Talk:Suella Braverman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Policy positions in lead

The lead is currently extremely thin on the subject's policy positions. After the opening paragraph it is basically just a bunch of narrative material that ends abruptly. For a politician, some outline on political positions is pretty pertinent and definitely deserves a brief mention or summary, although it is possible that the policy and legal positions itself actually needs to be fleshed out more first. However, based purely on the proportions of the content on the page as it stands, which the lead is broadly meant to reflect, roughly 10-15% should be on this material. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I can see a case for a fourth paragraph, and that would probably be less contentious than trying to boil things down to a single sentence. Perhaps you could suggest a draft here and see how it goes down? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Almost exactly what I was out to say!

But we might need to tweak the article content further for NPOV purposes first. For example, we need to include the full context for the use of the term "invasion", and of "grooming gangs" which was related not to illegal immigration, but to measures brought in in response to recent child sexual abuse cases in England and, I think, the ethnic background of those convicted.

Watch this BBC Laura Kuenssberg interview with Braverman (from about 23min 30s) to hear her account. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears this article takes an excessively negative perspective on the subject -- would agree with those who suggest that the entire article be edited to read more as an encyclopedia rather than something stitched together by Labour campaigners. Thmymerc (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The news of late has taken a very negative perspective on the subject, ergo the article, which is a reflection of the sources, can readily be negative without editorial bias. Beyond conjecture, is there anything tangible that suggests that there is currently editorial bias in effect on the page? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There must be a mention of her adopting a more hard-right stance on migration, including her rhetoric, which has become quite extremist in recent months. There is nothing negative about using political analytical tools to discuss her ideology - unless of course, people disagree that her views are hard-right lol 92.25.34.74 (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Triratna

She is not a member of the Triratna Buddhist Community - her relationship is described by the community as a mitra which translates as 'friend'.

https://thebuddhistcentre.com/londonbuddhistcentre/suella-braverman-triratna-buddhist-order-and-london-buddhist-centre 2A00:23C4:E699:C701:5CA2:B82:8AD8:DDEB (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

she is no longer even a mitra Viramati (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Can this reference to her being a member of triratna be removed Viramati (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the statement "the arresting, perhaps astonishing, fact that one of the most powerful people in the UK – Home Secretary Suella Braverman - is also faithfully involved as a Buddhist practitioner within the context of the Triratna Buddhist Community" [1] from September this year, the suggested removal seems hard to justify. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as being a 'member' of the Triratna Spiritual Community, so she cannot be one. Furthermore, her affirmation of being a "mitra" is by its nature "provisional" and cannot be said to apply to a person if they no longer practice. Thus, the entry should be changed to reflect that she used to practice, but no longer does so. Further information: As Detailed on [2] "Someone who regularly attends community activities is considered to be a "friend". Friends do not have to regard themselves as Buddhists, and can be of any faith, or none. Some choose, after some time, to participate in a formal ceremony of affiliation, and thus become a "mitra." "Mitra" is Sanskrit for "friend", which in this case denotes a person who considers themselves Buddhist, who makes an effort to live in accordance with the five ethical precepts, and who feels that this spiritual community is the appropriate one for them." Thus one cannot be a member of the Triratna Buddhist Community. Suella Braverman became a "mitra", which is a "‘provisional’ commitment to practising the Dharma within" the Triratna community [3], however, she no longer practices within the Triratna community [4], and indeed I can find no evidence that she practices as a Buddhist in any context. The affirmation of being a mitra is 'provisional', in that it only applies at the time the affirmation is made, and while the individual continues to practice. It infers no special rites or membership to the Triratna Buddhist Community and when one ceases to practice, one ceases to be a mitra.

Suella or Sue-Ellen?

