Talk:Rachel Reeves

Tags

This is a marker to allow discussion on tags for this article. I think the notability tag is reasonable, but I see no evidence to suggest that the article:

1. requires many more references - it seems well referenecd to me
2. has been editted by anyone with a COI
3. has been editted by the subject.

It seems to me that adding these "unnecessary" tags is unhelpful to the reader. But I may be wrong. Let's discuss it here. I think there's been too many reversions, and a discussion is better than the existing edit war. MikeHobday (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike the biggest problem with this article is that its written as a party political intended to sell its subject, not as an encyclopedia biography, and who also it appears is its main author. There are also several other problems with this article but I'm confining myself to a fast reply here just to address the tagging issue you object to. I'd ask you to notify the orginal person to place the tag on, Wereon of this discussion and I hope you will re-instate the tag as is normal while we discuss it here. - Galloglass 23:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The primary content editor is User:Pinkhandbag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who has edited no other articles on Wikipedia, looks like a COI to me. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are additional issues with the article, I'd welcome you boldly editting the article or adding appropriate tags. Wereon added the notability tag which is still on the article, and which I do not dispute. I agree that it should stay there pending any discussion. But Wereon hasn't added the three tags listed above, so I don't plan to solicit his involvement either way. My dispute is a narrow one, focussing on the three tags above. Jezhotwells suggests there is a case for the COI tag, but no one has yet suggested evidence for the other two tags. I've missed the policy that says that disputed tags should remain on an article pending a talk page discussion, but I'll obviously abide by policy. MikeHobday (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Plus

Google Plus is known to vet the identities of notable people. Therefore a Google Plus profile counts as a verifiable self-published source and can be used for non-selfserving, non-cntentious information about the subject herself. Yworo (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It still isn't much use for claims about a residence though due to the self published aspect, there have been more than enough controversies about politicians' homes in recent years.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced Material

I notice that Shakehandsman keeps adding back information on this page that I first removed because the link to information about her spouse linked to a page that contained no such information. The link that has replaced this is not what could be considered a hugely reliable source, especially considering the rules surrounding biographies of living people, and I can find no reliable, verifiable information on the web to back the given citation up. Even if the information about her husband is correct, I am not sure why the extra information then added about his person is relevant to Reeves biography page? This just does not seem to meet the guidelines of biographies of a living person:

"Must be very neutral in tone and contents, and written with regard to the highest quality of fairness and sourcing, beyond the normal standard.

Anyone may delete biography-related material that is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or otherwise unreasonable for a biography. This includes contact information, and also includes sensitive personal matters such as religion and sexuality (unless relevant and verifiable). "

I am happy for people to remove some links I added if they found these were not reliable, as happened. I was just trying to add references to sections that were poorly referenced or had requested a citation but I find it slightly perturbing that people are removing my links, giving the reason that they are unnecessary/unreliable but then adding a link in the same vein.

Looking at the user history I can see that Shakehandsman has made a great many revisions on this page, which makes me consider some sort of COI here. Would appreciate other users who have edited the page in the past offering opinion. I'd rather not get into some sort of editing war but I feel these revisions are breaking guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.42.10 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia so the percentage to this article is tiny. One reason I've had to spend more time than I'd like editing this page is to deal with various editors in the past adding material promotional in tone breaching NPOV. The Marlborough news source is in fact very different to the type of sources you are using. It is a neutral organisation, which abides by the editors code of practice and by Press Complaints Commission standards. Given Reeves' role in shadow treasury matters her husband's work is all the more relevant, though it would still merit some mention even if she was a backbench MP with no shadow treasury role. The material I removed which you had added was either of self-published sources, and Labour Party blogs, both of which should be avoided. Finally, making COI accusations is a very serious affair you should be assuming good faith about other editors so I strongly suggest you retract that allegation as I've edited here for 5 years with an unblemished record.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In order to avoid any doubt on this matter I've asked for the input of those with more expertise on these matters at the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion can be found here [1] and the verdict is that the Marlborough News is a registered company run by professional jourmalists and entirely suitable for use on Wikipedia (and most certainly not a blog). I shall therefore be restoring the content and editors should refrain from removing it unless a differing consensus emerges.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wedding cakes

It's hardly significant information anyway, but does she enjoy them (as stated) or make them? 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to wedding cakes and flower arranging - I checked the Hansard record in the reference and from the context it was clearly a humorous comment in response to a comment by another MP about her own upcoming wedding that she was busy preparing for. As her wedding is now past and there is no indication that she has a broader interest in wedding cakes beyond her own wedding, it seems clear that this information is no longer relevant. Pbrione (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

U14 chess champion

An ip editor has a bee in his/her bonnet about Reeves and chess. They have removed referenced information about Reeves' chess championship 3 times today, first (falsely) claiming that the references didn't support the content, and most recently by claiming that Reeves doesn't appear on the ECF list. Reeves was U14 British Women's Chess Association (BWCA) champion. See the following reliable secondary sources:

