Talk:Yvette Cooper

Script Writer ?

Listening to her questions to Theresa May this afternoon, regarding the NOTW scandal and alleged Met Police Force corruption, one wonders whether she actually writes her own questions, or has them written for her? Does anyone know if her office employs bright, literate graduates for such work? Or even not-so -bright graduates? Cooper criticised the Home Secretary, yet it is clear that Labour were warned on many occasions of the unhealthy relationships between the Met and the Press,yet Labour took no action. Surely a Shadow Home Secretary should have some form of memory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.232.130 (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I'm dont understand why they list her time as minister for housing starting in June 2007, when the guardian lists her starting in May 2005?[1] and she signs letters as the minister of state on 13 April 2006[2]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.180.38 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Balls

It is worth noting that despite being married to Ed Balls, Yvette has chosen not take Balls as a last name. Who would? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.224.129 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 election for leader

She did not nominate and she did not even threaten to nominate, the election is nothing worthy of any note in her Biography. She supports her husband, really..yes.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he offered to stand aside for her but that she declined the offer is noteworthy, as is her rationale. That fact that it was widely reported and discussed in the press is clear evidence of that fact. -Rrius (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This article a BLP is about notable things that have made her notable, negatives, like she did not do this and she did not do that do not belong in this biography. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is clearly notable. To say that "negatives" don't belong in a BLP is a standard that you made up just now and is no part of Wikipedia policy. Even if it were, this is a positive: she affirmatively turned down an offer. -Rrius (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just use my unbiased common sense. She did not do anything, she did not nominate and she did not mention that she even might, it is meaningless in her life story. The press wrote a story that she might stand and she didn't yawn yawn, disappointing story and valueless in the biography of a living person. BLPs are about what people did that is notable not what the times wrote about what the times thought she might do. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course she did something; she decided not to run when her husband said he would stand aside for her. That she was mentioned as a potential candidate is, itself, worthy of inclusion, but the particular way in which it happened makes it all the more important. I get that you don't care, but that does not mean that the story somehow doesn't belong in a BLP. -Rrius (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop adding more information to your existing comments. It is not a question of her not doing what the Times said she might do; it is a question of her declining this offer from her husband. -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking ? or do you just like discussing rubbish with me? Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User rrius has reverted with the summary of ..There is no BLP issue here, so the onus is on Rob to justify deletion... I don't understand why ther user is mentioning BLP because I am not claiming any BLP issues at all, the content is not about anything Cooper has done at all and so is of no value at all in her life story, we don't add things the press has speculated that subjects did not do, I tire of such valueless banal discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly said this doesn't belong in a "biography of living person" or "BLP". The only time the person's being alive is relevant is with respect to our BLP policy.

