Talk:Rebecca Long-Bailey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Long-Bailey or Long Bailey[edit]

It looks to me like she might be in the process of transitioning from Long-Bailey to "Long Bailey". The 2015 returning officer (and BBC etc then) used "Rebecca Long-Bailey",[1] probably copying the form she entered on the entry forms. But now she uses "Rebecca Long Bailey" on her own website, and parliament's which headlines "Rebecca Long Bailey MP" and says "Address as Ms Long Bailey". I think it is OK to stay with the 2015 election "Rebecca Long-Bailey" for now, but change when it is clear the MSM has switched to a new name (it still generally uses Rebecca Long-Bailey today). Rwendland (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian has begun using Long Bailey as of 30 December 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/29/rebecca-long-bailey-labour-party-britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.91.250.203 (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should switch the article title to "Rebecca Long Bailey". That's the name she uses on her own website, and the name that the website of the British Parliament uses for her. Aridd (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also. "Her office confirmed to i that she doesn’t officially have a hyphen in her name, but she 'doesn’t mind' whether it’s used or not." https://inews.co.uk/opinion/double-barrelled-names-still-sound-posh-so-what-should-politicians-like-rebecca-long-bailey-do-about-theirs-1346020 Mpaldridge (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However she chose to use Long-Bailey in the recent GE, eg on voting slips, and this was completely her choice so we must presume this is her preference between the two forms. I think we should follow that give the lack of clarity elsewhere. See the Salford and Eccles Statement of persons nominated and notice of poll. Rwendland (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC says no hyphen: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51105056. The Independent says hyphen: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rebecca-long-bailey-hyphen-labour-leadership-corbyn-keir-starmer-a9280661.html ! I will boldly tweak the lead section to reflect the ambiguity better. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it doesn't matter if she "doesn't mind" whether people use the hyphenated version or not, surely the fact she confirms in the Indy article referenced that officially, it is hyphenated, should be the be all and end all? Keir Starmer doesn't like being called 'Sir' but is named as such in the first line of his Wiki article. Articles aren't written to save the feelings of the subject, they're meant to be factually accurate. 77.99.89.230 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Why use the low quality conference picture of her when her official portrait is available? Especially since every other Shadow Cabinet member has theirs in their infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmithca (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the current image, Just to note we don't change things just because another article's been changed - In short if the current image was of bad quality etc then fine but it's not so I don't see why it needs to be changed. –Davey2010Talk 23:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Position on Brexit[edit]

It is not possible to tell from this article where Rebecca Long-Bailey stands on Brexit. And she has nothing to say about this on her personal web-page. She is reported to belong to the 'cake-and-eat-it' faction, which suggests that she hasn't thought very much about the issue (that position is obviously incoherent, and also has been explicitly ruled out by the EU chief negotiator). https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/16/labour-rebecca-long-bailey-brexit-cake-and-eat-it MrDemeanour (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Bridge[edit]