The article is not clear when exactly "Sue-Ellen" became "Suella". Best, 2A00:23C7:9418:2601:D86E:FEA2:BADD:5E8A (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Now added. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 2A00:23C7:9418:2601:1113:F979:A4B5:DAEB (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Suella Braverman is no longer Home Secretary. Please change 'is' statements to 'was'. 2001:9E8:62C:1A00:C1E8:945A:CE33:49FD (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:TENSE, articles about people are only written entirely in past tense if the subject is dead. The events related to her past tenure of Home Secretary are already in past tense. Liu1126 (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason for sacking should be mentioned in lead

Her reason for sacking should be mentioned in the lead. She has been widely condemned this year for her various controversial comments/views, and this has been discussed in reliable sources. See Kanye West for a somewhat similar example; his controversial views and the fact he's been condemned for them are both mentioned in the lead of his article. Same should apply to Braverman here, as both Braverman and West have been widely condemned for their views. 195.99.227.0 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, no official reason has been given for the sacking. The text in the body (section Home secretary second term (2022–2023) ) gives the Guardian’s take on the dismissal, attributed to that newspaper, but I don’t think that this is suitable for the lead. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I agree that this should be mentioned in the lead, so added reason for sacking to the lead. Hopefully this is an accurate summary; if people have different wording they wish to include please mention here. But I agree that a reason should be given. I note that the above says there is no official reason given - however it's not like it was just the Guardian that mentioned this in relation to her comments on pro-Palestine rallies. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Shouldn't the IPA for the surname be /ˈbrævərmən/? Source: Locks Heath Free Church Sunday service celebration - YouTube (pronounced by Braverman herself at 0:08) 194.156.7.13 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oddly, the respelling pronunciation is also wrong but in a different way. 82.8.133.177 (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the IPA and added the reference (thank you!). The pronunciation is not what I have been using but she is clear and the BBC follows this. I have removed the respelling as recommended by WP:MOS/Pronunciation because the corresponding respelling BRA-vər-mən might mislead British people into BRAH-vər-mən and Americans even further astray. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation did feature on this page previously, along with that very same source! @Emeraude: decided to revert the source... which then led to the wrong pronunciation being featured. Probably a lesson to learn - such things do need a source 2A00:23C4:E31:6801:70DC:2EFC:2C43:7162 (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is her page filled with hitjobs?

This writing is a complete propaganda joke. 2601:1C2:4E00:3E90:2C46:DF2F:97FF:73C5 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Care to provide some examples? ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead says "who was home secretary from September 2022 to October 2022 and again from October 2022 to November 2023". Wouldn't that be clearer as "home secretary from September 2022 to November 2023, barring a small period in October 2022"? 128.41.63.144 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the exact dates. Thank you for pointing out the problem. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Distorted Lead

One of your contributors inaccurately portrayed the events surrounding Suella's departure by stating that she was dismissed in the reshuffle. This information is incorrect. To clarify, Suella was initially terminated, and the reshuffle was subsequently announced separately on the same day. It is essential to ensure that this distinction is accurately reflected in the lead of the article. 2.96.195.142 (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The same user keeps distorting the lead section. Can someone do the right thing and insert the accurate wording? 2.96.195.142 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Name ‘Suella’

Er @Tim O'Doherty:… she is called Suella Braverman. You will observe that this is actually the title of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:NICK: If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. Johnny Depp is another example. Keivan.f^Talk 20:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Readers can get that "Sue-Ellen" -> "Suella" without needing it spelled out in front of them. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Most people would assume that someone called "Sue-Ellen" would either be called "Sue" or "Ellen", not "Suella". [[User:Ellwat|Ellwat]talk) 20:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was that it would be obvious "Suella" comes from "Sue-Ellen", not that "Sue-Ellen" would necessarily become "Suella". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

But your edit is still in breach of MOS:NICK, in addition to being likely to confuse non-British readers. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. NICK says "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) [which is what "Suella" is] used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name". Also, what about "Suella" is uniquely British? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand.

(1) As has already been explained to you, ‘Suella’ is not a common diminutive of Sue Ellen. So the part of MOS:NICK you have quoted is irrelevant – the part I quoted is the relevant part.