• Yorkshire Chess: "She started playing chess at the age of seven and became BWCA U14 Champion."
• The Guardian: "Here are 10 interesting facts about the Labour shadow cabinet member. 1) She was the UK U14 girls chess champion."
• The Guardian: "Far more interesting, however, is that she was also once under-14 UK girls chess champion..."
• The Times: "...Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a former under-14s UK girls chess champion, has challenged him to a game."
• Financial Times: "A former under-14 UK girls chess champion, she is intellectually self-confident and has occasional flashes of temper, according to colleagues."
• BBC: "They include shadow cabinet minister Rachel Reeves, the former British girls under-14 chess champion."
• Total Politics: "Inspired by a teacher at primary school, Reeves first picked up a pawn when she was seven. No mean player, she was national under-14 champion (she thinks her Dad has the trophy somewhere) and can still play to a high level."
• The Independent: "During the series, which will be broadcast over a week, Lawson's guests and opponents will include the shadow Cabinet minister, Rachel Reeves, who is a former British girls under-14 champion; former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician Natan Sharansky; writer and former homeless alcoholic John Healy; Women's World Champion Hou Yifan from China – and Lennox Lewis, who I am told is a good club player."
• Daily Mail: "One of my five opponents, Rachel Reeves - the former national girls' under-14 chess champion, now better known as Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary - got a little cross about this process during our game."
• Ethos Journal: "Andrew Sparrow profiles the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury – the one-time under-14 UK girls chess champion who may just checkmate the coalition."
• Fabian Society: "Reeves, who comes from a relatively humble background, went to a south London comprehensive, where she excelled at maths and became the British under-14 girls chess champion."

Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay the 'official' list on the English Chess Federation website http://www.englishchess.org.uk/british-champions-1904-present/ does not include RR's name. Is this an oversight or their part or is this another myth like the famous JPR Williams being Junior Wimbledon Champion in 1966 one, which has been regularly repeated by 'reliable' sources for decades? (86.147.196.102 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC))

Oh and about BWCA. Try doing a Google search on it. It returns nothing. Doesn't exist now and if it ever existed at all was never significant enough to leave any trace of its being on the Internet. (86.147.196.102 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC))

Perhaps your Google is broken. Mine returned this. A few more clicks returned this. Reeves, clearly your bête noire, was also photographed for the cover of Chess magazine, as the photographer recounts: "When Rachel Reeves was helping out in Malcolm Pein's Chess Shop, Jimmy Adams invited her, a talented junior player at the time, to be photographed. I took her to a café in Bute Street and the picture duly appeared on the front cover of CHESS." I suggest that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

https://order-order.com/2024/10/15/investigation-rachel-reeves-british-chess-champion-myth-busted/ Yorkshiredoc (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As indicated further down the page Guido Fawkes (pseudonym of Paul Staines, is an unreliable source, frequently getting things wrong) is looking at the wrong tournament. The 80th British Championships were held in Dundee in 1983. The under-14s competition (like the rest of the tournament) was for competitors of both sexes, won by Brian Kelly. The highest places female competitor was Emily Howard, who placed joint 16th. Rachel Reeves places 26th was the 3rd highest rated female competitor. This is not the tournament for female competitors that Rachel Reeves is credited to have won. That tournament was organised by the British Women's Chess Association (BWCA). Though the precise details of this tournament are not online there are plenty of online resources going back 15 years or more from reliable sources in the Chess world (such as Raymond Keene and Malcolm Pein; who knew Reeves when she competed) that relate that she won the under-14s BWCA tournament). Here is another source from the now defunct Yorkshire Chess website, recovered from the Internet Archive from 2013 . JAC Esquire (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A Google search for BWCA or British Women's Chess Association still returns nothing. The page you link to appears to be housed on a personal website of someone called Chris Ball. Is that you Blackberry? Keep on trying LOL No one is saying RR can't play chess well. But claiming to be a British Champion at chess implies you won one of the titles awarded in the official British Championships organized by the then BCF (now ECF), not some spurious feminist self-help group which BWCA appears have been. (86.140.159.144 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC))

Where is the *original* source for Rachel's British Championship win, please. As has been linked elsewhere recently online, Rachel was 26th equal in the "1993 BRITISH UNDER-14 CHAMPIONSHIP" per https://www.saund.org.uk/britbase/pgn/199308bcf-viewer.html . Was there another "under-14 championship" not listed there which she won? Harami2000 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat curious as to those age categories as that whole webpage refers to a single event (confirmed by the name of Tania Sachdev in the concluding section) and therefore Rachel was actually over 14 at the time (13/2/1979 -> August 1993). Harami2000 (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In most international and national sports competitions, the cut-off date is often linked to a specific date in the calendar year, such as 1 January or 1 September, and not tied to the date of the event. This is common in sports like football and rugby. For school or youth competitions, especially those linked to academic institutions, the cut-off date may coincide with the academic year, often using 1 September as the key date to ensure players are competing with peers of the same school year. JAC Esquire (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

See my comment above, and the new section at the bottom of the page. JAC Esquire (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Speech impediment

She talks like a female Ed Miliband. Can we have a section on this? 78.149.214.161 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Policy stances

hi, i think the quote about Labour representing people in/or out-of-work is not so useful. I would prefer to see reference to 2015 election pledge to reinstate the contributory principle to benefits, a huge policy change i think. Shiv Malik of Guardian, reference no32, has specialized on employment/workfare/benefits as well. Libraryloser (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office?

