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

More to the point, has he read WP:BLP? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting points raised. Who are the individuals making these accusations? It would be beneficial to provide their names. This way, we can better understand the underlying intention behind the language used in this discussion. The opinions and accusations you've mentioned seem to have been reported, even though the policy they pertain to has been deemed illegal by UK courts. It's important to highlight this illegality. When something is considered illegal, it undergoes scrutiny by legal experts and is subject to existing laws. In this case, it appears that some aspects of constitutionality are intertwined with extremism. I'm interested in viewing the mainstream reports you referred to. Can you clarify if these reports originate from sources other than GB News? It's noticeable that a significant portion of your contributions seem to focus on articles with a conservative perspective, which could potentially influence your point of view. Perhaps consider presenting your viewpoint in a more discreet manner to ensure a balanced discussion. This would prevent any overt bias from overshadowing the conversation. Regarding the Prof from Oxford who just responded, I believe Twitter is the right place to spread your lovely ideas. Aimilios92 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, you ask Who are the individuals making these accusations. That's what I have asked all along. When opinions, accusations, etc. are made in articles, it is normal to say who is making them - "academic observers', "senior conservatives", of whatever is not good enough.

Why don't you answer the tags added to your recent addition, which includes one asking for the identity of the "observers" you allude to?

If there is illegality to be highlighted, then sure, it should be highlighted, but that doesn't address the problems we have here with the additions we are discussing.

PS this talkpage is reserved for discussions about article content, not your opinions about other editors. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

So you're referring to those analyses as accusations?

PS. A blocked user and a prolific social media expert are really passionate about SB. Aimilios92 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, what "analyses"? I'm referring to the opinions and accusations about the language used that appear in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of the topic we're addressing here? Aimilios92 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, yes. How to make recent additions Wiki policy compliant, especially as this is a BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. Aimilios92 (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, so on that note, are you going to address some of the problems raised with your recent contribution about an "an increasingly extreme shift"? Quotes of the support for the statement you added, from each of the cited sources were asked for above - are you going to supply them? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto I already have - look at my contributions above Aimilios92 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, you have not. I asked in my post above at 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC), that starts "your addition fails verification", and you haven't answered that request since. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the above discussions are attempting to hinder the addition of new content and divert attention from the discussion focused on Suella Braverman's political positions. It seems unproductive when a user claims commitment to rules but refuses to provide the requested examples after deleting a whole section. Nevertheless, before I proceed with reverting disruptive edits and reinstating sourced content, I will provide context from the included sources that support the text.

Le Monde characterizes Suella Braverman's anti-migration stance as ultra-conservative, emphasizing her association with the Rwanda Plan and her rhetoric. The article also labels her as the most controversial member of Sunak's cabinet. Open Democracy solely focuses on the "invasion" term she used, and links it to previous allegations, including references to anti-Semitic tropes such as Cultural Marxism (!), Hard-Left Extremist networks, and attacks on Roma travellers.

The Independent delves into her association with the National Conservatism Conference, a widely acknowledged hub of ultra-conservative politics on a European level. Suella's appearances at the conference are viewed not only as controversial but also as an attempt to push the party further to the extreme right.

CNN begins its article with the phrase “That’s my dream. That’s my obsession," which Suella used when discussing the deportation of refugees from the UK. Additionally, Professor Tim Bale from Queen Mary University in London, a respected political expert, describes her as the cutting edge of the populist, radical right-wing strain within the Conservative Party.

Moreover, Professor Alexander Clarkson from King's College London sees Suella's presence in the Conservative Party as a take-over by the far-right, a view also shared by Byline Times, which refers to her as hard-right. Dr. Julia Ebner, a well-respected academic researcher from the ISD, explains the rise of far-right extremism in conservative politics and cites Suella as one of the main examples within the Tories.

Finally, Professor Philip Hubbard of Urban Studies at King's College London discusses Suella Braverman's far-right rhetoric concerning the "invasion" and how the government normalizes such discourse.

This section aims to provide a comprehensive explanation of the established links, presenting an academic perspective from reputable researchers and scholars in the field, also backed by some high quality journalistic sources. The intention is not to attack or threaten Suella Braverman, but rather to transparently and analytically demonstrate the far-right turn within the Conservative Party, with Suella Braverman exemplifying this shift. Any deletions or lack of examples that can dispute the above evidence is a clear violation of WP:POV. Aimilios92 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, none of that supports the assertion Braverman's rhetoric on immigration has been characterized by observers as a sign of an increasingly extreme shift within the conservative party's politics though, and that is what this string of sources were cited to do.

Secondly, please remember that Wiki expects editors to assume assume good faith. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, thirdly, please re-read WP:POV, you are clearly misunderstanding it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course they do as most of the academic scholars highlight extreme and far-right politics in her rhetoric which is moving the party towards the far-right. See Clarkson. You are playing with words to justify a possible removal. Read the sources and ask questions again - this is attempted distortion. Aimilios92 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't really closely inspected any of this other material, but what kept cropping up in this CNN piece, more than 'far-right', was 'right-wing' + 'populist'. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the status quo for now as we have reached a deadlock here. If you can give just one quote from one source that supports exactly what was written we could return to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We haven't reached any deadlock. You are unable to contest it at this stage. If you have any specific disagreements, name them. So far, all of your questions have been answered. Aimilios92 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, you added it, I said that the statement wasn't, as far as I could see, supported by any of the string of references you cited, and reverted it. You said it was supported. I asked you for the quote that would clinch it. You never provided it. That's deadlock, and per WP:BURDEN that means it should not be added until a consensus for it has been achieved, and that hasn't yet happened. BURDEN says Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Continually adding in those circumstances is disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