(2) The reference to non-British readers relates to my supposition that, while Suella Braverman is well -known to any British person who has any interest in politics, most non-British readers have never heard of her, and will be confused that the lead of the article does not mention her usual name. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The part I quoted is the relevant part, as has been explained to you. Want to show me how our apparently criminally stupid readers won't be able to compute that "Suella" comes from "Sue-Ellen"? The putting the nickname in quotes thing is for names that are nothing like their common names, like Snakehips Johnson or Ged Kearney. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m baffled by the reference to MOS:NICK This says: If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism[h] of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial. The quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface. - which is exactly what this article previously did. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Suella" is a hypocorism. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not a 'common' hypocorism, as has already been explained to you. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Multiple reliable sources [5][6] consistently call her Suella and mention Sue-Ellen Fernandes as her birth name. Consequently, per WP:BIRTHNAME, our article should start as follows: Suella Braverman (born Sue-Ellen Fernandes, 3 April 1980) is a British politician.... — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's a bit like saying we should have "Bill Gates (born William Henry Gates III; October 28, 1955) is an American businessman...". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Tim O'Doherty, We should per the MOS guideline I linked. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  One more comment: we definitely should if Gates's legal name is Bill, since in such a case there would be no reason whatsoever to call him "William". Similarly, Braverman's legal name appears to be Suella if various government, parliamentary and judicial documents are to be trusted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, because his name is William Henry Gates III. It hasn't changed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Tim O'Doherty, OK, do we have sources for that? Because for Braverman, virtually all the official sources available online call her Suella, not "Sue-Ellen". — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they do call her Suella but that doesn't necessarily mean that she has changed her name. To suggest this based on primary sources alone would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f^Talk 05:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Keivan.f, Virtually all UK official sources call her Suella. To suggest that her name is not Suella would require strong sourcing which isn't there in the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  What? Virtually all UK sources call Mary Truss "Liz". Virtually all sources call Alexander Johnson "Boris". Her name is "Sue-Ellen". That's just not up for debate. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'Doherty, Why? Do you really believe that nobody will click these links? Not single of these sources mention that her name is Sue-Ellen. All of them refer to Braverman as Suella and the only time they use "Sue-Ellen" is in the following two phrases: born Sue-Ellen and Sue-Ellen was born. All of them thus indicate that Sue-Ellen was her name in the past. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the phrase "was born" indicates. I was born in the past, doesn't mean I no longer exist. It's a common construction that even we on Wikipedia use to give somebody's full name. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'Doherty, Do you really not understand the phrase "X, born Y"? No, it doesn't mean that she has been born. The phrase means that she was born named "something else" than she is now. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili). He did not legally change his name – he simply started using a slightly different name form (Iosep –> Yosif (Russian)). Yes, Braverman stopped using her birth name Sue-Ellen and at some point started using the name Suella, she and everybody else, including government bodies, are using it exclusively, and there's absurdly vast amount of evidence for it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the page you're pointing to, but the set up "X (born Y)" is typically used when there has been a legal name change (like George R. R. Martin), which in this case we have no reason to believe has happened. She is still Sue-Ellen, but is commonly known as Suella. Keivan.f^Talk 04:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Keivan.f, She is still Sue-Ellen You will need strong sources for that, for all the high-quality sources call her Suella. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been given them. You give us sources to say she has changed her name. The WP:ONUS for the change you made yesterday is on you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop misleading the readers. Not a single of these sources presents her as "Sue-Ellen". — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, genuinely: can you read? Every one of those sources has "Sue-Ellen". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well no, it obviously doesn't in this case, per the 5 sources I've given you that you've just dismissed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a single of these sources presents her as "Sue-Ellen". Why typing nonsense? — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The first one I checked supported Tom O'Doherty's interpretation. So he would appear to be correct here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You've also misinterpreted what I said: that being, me saying I was born in the past was an example of me applying your semantic argument to a different scenario, not me disputing that Braverman was born; obviously she was. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can change their name (or their gender, come to that) they can do it legally or informally. The person themselves, chooses when and how they desire to be known. She has chosen as her legal name, Suella Braverman and she has used that full name since her marriage. Several legal documents record the name she prefers to be known by and we have a duty to respect her wishes.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/MxLShDT9QeXmDqaGvpbLMnFKKTg/appointments

