Talk:Jim McMahon (politician)

Capitalisation and Over-Linking
There are far too many edits being made at the moment which go against the MOS.

Capitalisation - Wikipedia's house style avoids capitalisation of words that are not proper nouns or acronyms. Specifically, job titles should not be capitalised, e.g. Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. So therefore McMahon "became leader of the council" or was "the inaugural chair of..." See WP:JOBTITLES. A word like "ward" is certainly not a proper name so shouldn't be capitalised. There are of course many other publications that would adopt different house styles, but we should stick to wikipedia styles here.

Over-linking - WP:OVERLINK states that the following should not be linked: Everyday words understood by most readers in context; The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions; Common occupations.

So I would argue that in this article, "candidate", and "council" do not need linking under the first point. Also Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, so we do not need multiple links for "councillor" for example.

Further, WP:LINKCLARITY states that The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context So "council leader" currently links to "political leader" which redirects to "politician". Therefore, this falls foul of LINKCLARITY. Frinton100 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "over-protection" of McMahon's article (see discussion on my talk page) or an attempt to "suppress" others. I am merely attempting to edit the article in line with the MOS and apply wikipedia's notability criteria to other articles. Frinton100 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ward is not a proper noun. In the same way that "constituency" isn't either. The LGBCE who draw the ward boundaries use l.c. throughout: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/25908/WelwynHatfieldDraftRecommendations-FINAL-POST_EDITORand-POSTAUDIT.pdf Frinton100 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I give up, I am clearly talking to myself here, yet my edits keep being reverted. The only way forward is a RfC. Frinton100 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Following question on Mabelina's talk page - we say "Labour Party candidate" not "labour party candidate" because Labour Party is a proper name. For example:


 * The Labour Party put forward policies to tackle unemployment. The party were concerned about the labour supply in Wales


 * First sentence - "Labour" and "Party" are proper nouns, so are capitalised. Second sentence, they are not proper nouns, so they are not capitalised.


 * Wikipedia policy which you can read at WP:MOSCAPS states that we use reliable sources to determine whether a word is a proper noun, and that if a word is consistently capitalised in RS, then it is capitalised on wikipedia. For words such as "ward" and "councillor" you will find both versions in common usage by RS, so this is not consistent capitalisation, so therefore they are not considered proper nouns on wikipedia.


 * See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-34719758 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-34681109