So you proceeded with a total removal? Because you didn't care to read the sources? Aimilios92 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, the only thing I removed was the sentence that I couldn't find any support for in any of the 8 sources cited against it. I asked you to provide quotes from the sources that supported the assertion in that sentence, but you chose not too. As this is a BLP, there is no option other than removal. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you actually checked the sources? Aimilios92 (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless and until you provide the quotes DeFacto has requested it is perfectly correct for him to remove this material. You might want to review WP:SYN on the danger of synthesis. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest focusing on the clearest WP:RSP sources that you can find, and taking it from there. 2-3 good sources is better than many poor. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

For starters, there is so many controversies discussed in the article. This must be emphasised in the introduction with the following sentence: She is frequently depicted in the media as a staunch or ultra-conservative government member, largely attributed to her position on migration. The sections focused on migration, highlight how even other softer Tories criticise her approach. There is strong backlash from both members of the opposition and her own party, therefore we cannot ignore this, which is accurately covered in the whole article.

The previous attempts to remove the analysis of barge, which is a policy developed and implemented by Suella herself, shows that there is an ongoing clash between editors. I really want this to stop, otherwise this editing war will continue nonstop. In regards to the statement: Braverman's rhetoric on immigration has been characterized by academic scholars and journalists as a sign of an increasingly far-right shift within the conservative party's politics, I have used several sources to cite that part. From Open Democracy: The government has been forced to defend embattled home secretary Suella Braverman over accusations that she used far-Right rhetoric to describe asylum seekers in Parliament last night. Alex Clarkson from King's College London refers to Suella in his whole article: The Far-Right Takeover of the Tory Party Is No Laughing Matter (you can even see her in the main photo of the article). Tim Bale quote in the CNN piece: She’s setting herself up to lead a more extreme, right-wing populist version of the Tory party. Julia Ebner in the Guardian: "Language is a key indicator of radicalisation. The words of Conservative politicians speak for themselves: home secretary Suella Braverman referred to migrants arriving in the UK as an “invasion on our southern coast”, while MP Miriam Cates gave a nod to conspiracy theorists when she warned that “children’s souls” were being “destroyed” by cultural Marxism. Using far-right dog whistles such as “invasion” and “cultural Marxism” invites listeners to open a Pandora’s box of conspiracy myths. Research shows that believing in one makes you more susceptible to others." A whole article on Le Monde analyses her extremist shift. Aimilios92 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92, it's not a matter of try, try, try again, with exactly the same argument. None of those sources support the assertion, no matter how often you repeat it. We need a consensus amongst quality sources that say that to support that, and we don't see that - at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

How are you still active on Wikipedia after getting blocked infinitely? Aimilios92 (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks on other editors. Indeed I advise you to strike all the personal attacks you have made above. Concentrate on content not on contributors. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There are definitely some omissions in the lead, but I'm going to start a new discussion on this, since it's getting cluttered here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The barge

This page is about Suella Braverman, not about policies of the Sunak ministry. Content should be specifically relevant to her and not about broader issues. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I can observe your evident admiration for Suella Braverman and her array of ultra-conservative, anti-woke policies. However, I've noticed a pronounced bias in your perspective Prof., which seems to involve presenting the information in a way that overly favors your viewpoint. It might be advisable to consider a more balanced approach, even when dealing with conservative-focused articles on platforms like Wikipedia. Otherwise, I believe as a social media expert you can easily start your own blog and unite other anti-migrant TERFs there. The policy under discussion has its origins in the efforts of Suella Braverman and the Home Office. The section pertains to the policy initiatives undertaken by the Home Office, as well as the subsequent implementation of these policies. It's important to avoid repeatedly altering content that you perceive as unfavorable, as this approach could compromise the accuracy and impartiality of the article. Your enthusiasm for the subject matter is clear, but ensuring the reliability and neutrality of the content should be a shared goal. Let's maintain a more equitable and factual representation of the discussed topics. Aimilios92 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would urge you to read at least some of WP:BLP, WP:BRD, and WP:NPA before making further edits on this topic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Suella Braverman the one who FULLY developed the policy behind the barge. Yes or no? Aimilios92 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

What do the sources used say on that question? That's what matters. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, you're indicating that you're not aware of the information in the sources. However, it appears that you reverted my changes without verifying the sources or initiating a discussion on the talk page beforehand. Is that accurate? I'm going to ask you once again: who is the person behind the development of the barge policy? Aimilios92 (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The reasons for my reversion are clearly given in the relevant edit summary: 'source given says "The government has laid out controversial plans" and "The Home Office said"'. Suella Braverman appears once in that article, which clearly ascribes the policy to the government and the home office. If you want to add the satement that it's "her policy" then you need to find sources that characterise it that way. This is very basic stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have also checked the most recent articles in The Times [20], The Telegraph [21], and The Guardian [22], and the word "Braverman" doesn't appear in any of them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reservations about the effectiveness of this approach. It's intriguing that despite her comprehensive policy development, you found it necessary to delete the entire text twice. Allow me to present evidence directly from the BBC: "Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick have both been instrumental in the plans." Aimilios92 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aimilios92: This kind of personalization of content disputes is highly inadvisable, so please do read WP:NPA and tone it down, or your sojourn here on Wikipedia is likely to be rather brief. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the feedback, @Iskandar323. Aimilios92 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Latest update – everyone is coming off the barge because traces of Legionella bacteria have been found in the water system.[23] Sweet6970 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Also in the guardian, with braverman in the headline. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The policy of the Home Office under the leadership of Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is definitely noteworthy of inclusion in her biography. Of course, one may need to wait a week (or multiple) for enough sources to exist that clearly analyse her role in the policy decision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)