The recently added lengthy quotation relating to the London Bridge events is undue weight and blatant electioneering. She talks a lot about a lot of things, so why the big deal about this one? Please remove it per NOTNEWS. 91.125.146.188 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Long-Bailey → Rebecca Long Bailey – In a debate between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL, WP:V should prevail: Most cited sources (15/22 by my count) use the unhyphenated name, plus the official MP page. Nemoschool (talk to me) 23:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support Per her own website, which is sans hyphen, as is coverage on the BBC, such as this and this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Long(-)Bailey is utterly inconsistent on this [2] and the media are all over the place as noted [3] [4]. She stands for Parliament with a hyphen [5] and uses it on her Twitter account [6]. Until she sorts this out I think we should leave the article where it is. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking "for now" as since I posted that she's now answered this on camera and put the legion of copy editors and captionists at ease. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the version she uses on her own website should take priority. PatGallacher (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Timrollpickering above - particularly because she used Long-Bailey in the recent election so looks likely it is swinging back that way. Rwendland (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given that "Her office confirmed to i that she doesn’t officially have a hyphen in her name, but she 'doesn’t mind' whether it’s used or not." https://inews.co.uk/opinion/double-barrelled-names-still-sound-posh-so-what-should-politicians-like-rebecca-long-bailey-do-about-theirs-1346020, I don't see a strong reason to go with the hyphen. Mpaldridge (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Mpaldridge, the quote above is pretty definitive and should put the issue to bed. Perhaps we could have a <ref group="note"> in the lede, explaining that her disinclination to quibble has led to some inconsistent outbreaks of occasional hyphen use? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Oppose as an even more definitive statement appears to have come direct from the horse's mouth. I'd still put a note in to say her apathy led to various other sources (including her own office) playing fast and loose with her hyphen. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Because of her website. If done, I would like to add another British barrelled name template, just to say "It should be written as Long Bailey, not Bailey". I also like the note idea. Hamish Alexander (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the majority of news sources and her own office's statement. A footnote in the lead would be helpful. Curiously her name on Twitter is Long-Bailey while the Twitter handle is 'RLong_Bailey', without the hyphen. --Hazhk (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's possible to use a hyphen in a Twitter handle - my understanding is that would break the link. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. She used the hyphen in the 2019 election (voting slips etc.) and was therefore elected 'with the hyphen'. --Smerus (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She was asked this question on Sky News this morning and her answer was "there actually is a hyphen, but I'm not bothered..." (see [7]). DavidCane (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Her website may not be directly run by her, whereas things like her own twitter are, and as mentioned above she uses a hyphen on her twitter, so WP:ABOUTSELF should apply here. FalconJackson (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Specified from 'for now' to solid Oppose - There we are then. She herself has specifically said "there actually is a hyphen". That should be the end of it. FalconJackson (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many !votes are you having? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - does this answer your question? Unreal7 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. She says her surname officially has no hyphen. See this article. Yes, she says she's not bothered, but given both versions are commonly used it seems sensible to use the one that's "official". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually she said it does have it - see this article - and the official documents publicly available (e.g. the election notice papers) use it. So the "official" version is the hyphenated form. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the BBC article I've cited above, "The Labour leadership contender's team had told media, including the BBC, that her surname officially had no hyphen." So the two articles appear to contradict one another. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although now I see she's actually contradicted her own team. So Oppose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: She confirmed that there is a hyphen in her name, so. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • In the meantime should we go with "Long Bailey" or "Long-Bailey" in article content, for consistency's sake? --Nemoschool (talk to me) 03:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long Bailey Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Long-Bailey. FalconJackson (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is this article posted today on the BBC site. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this video, Rebecca herself states that there is a hyphen, which should be a definitive end to the discussion. FalconJackson (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stephen Bailey & BWA Water Addittives[edit]

I am removing the portion of the personal life section that states Stephen Bailey works as Managing Director at BWA Water Additives, it has been repeatedly denied by Rebecca Long-Bailey and the reality on this is, at the least, unclear. Melias C (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Are we sure her date of birth is correctly given here? I cannot seem to open the pdf that is used to cite her date of birth in this Wikipedia article to confirm it. I have just found this article from The Guardian that states her age as 42, not 40 at stated on this Wikipedia page - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/29/rebecca-long-bailey-calls-on-rivals-to-back-public-ownership . Can anyone first verify the source that is used on this page does state her DOB as 22 September 1979 and secondly find at least one additional source that confirms this DOB, or find one that seems to match what is clamied by The Guardian? The Guardian is often considered a very reliable source, but clearly either Wikipedia has it wrong, or they have made a mistake in thbis article. Helper201 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC):[reply]

I think the Guardian is wrong. See https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=262951225:4062&d=bmd_1578958416 Jopal22 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has a child[edit]

It is not mentioned here that she has a child (but rival in leadership race has 1 child and it is noted). This should be fixed ASAP as "being a mother" is relevant to peoples perception of women in politics (rightly or wrongly) and RLB is involved in an current leadership race.

She says she has a child in the last few moments of this https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafjmorris (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did my best to add this in, sorry if it's not very good. Put it in the info box at the top left like Nandy has and added it in on the personal life section. Wasn't sure about placement as both catholic faith and abortion rights stance are "related" to her having children or not, I tried to make it not seem like a point of any kind about the relationship between having (only) one child and those things. Please edit if you feel it can be done better) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafjmorris (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Annafjmorris and thanks for the edit! I think we generally do include the number of children that public figures have, where it's information that the figure does not want to keep private (and talking about it in a leadership debate is reasonable consent for this to be public). In general, we choose what content to include based on what reliable secondary sources discuss, which might include patriarchal biases, but really we want better reasons than that to include content. — Bilorv (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv Thanks, glad it's okay. Please can you check my reference, I don't think I did it right. In this case, the info came "from the horses mouth" in a public program so I think we can know she is happy with it being public info :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafjmorris (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Annafjmorris: So with the {{cite web}} template, as well as a URL you need to include a |title= parameter to say what the page is called—in this case, "Victoria Derbyshire, Labour Leader Special" (or something similar). I've added a couple of extra parameters as well in this edit, but those ones are not too important. By the way, on talk pages you can use the code ~~~~ at the end of your message to produce a signature, which is how I'm doing this: — Bilorv (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Liamdaniel981[edit]