You are simply wrong to say it is not about what she has done. It is clearly about her choice not to take up her husband's offer to stand aside in her favour. This is not a question of speculation, it is about what she has been reported to have done. Your view that it is "valueless" does not somehow mean it cannot be included. Her decision to allow her husband to stand instead of standing herself because of their small children is clearly a part of the "Yvette Cooper story". -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wronger that ever. She didn't say that or comment that at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And this ( your main claim to fame ) is a load of rubbish valueless editorial http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7125955.ece. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you only want to put things in biographies if we have a quote from the subject, but that is not the way it is done. Reliable source, the Times included, report that Balls made an offer to her and she declined it. That is saying something, whether or not it is in the presence of a microphone. You are simply wrong. You are also wrong about anything being my claim to fame—I don't claim to be famous, and the Times does not contradict that. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add worthless rubbish to BLP articles as I only have to tidy it up. The way it is done, differs from user to user, you are of the school that asserts I have a citation so I can add it and I am from the school that seeks quantity content, we differ only in values. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You think it is worthless. Great. That's your opinion. I disagree with you, as did the other editor you reverted. I am not of the school that anything with a citation can be added. This particular bit of information is relevant to the subject of the article. You once again mention "BLP articles". As you admitted above, this has nothing to with Wikipedia's BLP policy, which is the only meaningful difference between such articles and any other article at Wikipedia. The information is relevant and interesting, and at least as important as the discussion of her father's career. A female MP explicitly deferred to her husband when both were potential candidates for the leadership because, again explicitly, they have small children. How could you possibly say that is "valueless" and not worthy of inclusion? -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I don't know who put her religion as Christianity but I'm pretty sure that she's an atheist, so I've changed it.
When she took her seat in Parliament she didn't take the Oath of Allegiance (which involves phrases like "so help me God") and instead took the Affirmation (which does not mention God and was put in place for those who don't believe in God).
Here's the link to the Labour Shadow Cabinet taking their affirmations + oaths, Yvette Cooper is about 1min50 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVzIe-q-YRw --Omarraii (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the godless oath is not a reliable reason to add atheist to the article, if the Christianity is uncited we can remove that. Also that youtube source is not a reliable source either.Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The source isn't reliable as it requires our own interpretation. In addition there may be other reasons she wishes not to take the other type of oath; random example I know a local politician who is Christian but asked to use the non-religious oath at the local council due to his strong belief in a secular state. Unless she, or a reliable source, has commented on religious affiliation we do not know --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are many reason you would not take the religious oath, perhaps she is a Buddhist or whatever, I really dislike asserting such affiliations with weak claims or even worse, no citation at all. I dislike all of this attempting to stuff people into little boxes, the wikipedia seems flooding with this over categorization. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing grinds my teeth so much as when I tell someone I have no interest in religion/god beyond a passing academic one they go "ooh, your an atheist" bah :P --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Father's Daughter ? - reduce references

The first two lines of the Early Life sub-heading presently read:

Born in Inverness, her father is Tony Cooper, former General Secretary of the Union Prospect, a member of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and a former Chairman of the British Nuclear Industry Forum. He was appointed to the government's Energy Advisory Panel by the Conservatives and has been described by the Nuclear Industry Association as an "articulate, persuasive and well-informed advocate of nuclear power".

I propose that the second sentence be deleted as it appears to the casual observer that this article is more about her father than the subject herself. Somewhat sad if we have to proceed in this world bench-marked against the achievements of our parents, even when they don't even rate an article--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 20:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Yvettecooperguardian.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yvettecooperguardian.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Main picture

Awful and years out of date. Surely there must be a better one? 83.193.151.28 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed Balls

I've taken out the reference to Ed Balls from the lead, and moved most of the information to the personal life section. If editors feel it is relevant in its own right and deserves a place in the lead, by all means move it back. SocialDem (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I have readded a one-sentence mention of him in the lead, because important information like that belongs in the lead. If a politician is married to somebody notable enough for his or her own wikipedia article, that is almost always mentioned in the lead. Also, we don't have to be concerned about lead length; the lead doesn't become too long if Balls is mentioned. pbp 15:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Member of parliament

I was surprised to see that her 20 years as an MP was summarized in just 4 lines,mentioning only her maiden speech and naming one committee she has served on. Being interested in foreign affairs, I added her foreign policy record writing: "Yvette Cooper voted for the war in Iraq, and later against its investigation. She further, consistently voted for military interventions abroad, such as in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria." adding what I think is a credible source: https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=41902&dmp=6688. This edit was undone with the following comment: "Obvious POV pushing". While I understand the comment, I am convinced that only mentioning her maiden speech and one committee she has served on in 20 years time is an obvious lie by omission and therefore a POV pushing. I think that the rest of her record should be highlighted as well, I just don't have the time and the knowledge myself. Any advise on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetan6371 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Opposition

This has just removed all her shadow portfolios.--86.182.186.188 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Home Secretary