As reverted by LeedsOwlNew, I shall now open a discussion in the talk page. My view is that the UK Parliament should not be deemed as the official source for the Shadow Cabinet, the Labour Party should as the Shadow Cabinet was not announced through parliament.uk/. As stated on the Labour Party website in March, Jon Trickett held the title Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, meanwhile Rachel Reeves now does not. NYKTNE (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

NYKTNE: I think it would be sensible to add her other title back in now, as in addition to the UK Parliament website, various reliable sources (including BBC News and The Guardian this morning) have reported her as 'Shadow Cabinet Office minister' without mentioning her other job title, and reliable secondary sources are normally preferred to a primary source. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: Hello, sadly I do not agree. There is a difference between Shadow Cabinet Office minister and Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, the former means any shadow minister that is shadowing the Cabinet Office whereas the latter is an official position. When Michael Gove did not have the Minister for the Cabinet Office title before the February reshuffle, multiple reports also referred him as Cabinet Office minister. NYKTNE (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with NYKTNE. Alex 10:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alex B4 and NYKTNE: As I am fairly sure that we aren't going to come to an agreement, may I suggest a compromise where we have 'Shadow Cabinet Office minister' in the infobox, without referring to a specific role as NYKTNE mentioned above? This way we could show that she still shadows the cabinet office, but doesn't have a listed job as such. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: To indicate that she is attached to the shadow Cabinet Office, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has provided sufficient information as Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is already a Shadow Cabinet Office minister. NYKTNE (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@NYKTNE, PinkPanda272, and Alex B4: Thank you for starting this talk. I disagree with not listing both of Reeves' positions as Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office in the infobox. The validity of the official UK Parliament website and profile of MPs should not be questioned as a primary source. Any information available from parliament.uk is published by the parliamentary authorities, involving individual MPs and their offices, political parties and parliamentary staff. The website publishes the official online public access database for Hansard, the edited verbatim report of parliamentary proceedings, and the public UK Parliament profile for every MP, including their Hansard and parliamentary service record. Any Hansard contributions from Reeves (one occasion to date since her appointment) are published online with a direct link to her UK Parliament profile. The official profile confirms "she currently undertakes the role of Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster." On 28 April 2020, both the Hansard transcript and Hansard summary article note Reeves as the 'Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster' again. The physical printed Hansard record would also indicate her appointment to both positions. The official parliamentary record should be conclusive evidence. LeedsOwlNew (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with LeedsOwlNew. Hansard is the most reliable source for matters like this. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@LeedsOwlNew and PinkPanda272: I agree that Hansard is reliable (not as reliable as primary source if to be compared), but unfortunately there is no mention of Reeves as Shadow Minister of the Cabinet Office in any script in Hansard. Read the scripts, Rachel Reeves is only referred to as Rachel Reeves. The UK Parliament official website (parliament.uk) should not be confused with Hansard (hansard.parliament.uk) although they share the same domain of parliament.uk, and I highly doubt the reliability of the former. There have been cases showing that parliament.uk does not reflect the reality, for instance the cabinet listed in parliament.uk does not follow the ministerial ranking released by gov.uk. I believe when the primary source and a secondary source contradict, the former should be adopted. NYKTNE (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

