Talk:Liz Kendall

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liz Kendall article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Use of the Daily Mail & other tabloids[edit]

According to WP:Suggested_sources#Current_news one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun." JRPG (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Palestine[edit]

@Quigley2: Can you please revert your edits? You're clearly putting your own spin on issues. The source doesn't refer to the current peace process as "stalled" you've added it in as your own opinion. Your presenting Kendall's opinion on the issue unnecessarily negatively and not keeping to a neutral point of view.Brustopher (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brustopher: I've removed "stalled" (anyone reading the article on the Palestine-Israel peace process can draw their own conclusions as to it's status) and re-worded. Good now? P.S. is this the correct way to use the talk page? Quigley2 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Quigley2:Yes. Thank you very much, that seems good. Have fun editing Wikipedia. Sorry for the combative welcome.Brustopher (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article clarify if Liz Kendall supports the UK government's existing recognition of Israel irrespecive of Israel-Palestine peace talks. The article seems to omit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliation[edit]

To a reader blank has the meaning unknown which could imply either: (1) the information is genuinely unknown (in this case potentially an active decision to keep the matter private), or (2) that the information is generally known but missing from the page - i.e. I should go and find out about it. Surely the religious affiliation of politicians is important and position (1) is an active position. Quigley2 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recent request for comment at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion showed a consensus for leaving the entry blank if no religion is shown. Lots of arguments for and against on that page we dont have to repeat here but the conclusion was to leave it blank. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shame I wasn't around to comment on that yet. Most of the decision makes sense. Some of it doesn't. Thanks for engaging. I will revert. Quigley2 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Self made' plug[edit]

I have been reverted by Ebonelm for editing-down a statement about Kendall’s father, that he ‘left school at sixteen years old, and worked his way up to become a senior Bank of England official’. I felt it would be more encyclopaedic to put ‘Her father was a senior Bank of England official’.

It is normal to quote the father’s occupation. But there is nothing notable about leaving school at sixteen. And to become a senior official, he would naturally have to ‘work his way up’, so there is nothing notable about that either. Valetude (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree although it is not unusual to mention the father/parents occupation the rest is not really needed. The statement "Both of her parents are now active supporters of the Labour Party." seems to jar as well I am not sure that is relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liz Kendall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630000322/https://www.the-newshub.com/uk-politics/liz-kendall-claims-she-will-be-the-labour-leader-the-tories-fear to https://www.the-newshub.com/uk-politics/liz-kendall-claims-she-will-be-the-labour-leader-the-tories-fear

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]