Isn't every British Home Secretary just called Home Secretary? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds right. We also need to follow the guidelines: MOS:LINKCLARITY is clear that link text should correspond as closely as possible to the article linked to. A clear community consensus is that the article title is and should be Home Secretary. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LINKCLARITY says The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context. So, given that "secretary of state for the Home Department" and "home secretary" are synonymous, and that indeed the former term is used before the latter one in the Home Secretary article, MOS:LINKCLARITY has not been contravened by using the more formal term. Also, whatever the consensus at the Home Secretary article is for the title of that article, it has no bearing on what term should be used in this article - that is decided by the editors of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this article should use "Home Secretary." But I really don't see why all other relevant articles should not also use "Home Secretary", such as, for example, William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You’ve misunderstood the purpose of the manual of style and the meaning of that guideline. Many terms are synonymous, which is why piped links exist, so that in running text they can be used to enable flow. But of the synonyms available, the manual of style indicates we should use the synonym that is closest to the article title. Obviously the closest is the article title itself, which is therefore to be used to follow the guideline. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Where does MOS:LINKCLARITY indicate that we should use the synonym that is closest to the article title? Also, if what you say about piped links were the case, WP:NOPIPE wouldn't exist - it says not to used piped links where there's an equivalent redirect. If what you are saying were the case, synonym redirects would be abolished - when could you actually ever use "secretary of state for the Home Department"? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have to consider any synonyms? Why can't we just use the exact article title? "Home Secretary" is perfectly clear and unambiguous? What's to be gained from using a title which no-one, including the office-holder herself, ever uses? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn't editors be free to use the terminology and vocabulary they see fit, so long at it complies with Wiki policies, guidelines, etc.? If the consensus on the choice of language changes, then fair enough, but shouldn't we accept that if it's not broken, then we don't need to fix it? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy for a consensus to develop here. I see "Home Secretary" as 100% not broken. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

But not one using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense though, as preferred by WP:CONSENSUS. That would certainly clinch it. For now all we seem to have are two editors who'd prefer an alternate wording. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary here says "keep the status quo whilst the talk page discussion is ongoing". But exactly how long has there been any kind of "status quo"? I didn't realise how long this slow edit war had been going on. Since this addition on 26 July? Since then there has been a series of reverts by anon IP and new WP:SPA editors? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC) p.s. just to let you know User:Benga502, who made that first addition, is now blocked indefinitely.

The consensus here seems to be to use "Home Secretary" consistently. So I propose to return to the "status quo" that existed before 26 July. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I had not noticed that that new user had been edit-warring against numerous editors for such a long time. I've restored as you suggest. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it'd been that before, so I agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

why? every other secretary of state is known as 'secretary of state for...' on their infobox, such as 'Secretary of State for Defence'. why should the Secretary of State for the Home Department be any different? makes 0 sense Shooboo23 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

We are using the article title, as that is the status quo prior to disruption, that’s the closest to the article title, for link clarity, and it’s the common name for the office that most readers will recognise. That it’s the common name has been well established by consensus multiple times. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's the official title as found on gov.uk. But even they are not consistent e.g. here. So I think that would be consistency for the sake of it, but at the expense of comprehensibility. The media uses "Home Secretary" about 99.9% of the time? So not sure where your "makes 0 sense" comes from. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

makes 0 sense because across wikipedia, 'secretary of state' is UNIVERSALLY used. so how does it make any sense at all Shooboo23 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

Then this one is just the odd one out, for ease of comprehension. As Cambial has already pointed out, it's the name used at that article. You could try opening a WP:RM over there if you are so convinced about your "0 sense"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

buddy there is no need to be a stupid rude prick when im bringing up a valid point about inconsistency Shooboo23 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

I beg your pardon?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

can you read? Shooboo23 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

As in "I beg your pardon, but kindly remove or strike that personal attack or you might get reported to AN/I." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

give it a rest snowflake you were unnecessarily passive aggressive first, there was no need to become rude. Shooboo23 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

No one's been rude here except you. We'll now see how you get on with your report at WP:AN/I? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Bye bye ShooBoo23. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shooboo23, my reason for accepting "Home Secretary" is that it is what was first used, in this edit. If "Secretary of State for the Home Department" had been first used, then I would have supported that. I cannot see any policy or guideline supporting the 'official' name, or preferring the article title. But, in general, there is no good reason (other than new consensus) to change from the first used value if it is equally valid, as this would have been. If it's not broken, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The linked title Home Secretary is not broken. Why would one want to add a piped link, even in the first instance? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not broken, exactly. That's what I said, and why I support keeping it as that.

