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)