NYKTNE: Would you mind explaining why you find the UK Parliament website so inaccurate and unreliable? To all intents and purposes it is written by the same people (i.e. the parliamentary authorities) that compile Hansard, so I struggle to understand why there is such a marked difference between them. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: Hansard is managed by an independent 100-man team of professionals (i.e. Parliamentary Reporters), each of whom holds a Postgraduate Diploma in Parliamentary Reporting, while parliament.uk is not. On a side note, if all British politician articles have to follow parliament.uk, there is a lot to change. NYKTNE (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@NYKTNE: Thanks for your reply. I hadn't realised that Hansard have its own specialist reporting team, but my point still stands that there is nothing particularly untrustworthy (as far as I know) about www.parliament.uk. I was not insinuating every British politician bio should follow it, I was only meaning that there is no reason to discount it against any other comparable, reliable source. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: I have to apologise for exaggerating the unreliability of parliament.uk - I acknowledge that it is an official and reliable source, too. My view is that parliament.uk has its own system of the politician profiles, for example they use Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport), which is different from how it is put in Wikipedia. NYKTNE (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@NYKTNE: No bother, there will always be discrepancies between sources, and they can't all be wrong. (Although some might be more 'right' than others!) Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alex B4, PinkPanda272, and NYKTNE: Hi everyone, Reeves was now been referred to as the SMftCO in multiple interviews, including by Jon Snow as the interviewer in a live Channel 4 News interview on 7 May 2020. Are you happy for me to add her position now to her profile infobox? LeedsOwlNew (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@LeedsOwlNew: I still hold my previous view. A shadow cabinet that corresponds to a government minister does not hold the minister's shadow title - they can have different portfolios. As regards the Channel 4 source, I reckon it is less preferred to than the Labour Party's official source for the same reason above that states the difference between parliament.uk and hansard. NYKTNE (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@NYKTNE and LeedsOwlNew: Channel 4 News is as reliable a source as any and there is also another mention on C4 News from yesterday: [2], and also the description of this episode of Question Time: [3]. In addition, there are plenty more RS that mention 'Shadow Cabinet Office minister' (although I do appreciate what NYKTNE said on the matter above), including The Independent, The Scotsman and Sky News. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272 and LeedsOwlNew: Whereas I really understand of your points, I still can't agree to your view. My opinion remains that titles of an organisation should follow the primary source. NYKTNE (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@NYKTNE and PinkPanda272: Friends, we have provided clear evidence of Reeves' position and this needs to be resolved: 1. Addressing NYKTNE's valid point about the Labour Party's official Shadow Cabinet page, it indicates Helen Hayes is the only Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office (SMftCO) and Reeves as solely the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as listed. However, this does not officially confirm Reeves is not the SMftCO of Shadow Cabinet rank as the listings are briefer to not include all of the official positions held by the Shadow Cabinet and wider Shadow frontbench team. Angela Rayner (listed as "Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party") is also National Campaign Co-ordinator, Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition and Shadow First Secretary of State, David Lammy ("Shadow Justice Secretary") is also Shadow Lord Chancellor, and Cat Smith ("Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Engagement") is also Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, held since her January 2020 further appointment, etc. 2. All of the titles that are currently not included on the Labour Party's Shadow Cabinet web page, except Rayner's SFSoS, are also listed on their UK Parliament profiles. Each MP's individual parliamentary offices and poltiical parties have confirmed the details with the parliamentary editors to create their official parliamentary profile, as previously discussed, including details of how each individual should be addressed inside and outside the House of Commons. This is the same information recorded in Hansard as they are compiled for the same organisation, the UK Parliament. You can search for their individual profiles on the UK Parliament website. Reeves' profile confirms her as Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, while the profiles for Hayes and Cat Smith confirm both of them as a junior Shadow Minister (Cabinet Office). The authenticity and weight of the UK Parliament profiles, compared to the Labour Party's own website, has been previously challenged by NYKTNE. However, in the April 2020 party website press release detailing the complete "new fronbench team", the list is more concise again to not include the missing titles mentioned previously. The only exception is Rayner also being listed as SFSoS. It lists Hayes as a junior Shadow Minister in the "Cabinet Office" team under Reeves, although she is the only one directly referred to as having specific "Cabinet Office" portfolio responsibilities. Hayes' parliamentary profile confirms she is the junior minister and not of Shadow Cabinet rank, as her supposed predecessor Jon Trickett was. Analysis of the missing information for other Shadow Cabinet members on the party website evidences Reeves holds this post and Hayes is the junior Shadow Cabinet Office Minister. 3. There is more evidence that Reeves, and not Hayes, replaced Trickett as the Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office. Three former junior Shadow Ministers under Jeremy Corbyn were referred to using the same title. Chris Matheson, Cat Smith and now former MPs, Jo Platt and Laura Smith, were all referred to as SMftCO in official party press releases on their website. As shown with Hayes to Reeves, each of them were supporting and junior to Trickett in shadowing the Cabinet Office. In February 2018, both Matheson and Laura Smith were announced as junior "Shadow Minister[s] for the Cabinet Office" in the press release on the party website. In July 2018, Jo Platt was announced as another junior "Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office" in the party's online press release. Other press releases on the Labour Party website from September 2018 and June 2019 refer to each as a "Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office". As well as Cat Smith, each of these individuals have also been referred to as the Shadow Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on non-Labour Party websites. The UK Parliament profiles for Matheson, Platt and Laura Smith were listed as a junior "Shadow Minister (Cabinet Office)" too. 4. Finally, Reeves has been officially referred to as "Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office" in live television interviews. Reeves herself has provided clear evidence of holding this position by answering to this title and not challenging it. The best example saw her 7 May 2020 interview with Jon Snow on Channel 4 News, where she was introduced by this title (and not as Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster). Further references include her interview for The Londoner Diary of the Evening Standard newspaper on 11 May 2020 and the biographical details provided for the 9 April 2020 edition of BBC Question Time. Therefore, I believe this evidence resolves the matter and we should permanently add Reeves' official title to her Wikipedia infobox. --LeedsOwlNew (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(outdent)

Agreed with LeedsOwlNew. There is far more evidence for than against (various articles from reliable sources, the UK Parliament website, two Channel 4 News bulletins and an episode of Question Time versus a consise and incomplete description on the Labour Party's website). Definitely time to add to infobox. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Title now added to infobox PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: Although I appreciate our discussion being characterised by calmness and respect, I think you are frankly being arbitrary by applying what you deem right. I will be requesting dispute resolution on WP:DRN. NYKTNE (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

NYKTNE: I have reverted my edit until we can come to a conclusion, be it here or at DRN. Sorry for jumping the gun, we had a weak (2 vs 1) consensus to change it, but I appreciate it was probably the wrong thing to do in hindsight. Again, apologies PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: Thank you for your revert. This is a kind and noble action that not every editor can do. But I want to point out that consensus building in Wikipedia should be primarily discussions and, if necessary, soliciting outside opinions - straw poll should be the final resort. Thanks again and I look forward to reaching a consensus with a third opinion on DRN. NYKTNE (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 189#Rachel Reeves)

