Talk:Suella Braverman

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)

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 [1] [2] and journalistic references [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. 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 [10] 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 [11]. 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)

@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)

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)