 * Frinton100 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reverted some of User:Mabelina's edit, made in violation of numerous editorial policies. If Mabelina continues to refuse to discuss the matter here and continues to WP:EDITWAR without consensus, they should be referred to ANI. AusLondonder (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Mabelina has immediately gone and edit-warred while refusing to discuss here. AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No I have not - I added sources (where it was claimed there were none) including one specifically referring to Failsworth East Ward. M Mabelina (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A link to an unrelated government website which does not mention McMahon is not really useful. I realise you are attempting to justify the capitalisation of "ward", but one RS which capitalises (as part of a title incidentally - they also captialise "constituency") is not how MOS decisions are made. If you look at the BBC links I posted above you will see the word is not capitalised, and thus we can hardly conclude the word is consistently capitalised as required by the MOS. I have removed a couple of other caps, and also some over-linking. I don't feel for instance we need to link party (as in "the party's candidate") to the political party article for example. There was also duplicate linking of "council leader". I also don't think linking "Labour" to Labour Co-operative is good (under WP:LINKCLARITY). I think the Co-op Party link is more helpful.Frinton100 (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And no sooner have I finished typing the post above to try to explain my edits, I have been reverted again. Frinton100 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the point earlier, to which I am yet to receive a reply, that given Wiki's predominance on the internet its influence over the English language is immense. Thus the media is prone to plagiarise Wiki's text which can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy of Wiki capitalisation policy becoming commonplace English usage. For instance, in a recent Daily Telegraph article, reference was made to the german chancellor. Of course it meant Angela Merkel, who is the German Chancellor, but written as german chancellor apart from being incorrect with a small "g", a German chancellor could refer to a university chancellor who is German or any other type of chancellor in Germany as well as other possibilities. By using proper nouns correctly the English language is specific. In the case of Failsworth East it is a ward but when stated as Failsworth East Ward it becomes a proper noun. There should not be anything controversial about this. M Mabelina (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In some sources, that will be the style they use, in others it won't be. Are you seriously claiming that any instance of (Ward Name) ward (l.c. w) is because a journalist has copied off wikipedia somewhere in the mists of time? We have to go by RS - that is one of the core principles of wikipedia. When RS contradict (as they did with Jeremy Corbyn's Rt Hon), we have to have a mechanism for deciding which one to go with. That mechanism is consensus. In the case of factual points such as Corbyn, consensus is arrived at by discussion with reference to all the available sources. In the case of style points, consensus is based on the MOS (which itself has been built up over the years by discussion). The MOS requires consistent capitalisation. We do not have consistent capitalisation for ward, as shown by the BBC article on the Bournemouth by-election. Similarly, for titles like "chair", MOS specifically states that a sentence such as "X became the president" or "Y became the chair", president and chair are l.c. I will say again that no one is suggesting that what you are doing in terms of capitalisation is incorrect - just that it is one alternative, but it is an alternative that we do not use. Frinton100 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, I am glad you are now not saying that I am incorrect but you do say that this language including MOS policy is what "we" use. Please refer to with specific reference to "(the Left also invented that usage)" and whilst I don't concur with all that Moore says that observation to me is most illuminating - Chair is okay - why chair though? (sounds more like something one sits on - no rationale just a general dumbing down of language to which fair play if that is what Wiki really wants) PS. whenever I make even the slightest amendment to a Labour politician it results in an awful lot of bother - now why is this do you think? M Mabelina (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PPS. I hasten to add that in the case of Corbyn's Rt Hon, not only was I wrong (which is what I think you are alluding to - I am happy to admit it) but so was No. 10 Downing Street and the UK Parliamentary website and other Govt bodies. This was uncharted territory so it wasn't until Buckingham Palace gave an opinion that clarity was provided. Apparently Corbyn will be sworn of the Privy Council this week for your guidance. M Mabelina (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) So now it becomes a political issue? Easy way out I suppose. Everything is a conspiracy to some people. If your edits are causing you bother, perhaps try to improve your editing style? Yes, a chair is something you sit on, it also someone who chairs a meeting. Just as many words in the English language have more than one meaning. A capital letter is not normally required to differentiate. And for the record, I have never said your capitalisation was incorrect, just that it does not fit in with our house style. I have always said that there were alternatives, but that we have to go with one or the other, not just whichever one takes our fancy on one article, and then a different one on the next. Frinton100 (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No not a political issue at all. We spend more time on discussion pages than improving Wikipedia - how can this be right? Conspiracy - you mentioned it - all I did was provide a reference source which I caveated. You make it a personal one though and this is unwarranted. M Mabelina (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict again) What I was alluding to re. Corbyn was that we needed to reach a consensus by considering all of the available information, not just that which favoured one side or the other, and then impose our will based on the sources which backed up our own ideas. Any careful consideration of the information from various government and parliamentary sites as well as the media would have concluded there was ambiguity and that the best decision was to wait for more information before making changes to the article. There is a very similar issue with the capitalisation - different styles from different sources, so we have to go with one. MOS reuires consistent capitalisation in RS. Frinton100 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict I can only presume is a way of suppressing Talk and making it look as if the person conversing is wrong or conflicting. I am well aware that there are very subtle ways of skewing an argument in the English language and can only pray that Wiki does not fall prey to all of them. M Mabelina (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict again!) So your I make even the slightest amendment to a Labour politician it results in an awful lot of bother - now why is this do you think? was not meant to imply some sort of left-wing conspiracy against you? And "(the Left also invented that usage)" was not meant to imply some kind of Stalinst control freakery? Remember please that you are the one who attempted to politicise this whole issue (as well as Bickley) by raising some perceived bias in an aggressive fashion and then plastering it all over the John Bickley AfD case.
 * The reason we spend so much time on discussion pages is that you refuse to engage with them in the first place, and simply try to impose your will on articles by constant revisions and reverts and then fail to stick to consensus when it is agreed. If you came to the talk page as soon as you realised there was disagreement you would find the issue was resolved very quickly. Of course there will be times when you disagree with the consensus, but then you just move on (as I said before), but consensus is important, and 99% of the time we will arrive at the right decision by discussion. Bold editing is great, but you should stick to the bold-revert-discuss cycle (WP:BRD) Frinton100 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