Nancy Astor

It's a very strong assertion to say Nancy Astor was a Nazi Sympathiser, particularly without a clear reference stating so. She, like many Britons, Europeans and Americans, was in favour of appeasement. Such statements also don't address the huge amount of effort she put into supporting her constituents and the wider British public throughout the war and beyond. HMW1987 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The appropriate place to make that argument would be on the talk page for the article on Nancy Astor, which has for a long time stated that "Astor has been criticised for her antisemitism and sympathetic view of National Socialism". RolandR (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of any claims about Astor as an individual, I do note that neither of the citations explicitly supports the claim that Reeves is a long-standing admirer. That seems to constitute original research, and is potentially libellous. Following the “be bold” principle, as well as the need to remove potentially libellous material from biographies of living persons, I am going to remove that content. 82.11.93.53 (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Taxation of assets

Rachel campaigns to have investment taxed to an equivalent level as earned income. Do her principles extend to taxing profit on owned property assets to the same equivalent 86.139.240.232 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of gender information

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

Hi Defacto. Thanks for your edits to Rachel Reeves. I noticed that you expressed your belief that Reeves' appointment to the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer as the first female to hold the post in its 708-year history is not sufficiently notable for WP:LEAD. I don't see you could make this case, not least because looking at similar articles, such as Margaret Thatcher, mention of her appointment and gender is if anything more prominent. It also appears to be a topic of much discussion both on social and traditional media, and so is obviously one of the most significant factors in the eyes of those minded to engage with/regarding her. Personally, I don't care much what gender she is as long as her policies are good, but that doesn't mean it's not an important historical event and one of the most significant aspects of her notability. I'm going to leave this a little bit for you to respond before I make an edit to reverse this, but I think it's important this issue is addressed soon, as it feels like the gap where the information was is harming the overall credibility of the article. CarterPD (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@CarterPD, in general, what happens in other articles is irrelevant. And even if it wasn't, I do not think that becoming another woman minister in 2024 really competes with taking the world by storm in 1979 by becoming the first woman prime minister. If the consensus here though is that that is one of the most important pieces of content in this article, then fair enough, we should add it to the lead. Let's wait and see. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what would establish your view that it constitutes consensus? Someone else put it there and it seemed to belong to me, so there appear to be two people so far who think it is WP:LEAD and one person who doesn't. It has frequently been the primary thing mentioned on her Instagram, for example, and referenced in many media articles. It's not so much another minister but the specific office of Chancellor of the Exchequer which, as has been noted, has been exclusively male for 708 years -- a very long time for something that's theoretically a 50/50 chance every five or so years. Again, regarding consensus, what exactly are you waiting to see? It feels very much like there is one across many different channels. CarterPD (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of a good reason not to include it in the lead, it is obviously a very significant event and has been covered more than enough in reliable sources to be included Michaeldble (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that this should be included in the lead as significant, as many reliable sources covering this deem it noteworthy to mention. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GnocchiFan and @Michaeldble and thanks for your input! Prior to your comment I made an edit to reduce the length of the passage on gender so that it does not take up undue space, and elevated it to the top of the article to avoid having to repeat information later in the lead. Hopefully this satisfies the spirit of WP:LEAD in the sense that while the gender of the position holder is particularly notable at this stage in history, it is probably not a fact that merits more than a passing mention, when the primary importance of this person is the office they hold, the power bestowed on them by that office, and what is done with that power. CarterPD (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this is a perennial problem, so per WP:FIRSTWOMAN, I think we need to convince ourselves that "it really is the only notable thing about her" if we are to keep it. I don't think that it is, so I do not support this being in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed as there has been no objection to this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone above seems to disagree with you, so I'm not sure why you've removed it. I don't think anyone is suggesting "it really is the only notable thing about her" at all. For this reason, I don't think it was right to be in the first sentence of the lead as it was previously. The policy you quoted continues: "Otherwise start with her own position or accomplishments, and mention the fact that she is a woman afterwards if it is notable."

As the fact that she is the first female in one of the highest offices in the government, and that this has been covered significantly in reliable sources - it should definitely be in the lead. In the case of Margaret Thatcher, her position/accomplishments are mentioned first, followed by a mention of her being the first female PM later on. I think this is the correct approach Michaeldble (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I moved it up there from where it was previously as it only needed a couple of words in that context and avoid dedicating an entire section to it. There's a very long diatribe I could go on where I could talk about the reason why women have historically been disproportionately excluded from positions of power and why it is simultaneously notable when a woman holds a position previously held exclusively by men, but that it's also important to view office holders primarily by their roles and actions in official contexts. It seems this is generally understood so I see no need. Since we have consensus from everyone except Defacto at this point I am going have a run at putting it back in further down the intro without introducing an entire paragraph for it, unless anyone else has an objection.CarterPD (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@CarterPD, the discussion is still ongoing because we have no consensus yet. And the convention is that until there is a consensus for the inclusion of the new content, then we do not include it. I introduced the argument from WP:FIRSTWOMAN, and there was no response, so I restored the status quo.

