Talk:Liz Kendall

Use of the Daily Mail & other tabloids
According to WP:Suggested_sources 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)

Israel Palestine
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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

Religious affiliation
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)


 * A recent request for comment at Template talk:Infobox person 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)


 * 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)

'Self made' plug
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)


 * 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)

External links modified
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.

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