And BTW, "Secretary of State for the Home Department" doesn't need a pipe, and shouldn't be piped when using that (but not here) as it has a redirect. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point. That's the one with the redirect. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

i see your point, i just think its inconsistent to use 'Home Secretary' for just one cabinet position while all of the others have the same consensus Shooboo23 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

All the others? So what about Foreign Secretary? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

most foreign secretaries still have their title as secretary of state for foreign affairs, for example David Cameron and David Lammy Shooboo23 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The consensus on what wording to use in an article is generally local to that article and does not apply to any others. Stylistic consistency of content between articles doesn't seem to feature much across Wikipedia, and indeed a consistency guideline proposal for such was rejected by the community. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I note there was a discussion about this back in 2019 at Talk:Home_Secretary#Secretary_of_State's_Official_Title and the consensus seems to have been "Home Secretary". There is now a discussion at Talk:Foreign_Secretary#"Foreign_Secretary"_or_"Secretary_of_State_for_Foreign,_Commonwealth_and_Development_Affairs"_in_infoboxes_of_individuals for whether to go with "Foreign Secretary" or the longer name (which has changed several times over the centuries). "Home Secretary" and "Foreign Secretary" are both the more familiar titles (I doubt most non-UK readers and even many UK readers are familiar with the full title). I can see mentioning once in the article the full title such as "Following Labour's victory in the general election, Cooper was appointed secretary of state for the Home Department (usually shortened to home secretary)" or possibly in the intro paragraph. However the info and succession boxes (which should be consistent between articles) and elsewhere in the article should use "Home Secretary". Erp (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the article title - which will often be a common name rather than the official name or another less formal term - with the term chosen to refer to that entity by the editors of other articles. There is no policy or guideline requiring the article title to be used in links to it. The term used in individual articles is down to local consensus at those articles. Good job really when you look at the names of some of the articles.

Also, the fact that a consensus to use a specific term is reached for one article in no way dictates what term should be used in any other article. Also, see WP:NOTBROKEN. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the link? It was about the use in other articles so an attempt to establish a consensus on policy on what term to use across articles about holders of that position. Nothing forbids establishing a consensus that holds for a group of articles (in this case articles about people who have held this particular position) and the best place to create or change that consensus is likely on the talk page of the office (note in particular I'm concerned with use in info and succession boxes). Now I could see using the full title pipe home secretary in the succession or info boxes for ease of changing if the consensus changes (though I hesitate to think what should happen in a person's article if the full title changes during their term in office). Erp (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I read the links, yes. As far as I know, a discussion at Talk:Home Secretary cannot decide what link texts/links are allowed to be used to link to that article in other articles - I'd be happy to be proved wrong though. The same goes for Talk:Foreign Secretary. I think that consensuses generally only apply to the article they are discussed in. To apply to further articles, the discussion would surely, at least, need to be advertised on the talkpages of those articles it is envisaged to additionally apply to, to make watchers of those aware of it.

It could make sense to have a set of project-level conventions on terminology and linking recommendations (e.g. in WP:WPUKPOL), which are agreed at the project level for articles associated to the project. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As DeFacto says, any such discussion would have to take place centrally. Probably at the manual of style, with notifications for the relevant /Pol noticeboards. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: User:Shooboo23 now indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Benga502. I'd suggest there is no pressing need to strike through all of their comments in this discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Already saw this. it only took 20 seconds though Cambial — foliar❧ 09:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Very efficient. And thanks for raising it at AN/I. A swift result. Hope you enjoyed the adjustment! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)