We could also look at the Finkbeiner test for inspiration. It gives seven things not to mention in articles about women in science, to avoid gender bias. Amongst them are "The fact that she’s a woman" and "How she’s the “first woman to…". Why wouldn't that apply to this article about a politician too? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You restored it to the version where you removed the status quo section. The status quo everyone else was happy with prior to your edit was the original with the final paragraph. I tried to compromise with you regarding this by moving the reference to gender further up so it was more of an aside and used up less space. You didn't appear to be happy with this anyway and others have indicated they prefered it in the status quo version, as it was before.

I will try to debate this with you if you want but if we are trying to get 100% everyone agreeing you will need to give ground. Is that likely to happen? At the moment it feels like every time a point of debate is countered you will bring up a new one which will require expenditure of time and mental energy to unpack and evaluate, and then to communicate that evaluation such that we have something like a common understanding. In theory this could go on indefinitely, depending on the depth of argument you want to go into for each piece of text marked with a WP on this site. Since I am trying to launch a startup at the moment I don't have hours and hours to do that and my mental energy is at least somewhat precious.

As you seem to have put a lot of effort into this and care a lot about it, I will try to make time to debate this when I have spare time. It's certainly an interesting topic in theory. Until then I would suggest we revert to the status quo version that included the original info, but since you are claiming the status quo is something other than it is that seems something of an impasse right now. CarterPD (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The original status quo was the state of the article before that bit about being the first woman chancellor was added to the lead. That was the bold edit being challenged.

In researching Wiki's policies, guidelines, etc. with respect to this, each time I've found something relevant I've brought it here to add to the discussion. That's how discussion works.

There is no hurry to declare a 'consensus'. Typically we'd wait until a couple of weeks of no contributions to the discussion, and then if there isn't unanimity, decide what to do next. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda knew that would be the position. It seems like the spirit of the rule is that the status quo is the position of the article where lots of people were happy with it and it represented the general feeling about notability.

You're saying it's not that, it's what you want it to be, which I figured would be the case.

I know you're not going to be in any hurry to change by agreeing with everyone else because right now you get to have the article the way you want it and everyone else doesn't.

This whole thing is just making me tired and I'd rather be spending my time developing my app and engaging with potential investors. At some point later I might figure it's worth going back and trying to push for this article to be what everyone but you wants it to be but for now it doesn't seem like the most important thing on my radar. CarterPD (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:AGF before you come back too. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have read it and it doesn't apply. I am very tired of your blocking of an edit everyone else wants while standing on your own interpretation of rules and allowing for no others, but I can see that right now attempting to reason with you is futile. You have said yourself that you have no hurry to achieve consensus so what would be the point of attempting to get you to a point that by your own admission you don't want to be at. CarterPD (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Michaeldble, you say everyone above seems to disagree with you. Well no, nobody had responded to my point from WP:FIRSTWOMAN, so I assumed no one disagreed. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a particularly reasonable assumption given the context. Literally everyone else in the conversation has said they want the reference to the office holder's gender to remain. CarterPD (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I don't see anyone else who has an issue with this since it was added on 6 July. I don't think we need unanimity at all here. As per WP:FIRSTWOMAN, I think it was the incorrect move to place it in the first sentence in the lead as was done a few days ago but I think a small mention in the second para is absolutely fine (which was the case for most of the last week). This has been covered more than enough in reliable sources and has been one of the biggest stories since the election: Michaeldble (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Michaeldble (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to that edit if you are happy to make it. CarterPD (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit baffled this is still a discussion to be frank but I'll give it a day or so to see if any other editors wish to add anything. Michaeldble (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Reinstated as there has been no objection to this Michaeldble (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@CarterPD, it's not so much what my view of the meaning of consensus is, but the meaning in Wikipedia policy. And one thing that says that it isn't, is the result of a vote. But rather than me giving my interpretation of the policy on this, why not read it for yourself, here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have. It appears to have an issue where the rules can be abused in the following way:

1) Find something you want to change about an article lead and mark as WP:LEAD

2) If someone disagrees, erroneously claim your change is the status quo and mark it so

3) Once someone correctly makes the point it is not status quo, point to the next section of the rules which suggests being the 'adult in the room' and walking away regarding status quo

The problem with 'being the adult in the room' here is it seems to imply that adults should completely relinquish control in any case to people who according to the implication of the rule are behaving childishly, and leave them to create truth on their own terms only.

Does the above seem like an accurate summation of where we're at? Are you aware of any discussions around this point? I shall probably look to raise this unless there's any reason you can think why this is not an issue.

Regardless, this is probably not a discussion that belongs in Rachel Reeves. Perhaps there is an alternative forum you can suggest to a Wikipedia newbie such as myself where I could discuss this in further detail with myself and/or others?