O please, now you do sound like a conspiracy theorist. An edit conflict simply occurs when two people try to edit a page at once. Indicating an edit conflict is a way of pointing out that I am responding to a paragraph further up the page rather than the one immediately before, which clearly you were typing as I was typing my response. It is nothing personal, it is not trying to slant the debate. Frinton100 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey & I totally agree it is better to have this discussion than constant argy-bargy - appreciated. Please take an expansive look as to why Ward is a proper noun though (in this instance) - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at a variety of sources that I can find, and I see no consistency between RS. See the BBC article about the Bournemouth by-election. No consistency means that under WP:MOSCAPS it is not treated as a proper noun and therefore not capitalised. Frinton100 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Might this be more helpful: ? M Mabelina (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is not helpful for two main reasons (aside from the obvious that it is US English)
 * 1. Wards in American Cities (where they have wards) are numbered. The word "ward" is part of its official name. e.g. "Ward #1" (or as they put it in the document "First Ward". Similarly "1st Congressional District of Illinois". In England, "ward" is not part of the official name of the electoral area as set out in legislation. The official names are simply "Hatfield East", "Welham Green" etc. So you would be "councillor for the Hatfield East ward". http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/424/made (also note section 6.4: The number of councillors to be elected for Welwyn Village ward shall be five)
 * 2. It is simply another organisation's MOS. We do not follow their style on many things. We do not for instance say "Eleventh Congressional District" as they do, on US Wikipedia articles they say "11th Congressional District". Every organisation will have their own house style. Look at the top of WP:MOSCAPS and you will see that we require consistent capitalisation.