Liamdaniel981 has made 4 series of edits over the past few days repeatedly adding these two changes without discussion. As I argue in one of my reverts, short description needs to be broad and internationally understood for Wikidata's purposes; the citation for second place is given in the body of the article, as is standard. (I mistakenly reference "Wikidata" when this is in fact a local template which shows as a caption of the page in some internal Wikipedia search listings, that actually overrides any Wikidata description.) Myself and Mattythewhite have reverted the given edits twice each. Liamdaniel981, please explain why you keep making these edits, with reference to the purposes of short descriptions and our policies and guidelines on when inline citations are required. — Bilorv (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that statement doesn’t even dignify a response. Get lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaniel981 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for escalation has been granted. — Bilorv (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

APPG on Whistleblowing[edit]

Hi Fellow Wikipedians, Just to mention that I just inserted a line that Long-Bailey had joined this APPG and then I went straight back in to delete a reference I put in to Norman Lamb's resignation from it which I decided on review immediately afterwards should not be included, but after numerous attempts it would not publish. I think this may have been a connection problem or possibly because Bilorv got there before me:) Thanks Bilorv for fixing the URL (sorry I tried unsuccessfully to do a Wikipedia link here to your name) Faktoj gravas (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, Faktoj gravas. I'm glad that we're in agreement. You can notify a user to a discussion by typing one of [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]], {{U|Bilorv}} or {{Ping|Bilorv}} (amongst others) in the same edit that you use a signature. — Bilorv (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK lockdown critic?[edit]

I just noticed that Long-Bailey has been added to Category:UK Lockdown Critics. I'm not sure this is a fair summary of her views - from what I can tell, she voted against the Coronavirus Act 2020 on grounds of authoritarian overreach, but that wouldn't qualify her as a "lockdown critic" IMO. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bangalamania: I did in all honesty check the vote tonight to see if she had voted against the new tiers but alas she had not. However we'll see how her opinions develop and we have to remember "lockdown critic" is a broad spectrum of grievance from conspiracy theorists like David Icke to people strongly concerned about government emergency powers like Long-Bailey. I will also find some more WP:RS for her stance given some other statements she has made. I'm also inclined to expand the category with more Labour MPs like John Spellar, Graham Stringer and Derek Twigg once I can find some WP:RS for their views. Alex (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We'll see how her opinions develop" seems very much like WP:CRYSTALBALL here. I know that "lockdown critic" is a broad term; Peter Hitchens for instance is often described as the "lockdown sceptic", yet he doesn't agree that COVID-19 was caused by 5G or created in a Wuhan lab. But I don't think that Long-Bailey or anyone else belongs in the category if no reliable source describes them as such, otherwise it's a bit subjective. Andy Burnham criticised the government for putting Manchester into Tier 3, yet no sources call him a lockdown critic/sceptic AFAIK. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can see why you'd think that fell under WP:CRYSTALBALL but what I was trying to say is that she's been very critical of the government's lockdown measures so far and I've not seen her come out to praise them. She went into more detail in the speech I included in the main text and in the source covering it so I think the problem was in my transcription of the text for the wiki page and I will edit that later to be clearer. Alex (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Show me sources calling her a "lockdown critic" or remove the category. From what I know, people like Long-Bailey oppose legislation only where the government would legally have the power to use it outside of coronavirus measures, or to act without scrutiny (such as the Coronavirus Act 2020). "Lockdown critic" is not the same as "has concerns that the opposition government should not be able to act without democratic backing" or "has concerns that powers introduced for one reason will be used for another". This is a criticism of government, not of the policy of lockdown. — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bangalamania:@Bilorv: Okay, it does seem she later came out in support of Labour's circuit breaker lockdown so I will remove the category. Alex (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alex, and Bangalamania for bringing this up. — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebecca_Long-Bailey&oldid=1208316974"