CarterPD (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not with you. When you say It appears to have an issue where the rules can be abused... is the "it" in that phrase the WP:CONSENSUS policy? If that is the case, then you could take it up at that policy's talkpage. Otherwise, you'll need to explin, with diffs and or quotse, in more detail what you are referring to. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto. It's ok, I don't think it's something that belongs on Rachel Reeves, and it looks like we're all good here and seem to have an edit that everyone agrees with. I'll probably raise the potential rules issue as topic to chat about in the tea room. :) - CarterPD (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Chess

Recent edits calling into question Rachel Reeves winning of an all girls tournament have been prompted by widely publicised blog post by [Guido Fawkes]. Guido looked up the wrong tournament results. Her junior title was for a tournament organised by the British Women's Chess Association. One of the sections above goes into this in more detail. But I would also like to offer up this source from renowned chess Grandmaster, long-time chess correspondent for the Times and the Spectator, and enthusiastic Reform Party supporter Raymond Keene. Though it is not specific about the competition he does state that she won a junior title. https://www.thearticle.com/chess-the-election-and-rachel-reeves JAC Esquire (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also from the blog of Alexandra Konstantinovna Kosteniuk, who was the Women's World Chess Champion from 2008 to 2010 http://www.chessblog.com/search/label/rachel%20reeves JAC Esquire (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In Feb 1993 The British Womens Chess Association organised a tournament for female competitors between 12 and 21, with 112 competitors. Reeves and 3 others shared the title for under-14s with 3½ points out of 5 in a Swiss-style tournament. This event is recorded on page 34 of the June 1993 edition of Chess magazine; on page 260 Volume 113 (No 5. May 1993) of British Chess Magazine; and Page 73 of the 1994 British Chess Federation Yearbook. JAC Esquire (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The chess archive page has been updated with the BWCA results. JAC Esquire (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Economist career at Bank of Scotland

Adding this as a topic on the Talk page in order to preëmpt the likely edit wars around whether she actually worked in the complaints department or whether she really did work as an economist as previously claimed.

Her LinkedIn profile currently admits she worked in ‘retail banking’ but unfortunately all the screengrabs of her profile claiming to have been an economist come from unreliable sources; however https://howtoacademy.com/events/rachel-reeves-the-women-who-made-modern-economics/ could be seen as supporting evidence of the original claim. Star-one (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerning that the only sources cited for these new allegations, which are stated in the article as facts, is a pair of low-credibility Tory muckraking outlets. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a playground for malicious political rumour-mongers. 2A02:8012:6570:0:D4E7:1CD:475D:8FFD (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but even accounting for Guido’s unreliability (which you’ll note I did acknowledge) there is clearly a degree of confusion about what she did at HBOS, as even cited sources here demonstrate. It’s not Wikipedia’s job to pander to malicious rumour-mongering, but it is Wikipedia’s job to document controversies and potential falsehoods where evidence of such exists, and I think we’re now in the realm of documentary evidence existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-one (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote 'Tory' shows your bias. Do you seriously think Rachel Reeves herself is a reliable source? 2.101.98.106 (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the anonymous users who've now *totally* removed any references to Rachel's actual job role at HBOS not tallying with her claims to be an "economist" there? (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Reeves&diff=1257664702&oldid=1257661385 ) That claim is literally from her own campaign page to get elected to parliament in 2010 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20100423074408/http://www.rachelreeves.net/blogs/index.php/2009/11/27/about-rachel?blog=9 ; "Rachel has spent her professional career as an economist working for the Bank of England, the British Embassy in Washington and at Halifax Bank of Scotland.") This is not "malicious rumour-mongering" and the whitewashing of the news story both in her own online CV - which has now removed "economist" - and on this Wikipedia page is very clearly showing a bias to protect said individual, just like the previous chess story was attempted to be covered up. Harami2000 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this article actually needs a new ‘career controversy’ or such like section to cover this issue; I’ve got the various links to the various pages in addition to Guido’s which can be used as citations, I was just waiting to see what developed during the day before going ahead. Star-one (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The first edit for this page says: "Between 2006 and July 2009 she worked as a business planner and analyst for Halifax Bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds Banking Group).[2]", the citation for this edit is the printed edition of Yorkshire Evening Post for 15 Sept 2007. This is three years before she entered parliament. A much later edit links to an online version of the article, and again some while later before there is an edit an archived version of the article. So the Wayback Machine's version of this article is here and says "Oxford-educated Ms Reeves has worked in finance in the British embassy in Washington, USA and is currently an economist with the Halifax Building Society.". So it doesnt' explicity state analyst, however another article linked in that version of this page does here, also Investors Frssh News from 2011 here. I believe here, then that her job title would have been "analyst" (this was also her role in Washington) and her qualifications in order to do this job was economist. That was her occupation. JAC Esquire (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the Investors Frsh News is actually ripping off the FT. JAC Esquire (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Alumnus of LSE

Alumnus of LSE 5.172.183.114 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated to include this link and change text associated with it in the early career section. This link is more substantial evidence for the LSE connection so the slightly biased tone of ‘she says’ in the current article can be removed. 5.172.183.114 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed the biased tone, I’ll let somebody else update the citation if they want to. Star-one (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Integrity

@Koncorde, please tell us which of the content you think is not directly supported by the cited source that led you to make this edit. Then we can address it by rewording, or whatever. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

1. The section header is inappropriate.

2. You are stating as fact in wikipedias voice the allegations of a paper, in an inappropriately named section.

It is, as explained, editorialising.