 * Incidentally, I notice the Chicago style does not capitalise nouns like "council" and positions like "president" when used on their own. Frinton100 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Who devised MOS in relation to British English? M Mabelina (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Mabelina - again. Please CEASE edit warring immediately and wait for consensus in your favour. Consensus (and policy) currently favours our position not yours. AusLondonder (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never had consensus in my favour - largely I might conjecture because I receive so many rebukes along the way, who on earth would want to associate with me - they might then end up on all sorts of watchlists and be classed as pedantic, & howsoever else you deem me. M Mabelina (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is important on Wikipedia. You may get consensus more readily with a less confrontational and obstinate manner. AusLondonder (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know consensus is of huge importance, not only to Wikipedia, but in life. I have achieved it elsewhere but never with regards to Labour politicians or any topic closely related thereto - such page watchers normally require me to disappear (or move on, as you more politely phrase it). I have asked Frinton, who by the way I find most well informed and considerate too, as to whether he sympathises with Labour or not - it just seems more than a coincidence that he always crops up when dealing with Labour Party figures. Quite astonishing really, if he isn't Labour? Let me know. M Mabelina (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are accusing Frinton100, in a manner reminiscent of a witch-hunt, of "sympathising" with Labour - have you ever considered you are the exact opposite and seem to "sympathise" with the opponents of Labour, such as UKIP? Your edit-warring at John Bickley is seeking to paint Bickley in an unduly favourable light, and remove accurate statements regarding climate change. AusLondonder (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder - why my discourse with Frinton100 should lead you to state the above, I can only presume - no smoke without fire etc. As to your assessment of the Bickley article I have explained elsewhere, but shall repeat here for the sake of good order, that there is a world of difference between denying that climate change is taking place as to being sceptical about it. Should you require further clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have been happy to respond to a civil question over any alleged COI which assumed good faith. What I will not however respond to is the aggressive manner in which the allegations were made, and then repeated at length on the AfD discussion for John Bickley. Posting large chunks of my talk page to that discussion was totally uncalled for, and will I suspect have no bearing on the outcome, which will instead rely on the views of participants (rather than insinuation), wikipedia policy and precedent. If you really consider there is a COI issue, then I would invite you to browse through all of my edits and put together a case which you can raise in the appropriate manner.
 * I note that you are always quick to pick up other users when you feel they have "failed" to respond adequately to a specific point in one of your posts. For example,, and . So perhaps you could answer the points I raised with regards to the style guidance your produced above from Chicago. Most notably the style for ward names adopted in English legislation and for titles such as "chair". Frinton100 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Frinton100 - thank you for your reply and I should much like to remain on good terms and in fact I have applauded your edits on numerous occasions. I had grave doubts about the wisdom of becoming embroiled in Talk page discussions, which as I was previously told, involve too much talk compared with action. Look at the reams of accusation, counter-accusation, justification, questioning, disagreement, further disagreement, general hoo-ha and where has it got us? Not far. I have been advised by many that English Wiki has earned an aggressive reputation and so it proves. Anyhow, if you can feel gracious enough to accept a compliment from me, I can see that you are clued-up about matters in hand; and, I last recall (maybe you might graciously do too?) liaising with you over the Rochester and Strood by-election, which UKIP happened to win. BUT, I am nowhere near UKIP (as another felt inclined to claim) being unfashionably centrist and simply endeavour to achieve accuracy with more than a hint of ambition to achieve balance in Wiki articles. Unsurprisingly when it comes to matters politic passions are aroused, but this should not distract from the aim of objectivity - let others, I suggest, have some input and see if thereafter the articles concerned become more rounded. One thing for sure is that this MOS obsession is such a vexed point, whether concerning formal titles, proper names, heraldry, religion, almost anything in fact which used until recently to be the case in the English language that it is not just me but others' heads are spinning too - clearly there is not much I can do to help on this particular matter although I seriously do not think I should dumb down my language just to comply with MOS but rather would enter the correct info accordingly & let it be changed if it really has to be this way. No doubt these latest articles will also balance out soon with others' input. I don't really see that I have been uncivil to you but rather that others supporting your views (NOT YOU I reemphasise) have been quite accusatory and in light of the advice given to me previously, nothing other than robust dealing on English Wiki Talk pages will do. Perhaps you now see why I previously refrained from going down this route because I am still far from clear how satisfactorily this can end up (from a multitude of viewpoints - a good old ding dong being what seems to happen mostly & that is just from a snapshot of other Talk pages which have zero involvement from either of us). Not for me I don't think - altho as stated I very much appreciate your work & trust you can respect mine. Best M Mabelina (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. meantime back at the coalface I see the Bickley article is being savaged (not unexpectedly I have to admit) as if by a pack of dogs - why can't someone else have some input - because all that seems to happen is when others try you don't like the way they put things so it all gets churned up, mangling the language (which quite often looks modern and great but on others simply degrades the English language & then we end up having all this hassle). Zut alors! M Mabelina (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussions about the Bickley article need to take place on the appropriate page - hopefully you're already there as I type. The English language is a fluid beast, it constantly changes, that is one of its beauties and frustrations. What you call "degrading" others call "changing" or "enhancing" - no one is right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.
 * If you don't think you were aggressive in accusing me of COI, try re-reading what you wrote in the cold light of day. The bold and block capitals were unnecessary (shouting), your slightly arrogant "requirement" for me to close the John Bickley AfD case if I refused to answer (and two edit summaries on articles - one of which along the lines of "are you a Labour Party member" and another "Answer to Labour bias required" - I am paraphrasing but I'm sure you will get the gist).
 * Yes, our paths did cross on Rochester & Strood, and I recall the problems were similar. You made edits, others changed them, you reverted, others reverted, we then tried to discuss with you on the talk page, you failed to engage in the discussion, but continued to edit war. The reason we have not got very far is that you fail to accept wikipedia policies that you don't like. We should have been able, very quickly, to discuss the individual words that were causing contention - chair, councillor, ward, etc - consider RS in relation to Wikipedia policy, and come to a conclusion. We wouldn't all have been 100% happy, but we'd have got there.
 * The use of article talk pages is a central part of the bold-revert-discuss procedure which I find generally works well. What should not be done is constant reverting or re-doing of edits, as this just wastes everyone's time and doesn't allow for proper discussion. Using edit summaries to explain changes is generally insufficient as the space is limited and you can't respond to someone without editing yourself. User talk pages are OK, but they tend to involve only two people at a time, and this has the tendency to descend into acrimonious debate and is not really conducive to reaching agreement (though agreement can be reached by two people, it is more likely occur in my experience if there is a small group contributing). There is also the problem that someone interested in editing, say, Jim McMahon, would not know there was a debate going on at, say, my talk page. They would however be likely to check the Jim McMahon talk page to see if there was a debate taking place. If you have not read WP:BRD (the bold-revert-discuss policy) I would seriously recommend that you do and try to follow its guidance as far as possible.
 * The bottom line is simple - wikipedia is a community. No one member has the right to impose their view on everyone else - that applies equally to preferred styles as it does to factual content. Saying "I know I'm right" or "I'm only trying to improve the site" or "this is something I know about" doesn't cut it. Everyone else thinks they are right (most of the time), we are all (with the exception of a very small number of vandals) trying to improve the site, and you have no idea who else you are talking to and what their knowledge of a subject may be. Talk pages do work, a couple that I have been involved with that spring to mind are - Talk:Mims Davies and Talk:South Thanet (UK Parliament constituency). They only work however if people respect the consensuses reached and follow through on them. Frinton100 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated Frinton100 - most helpful & till soon on a better note! Best M Mabelina (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just changed many of the style issues on this article. Including removal of a ref about Queen Elizabeth Hall in Failsworth which bore no relation to his election to the council, and also the "people from Lancs" category; he is not from Lancs he is from Greater Manchester. I see you referred to the City of London ward map as apparent justification for editing against the MOS. You might also want to consider which says:

