Talk:Kemi Badenoch

Spectator source

This article from The Spectator is not a reliable source for Badenoch, one of its former directors. The Spectator is an opinion-driven source in general. It falls under questionable sources, i.e. "those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". Whether it's a primary source is irrelevant; it was edited and published by an unreliable third party and should be removed immediately. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You haven't explained why this is an unreliable source for the the information cited. Stating that anything published in one particular source is inherently unreliable is lazy and unnecessary. WP:QUESTIONABLE means exactly that, not that it can never be cited. It's obviously an accurate summary of the maiden speech she gave in parliament as evidenced from Hansard. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Then cite Hansard instead. Or better yet, find a reliable, secondary source for this info to establish due weight; primary sources like public records should be used cautiously if at all. The onus is on those seeking to include material, and BLPs have more stringent sourcing requirements for a reason. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kemi Badenoch MP (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Worth mentioning her environmental views in "Political views"?

In the Tory party leadership contest, she seemed to position herself as the most anti-net zero. Dhalamh (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfit content

@Smartse, in this revert you say "please discuss why this shouldn't be included". Please read my edit summaries, WP:BLP and WP:CON for a few. Now please tell me why you think your opinion trumps those, and that it should be restored without being brought into line with the policies and before achieving a consensus. And WP:ONUS adds another. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Yes of course I have read your edit summaries but none of them provide any justification not to include material sourced to a reliable source. You can throw as many policies around as you like, but it is meaningless if they are irrelevant. ONUS is the only one that might be relevant here, but given that there is currently a 2:1 consensus for including it, I don't see how that helps your argument. It is ironic that you are asking why my "opinion" trumps these policies when you justify removing material with just mirroring more Guardian left-wing political tittle-tattle and Labour mischief-making which is of course, entirely your opinion. SmartSE (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Badenoch rewarding a donor with a publicly funded job is highly relevant. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, why, when you added it, why did you dismiss the idea of adding the full context from the cited source that made it clear that she had been approved for that appointment before she made any donation, and that no rules had been broken? Did you think it better complied with WP:BLP's insistence on neutrality without that dstraction? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse, a "2:1 consensus for including it"? Have you ever read WP:CON? It seems not, judging by your law-of-the-jungle approach of just toggling content to your favoured bias rather than discussing it first on the talkpage. If another editor comes along and objects to the change, what do you think they should they do? Should they revert you with a 2:2, or would you revert back again as they had no majority, claiming a deadlock? How should the content be decided then, do you think?

What's wrong with the traditional idea of leaving the status quo content until a consensus, in the conventional sense, is achieved on the talkpage? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto's edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kemi_Badenoch&diff=1139085021&oldid=1138867887 took out that Badenoch failed to declare the donation which is the core of the complaint. It also quoted Badenoch's defenders without quoting her critics. This gave undue weight to defenders. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is not declaring it important to you, it wasn't a breach of any rules. And who was defending her, and from what? Factual context from the source is not defence, it's context to the politically motivated attacks. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Failing to declare that Badenoch had received aa donation from Cash was morally wrong and if it wasn't against the rules the rules need chnging. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think that?

And who do you think was defending her, and from what? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Proxima Centauri: "was morally wrong and if it wasn't against the rules the rules need chnging." I do hope you realize within the context of editing and discussing a WP BLP, this is a problematic comment. Also please be aware I have no dog in this fight. I'm just an 'ugly american' :) who came across this person in the news and visited their page. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The complaint by Labour quoted in the Guardian is not that Badenoch failed to declare the donation, it's that she didn’t declare "a political interest in [Joanne Cash's] appointment".

Presumably (this is my inference) the reason they didn't go after her for not declaring the donation itself is that the declaration of interests comes at an earlier moment in the process than the approval of an appointee (which itself came before the donation in this case).

I figure (and again, this is my inference) are two ways to explain Labour nonetheless complaining that Badenoch failed to declare an interest, depending upon how cynical one is inclined to be:

1. They figure that the donation was in fact a quid pro quo for the appointment, and that at the time the appointment was approved it was understood by Badenoch and Cash that it was a favour that Cash would in some way repay

2. They wanted to mislead people into thinking the issue was a failure to declare a donation, while obfuscating the complaint behind just enough ambiguity that if faced with the obvious retort of "she couldn't declare the donation because she hadn't received it yet" they could squirm away and pretend they never meant to imply she should've declared the donation per se.

That this Wikipedia currently incorrectly states that the Labour party criticised the appointment due to Badenoch not having declared the donation suggests that, if they were trying to mislead the public, they succeeded. This sentence, currently in this article, is simply not what the cited Guardian article says:

The Labour Party criticised the appointment as ... Cash had donated money to Badenoch's campaign ... and Badenoch had not declared this.

No, they criticised her for failing to declare a political interest in the appointment, presumably at a moment in time before the donation had even been made. That is not the same thing.

I'm going to tweak the article now to try to fix this. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that any opinions any of us may have about the rights or wrongs of the matter aren't particularly relevant. This seems to be a fairly minor controversy - worth including, but could probably be shortened to about two sentences. I would also suggest moving it to the "Controversies" section. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Government and Departmental explanations are not the same as the individual defending themselves or otherwise. It is not contraversial. And it is fairly balanced - neither passing judgement on the decision made or the means of going about it. Atomix330 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

Introduction needs some revision to avoid repetition Atomix330 (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Right, @Czello and @81.170.20.2, can both of you please explain here why you think that your edits should overrule the other. Instead of reverting each other's edits, can we discuss it here please? Ellwat (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto summarised it pretty well here. Also, as this is a BLP the IP needs to seek consensus for contentious additions. — Czello ^(music) 10:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me just correct my typo-riddled edit summary on that - it should say: the lead should summarise what's already in the article body, and I don't see all of that being already in the body.

And yes, per Czello above, such additions need consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention the david tennant thing now?

Should this article mention the david tennant controversy now that it is now

1)significant enough to be on his article

2)evidently forming a core aspect of her leadership campaign, being used in her campaign launch video DParkinson1 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Create separate "immigration" section in Political views

I believe the paragraph dedicated to her article for The Sunday Telegraph describing not all cultures as valid be made into a separate section under "Immigration" since the article also covers her views on immigration and integration policy. Ardyl (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. I'm sure there's some more material that can be added to expand the subsection. Mooonswimmer 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing quotes

@DeFacto, hi I do not understand why are you removing quotes? FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma, did you read WP:OR, particularly the WP:PSTS section? Wikipedia generally requires secondary sources and my removal was of content which was only supported by the primary source. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I am quoting here “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.” less extent does not mean removeing quotes from primary sources, that published in reliable sources.

I really don’t see any thing supports removing quotes published in a reliable source, especially as no one attempted to add analysis which would constitute a OR. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The rest of that paragraph says: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So everything in the section I removed, outside of the lengthy quote, need secondaries to comply. The following are particularly problematic: "describes herself as a gender-critical feminist"; "has been an outspoken critic of moves to amend legislation to allow for self-certification of transgender gender identity". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

yes, any analysis is OR, that what I just said at the end of my reply. But please make sure you are not removing something that was mentioned in the article because people can paraphrase rather than quote. I tagged the sentence anyway. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Is "describes herself as a gender-critical feminist" or " has been an outspoken critic of moves to amend legislation to allow for self-certification of transgender gender identity" supported in that piece by her cited for it? They are analysis/OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, if that was not clear enough. But don’t remove the entire paragraph as you did, just remove what is OR. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLPRESTORE, this is unsourced material, and you, having restored the unsourced content, need to either source it or remove it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)