Hypocorism is a distraction, her adoption of Suella, is not a pet name or nickname, it is her current legal name used on legal documentation. Jaymailsays (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And yet: she remains Sue-Ellen. Find me one source—one—which states she has changed her name. Other sources where she refers to herself as "Suella" doesn't change that she is also "Sue-Ellen": sources for thing A aren't sources for thing B. For example, in the 2017 GE's declaration for Fareham: "FERNANDES, Sue-Ellen Cassiana", where they'll then usually read out something like "commonly known as Suella Fernandes..." etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Since her marriage (February 2018) she is only known as Suella Braverman. For whatever reason (it doesn't matter, to us, at all) she has stated the name she wants to be known by, in official documentation while serving as Attorney General. Jaymailsays (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That does not mean that she has 'legally' changed her name. Keivan.f^Talk 02:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Most likely yes. Companies House requires passport / driving licence verification for all registered company officials. If it recorded her name as Suella, then this will be the name in her ID documents. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your idea of "most likely" and this weird meld of OR isn't strong enough sourcing for a BLP, unfortunately. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course her name is legal! From the date of her marriage, February 2018 onwards, she discarded her birth name. It is her choice to do so. Jaymailsays (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Companies House refers to Sir Anthony Blair as Tony Blair. That does not necessarily indicate that a legal name change has taken place. Most of this is WP:SYNTHESIS. We cannot look at primary sources and drive our own conclusions. A reliable source has to explicitly state that her name has been 'legally' changed. Keivan.f^Talk 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

1) In Britain, your legal name is the name you are known by. You don’t have to go through any legal procedure in order to change your name.

2) She is generally referred to as Suella, as can be seen in numerous sources used in our article, so that is what should be in our article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It IS in this article; it's in the title! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course her birth name is in the article, as matter of record and not of current use.

Otherwise we would still call Cliff Richard by his birth name of Harry Webb. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"In 1980, Richard officially changed his name, by deed poll, from Harry Rodger Webb to Cliff Richard.[43] At the same time, he received, from the Queen, the award of Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to music and charity.[44]" Find equivalent sourcing for Suella Braveraman and you will have a case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

She changed her name to Suella Braverman, having married South African business executive Rael Braverman in 2019.[7] She did not "shorten" her name, she did not "began using another name". She changed her name. Is this source clear enough? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We all know that she has changed her name. Many people do it on the surface. Does not necessarily mean that she has legally done it. In the case of Cliff Richard, it's fully spelled out in The London Gazette: Notice is hereby given that by Deed Poll dated 3rd September 1980 and enrolled in the Supreme Court of Judicature on 15th September 1980, CLIFF RICHARD of Feather Green, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth, abandoned the name of Harry Rodger Webb and assumed the name of Cliff Richard–12th September 1980. You have to get an 'enrolled' deed poll via the Royal Courts of Justice to change your name. You can make your own deed poll but it's not accepted everywhere. I cannot find a source indicating that Braverman has gone down any of these routes. And she surely knows what a deed poll is. Keivan.f^Talk 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As I have said above – you do NOT need to go through any legal procedure to change your name in this country. Even the source provided by Keivan.f confirms this: You do not have to follow a legal process to start using a new name. But you might need a ‘deed poll’ to apply for or to change official documents like your passport or driving licence. You do NOT need a deed poll to change your name. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And? The source says You do not need to have to follow a legal process to start using a new name. Which means that starting tomorrow she may decide to be known as "Potato Sacks". That does not necessarily mean that her passport and license are also going to feature the name "Potato Sacks" unless she makes it legally official via a deed poll. An example includes people with dual UK/US citizenships who change their names in the UK via a deed poll (or change of name deed), and then this change is reflected in their US passports as well. Keivan.f^Talk 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Please link to the policy that requires us to spell out people's names as featured on their passport or driving licence. Then go and change the name in Michelle Obama to match her passport. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What is your point? The lede sentence is meant to spell out the subject's full real name. In the US you need a court order for any name changes, and there is no indication that Obama has gone ahead with this process (White House bio that gives her full name).

"Suella Braverman" is literally the freaking title of this article and that's because it's her common name. Same with Lady Gaga who's actually "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta" or Tony Blair who's "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair". Nobody would suggest a name change for those pages or this one but if you want to claim or imply within the article's body or the lede that she has legally changed her first name from "Sue-Ellen" to "Suella" or abandoned the middle name "Cassiana" you need a solid source that explicitly states this, otherwise it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Same goes for other British figures, including Blair or Liz Truss, whose actual names do not match their common names. Keivan.f^Talk 01:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I wrote above what I believe should be the correct start (Suella Braverman (born Sue-Ellen Cassiana Fernandes)). But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, especially given my personal opinion on the article subject. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Page Title is literally, Suella Braverman, followed by her birth name and name upon marriage. Anyone can change their name upon marriage. "Deed Polls", do not come into it. Jaymailsays (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References