If you want to rewrite it, do so in your own sandbox, but what you put is inappropriate in a BLP. Koncorde (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde, there has been widespread media coverage of this, so the section seems relevant. What would you entitle it?

The cited source uses its own voice, and, as it is considered to be a quality RS, it is usual to relay the content in Wiki's voice.

Which sentence(s) do you specifically object too? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with the source, but the presentation is lacking any feedback / counterpoint or balance. Relying on the source as arbiter of fact and expressing as such in wikipedias voice is a huge wikipedia no no but specificaly it is a massive BLP red flag.

1. Section can be dealt within her career as chancellor, loaded words should be avoided (such as "criticism", "controversy" etc) as I can only say "Integrity" is more extreme than those two common faux pas.

Claims should be attributed as claims, not conclusions, across the board.

See MOS:EDITORIAL among many other sections of WP:BLP policy and practice Koncorde (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde, the source says "... Rachel Reeves is also facing questions over her integrity. Five occasions have emerged where the chancellor has embellished her credentials as an economist at key moments in her career". They are assertions of fact, not opinions or allegations, so why can't we accept that from a quality RS? Four of the five occasions are stated in the voice of The Times as fact too, not as allegations or claims. why can't we give them in Wiki's voice that way? The fifth was attributed to reports from another source, so I attributed it that way too. What's wrong with that?

These are serious findings, with no denial that I can find, so surely they deserve a sub-section of their own, and we shouldn't challenge the word of The Times without the support of sources of equal standing, should we? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"Facing questions" is exactly that, "Reeves faced questions from the Times".

The facts asserted are "embellishment" or "false claims", by The Times. We do not judge if they are correct or not but that is how it was put across.

By any measure these are not "serious findings", that is your opinion, which also goes for the subsection relevance or otherwise. Koncorde (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde, "Rachel Reeves is also facing questions over her integrity", yes. That's why I started the paragraph "Reeves's integrity has been called into question". The source doesn't say "from The Times". Do we need to pile on a multitude of other sources which are also supporting this?

Which of the assertions, do you think, is a "false claim"? Which are embellished? They were laid straight from The Times, and not "put across" in any other way.

Doesn't the fact that this story has been covered 1000s of times in a broad range of news media, both at home and abroad, make it "serious"? If you think not, what level of cover would you say was necessary to reach that bar? Is there an equal weight of denials? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The Times article was originally titled "false claims" by Reeves, the URL still reflects the original claims, I am not asserting any accuracy or otherwise. Your text specifically asserted "the truth" on multiple occasions and listed them in a way that was entirely not WP:NPOV.

For "balance" and "seriousness" - the idea of embellishing a CV being "serious" is someone's opinion. If we want alternative examples they can be provided, while we can see the way other public exposures of un-Parliamentary behaviour has been dealt with in a neutral way or even outright criminal behaviour or incredibly serious accusations or when a persons behaviour outsizes their political acumen.

I am not litigating blatant BLP breaches, feel free to read how you presented the information and how it's incompatible with wikipedias policies. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the The Times article was called before, headlines do not count (see WP:HEADLINE), it's the content we are interested in, and as a respected RS we can use its voice as our voice. WP:Voice says Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. If you tell us which of the factual assertions are specifically contested (if any), then we can discuss them? By "serious" I mean notable or with ample weight from the number of REes covering this story. The embellishment is the reason for the mass coverage. The source says Five occasions have emerged where the chancellor has embellished her credentials. - that's unequivocal. Do we have sources arguing that there was no embellishment (I've only seen sources excusing it, but not refuting it)? If not, what is the BLP breach?

We perhaps need more eyes on this to help break the apparent deadlock? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The headline is what I was referring to as accusations of "embellishment" / "false claims", that you then asked me to define what the false claims were (as if I were claiming they were false). I clarified that the wording "false claims" referred to the article title / url.

You're trying to push as a fact that (purported) "embellishments" of a CV are are sufficient to support a section named "integrity"; that is editorialising, not balanced or NPOV. You are claiming that they are serious, where we can point to numerous other BLP cases were far more serious allegations of criminality or similar with much more significant coverage are not treated with such obvious navel gazing NPOV violations.

By all means ask for other opinions, but it'd be much easier to read what you wrote and do it in a way that abides by BLP and WP:NPOV. Koncorde (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

But headlines are not regarded as reliable, so are discounted. It is the body that is considered as the reliable source, and in this case, it is the body that says Five occasions have emerged where the chancellor has embellished her credentials as an economist at key moments in her career. That supports stating it in Wiki's voice, unless we come across RSes refuting that it was embellishment. Let's not go around that loop again without those new sources.

I'm not pushing anything, I'm trying to understand your revert. Mass reporting of these as embellishments gives their inclusion due weight. I'm ambivalent over that section name though, can you offer an alternative?

They are serious findings, in terms of the weight given to them by the sources, as I said above. It is that there is a multitude of news media articles that have been written over several days that deal with them, that makes them so serious and worthy of inclusion. That's not to say that there aren't other more outrageous cases concerning other MPs, but so what?

We seem to have boiled it down to the sub-section title not being ideal. How about "CV embellishment"? Can you suggest something better? -- DeFacto (talk). 00:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)