The area marked D on map 2 shall be transferred from Hackney, and from the Moorfields ward to— (a)the City;. (b)the Bishopsgate ward;

Further proof of inconsistent capitalisation, which should I feel lead to the conclusion that ward is not a proper noun as defined in WP:MOSCAPS Frinton100 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC) PS. The legislation I cited above was passed in 1993, long before wikipedia could have influenced the written word. Frinton100 (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Frinton100 for your assiduous attention to detail and research too. I agree with you that the Eng. lang. balance is clearly shifting towards lower case usage, particularly since the advent of the internet; and, would you agree with me that there is a fair chance given Wiki's pre-eminence in this sphere its linguistic style may well shape things to come? Perhaps Wiki should apply for some sort of Académie française type of status & become the guardian of the English language - what starts in jest.. etc..! Thank you for getting back to me - appreciated. Best M Mabelina (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Salaried?
Current text is as follows - In 2013 McMahon quit civic employment to become a full-time salaried council leader

The problem as I see it with this is that he became council leader in 2011. He will have been paid as council leader from then. This sentence implies he only became salaried in 2013. Whereas that was when he became full-time. I wonder if something along the lines of this would be better:

McMahon quit this job in 2013 to devote more time to his council leadership.

Frinton100 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully support new proposed text. AusLondonder (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY and possible WP:OR
I have discovered a somewhat concerning development. The full names, including middle names of McMahon's children have been posted here, in possible violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. However, no source is cited. In addition, I conducted a search for one of the children's names and this Wikipedia page is the only result. The other child's name produces the same result. Is it possible like the Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015 we have another case of WP:OR regarding names? Does anyone else have a view on this matter? AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The insertion of the names was made by User:Northwestwikied AusLondonder (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the full names of his children and mother's maiden name. The first names of his children are on the MEN article about him quitting his day job. The article doesn't give their middle names (or even surnames). Frinton100 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. So it does seem some original research took place. Do we know where his parents names came from and whether they are relevant? AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here - http://www.jimmcmahon.co.uk/bio.html Frinton100 (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Thanks for that! AusLondonder (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP issue
User:Mabelina has repeatedly added more disputed content to the page - this time relying on a comment on a news article as a source. I have raised this at WP:BLPN. Pinging User:Frinton100 and User:Bondegezou AusLondonder (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not disputed issue AusLondonder insofar as it is correct - of course anyone can dispute anything however daft - but in this instance I have spent an inordinate amount of time justifying myself only to be given the brush off. I should welcome the highest authorities of Wiki to test the veracity of my info (excusing that which was updated in response to the constant deletions/reversions/etc at the beginning of the week). Await yours - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC) PS. AusLondonder's accusation of my "adding more disputed info" should be scrutinised, as it displays a distorted view of the facts.
 * It clearly as, as another editor has taken it to ANI. See WP:ANI AusLondonder (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed edits
We seem to have two areas of contention at the moment:

1. His support for Liz Kendall in the Labour leadership election - this is properly sourced and I believe it is relevant. Other politicians' support for particular leadership contenders in all parties are often mentioned, and given his support for Kendall has been raised more than once by the media I think it should stay in.

2. Mother's name. McMahon's own biography gives his mother's surname as O'Rourke. There are no sources that I can see to suggest otherwise, so I think it should just be left as "William McMahon, Alicia O'Rourke"

Frinton100 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of those. (1) is significant for showing an individual's position within the party; we see the same on other MP articles. (2): if his biography gives "O'Rourke", so should we. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I re-added his backing of Kendall - it is clearly relevant. All of User:Typingquickly's edit have been exclusively to this article which should raise suspicions. Possibly a cover-up is going on regarding the Kendall endorsement, given Kendall's unpopularity within Labour. Re maiden name, it is pure unsourced WP:RS to state his mother's name was also McMahon. AusLondonder (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just restored his support for Kendall as well as removing the "nee" from his mother's name. Frinton100 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Name
I have no idea why people are trying to shorten the full name. WPMOS states "he most complete name (with titles) should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information." So if people can see a reason not to follow that please make the case Snowded  TALK 19:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)