Talk:Yvette Cooper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Script Writer ?[edit]

Listening to her questions to Theresa May this afternoon, regarding the NOTW scandal and alleged Met Police Force corruption, one wonders whether she actually writes her own questions, or has them written for her? Does anyone know if her office employs bright, literate graduates for such work? Or even not-so -bright graduates? Cooper criticised the Home Secretary, yet it is clear that Labour were warned on many occasions of the unhealthy relationships between the Met and the Press,yet Labour took no action. Surely a Shadow Home Secretary should have some form of memory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


I'm dont understand why they list her time as minister for housing starting in June 2007, when the guardian lists her starting in May 2005?[1] and she signs letters as the minister of state on 13 April 2006[2]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


It is worth noting that despite being married to Ed Balls, Yvette has chosen not take Balls as a last name. Who would? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 election for leader[edit]

She did not nominate and she did not even threaten to nominate, the election is nothing worthy of any note in her Biography. She supports her husband, really..yes.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he offered to stand aside for her but that she declined the offer is noteworthy, as is her rationale. That fact that it was widely reported and discussed in the press is clear evidence of that fact. -Rrius (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This article a BLP is about notable things that have made her notable, negatives, like she did not do this and she did not do that do not belong in this biography. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is clearly notable. To say that "negatives" don't belong in a BLP is a standard that you made up just now and is no part of Wikipedia policy. Even if it were, this is a positive: she affirmatively turned down an offer. -Rrius (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just use my unbiased common sense. She did not do anything, she did not nominate and she did not mention that she even might, it is meaningless in her life story. The press wrote a story that she might stand and she didn't yawn yawn, disappointing story and valueless in the biography of a living person. BLPs are about what people did that is notable not what the times wrote about what the times thought she might do. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course she did something; she decided not to run when her husband said he would stand aside for her. That she was mentioned as a potential candidate is, itself, worthy of inclusion, but the particular way in which it happened makes it all the more important. I get that you don't care, but that does not mean that the story somehow doesn't belong in a BLP. -Rrius (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if you would stop adding more information to your existing comments. It is not a question of her not doing what the Times said she might do; it is a question of her declining this offer from her husband. -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Utter rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you joking ? or do you just like discussing rubbish with me? Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User rrius has reverted with the summary of ..There is no BLP issue here, so the onus is on Rob to justify deletion... I don't understand why ther user is mentioning BLP because I am not claiming any BLP issues at all, the content is not about anything Cooper has done at all and so is of no value at all in her life story, we don't add things the press has speculated that subjects did not do, I tire of such valueless banal discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly said this doesn't belong in a "biography of living person" or "BLP". The only time the person's being alive is relevant is with respect to our BLP policy.
You are simply wrong to say it is not about what she has done. It is clearly about her choice not to take up her husband's offer to stand aside in her favour. This is not a question of speculation, it is about what she has been reported to have done. Your view that it is "valueless" does not somehow mean it cannot be included. Her decision to allow her husband to stand instead of standing herself because of their small children is clearly a part of the "Yvette Cooper story". -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wronger that ever. She didn't say that or comment that at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And this ( your main claim to fame ) is a load of rubbish valueless editorial Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you only want to put things in biographies if we have a quote from the subject, but that is not the way it is done. Reliable source, the Times included, report that Balls made an offer to her and she declined it. That is saying something, whether or not it is in the presence of a microphone. You are simply wrong. You are also wrong about anything being my claim to fame—I don't claim to be famous, and the Times does not contradict that. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add worthless rubbish to BLP articles as I only have to tidy it up. The way it is done, differs from user to user, you are of the school that asserts I have a citation so I can add it and I am from the school that seeks quantity content, we differ only in values. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You think it is worthless. Great. That's your opinion. I disagree with you, as did the other editor you reverted. I am not of the school that anything with a citation can be added. This particular bit of information is relevant to the subject of the article. You once again mention "BLP articles". As you admitted above, this has nothing to with Wikipedia's BLP policy, which is the only meaningful difference between such articles and any other article at Wikipedia. The information is relevant and interesting, and at least as important as the discussion of her father's career. A female MP explicitly deferred to her husband when both were potential candidates for the leadership because, again explicitly, they have small children. How could you possibly say that is "valueless" and not worthy of inclusion? -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


I don't know who put her religion as Christianity but I'm pretty sure that she's an atheist, so I've changed it.
When she took her seat in Parliament she didn't take the Oath of Allegiance (which involves phrases like "so help me God") and instead took the Affirmation (which does not mention God and was put in place for those who don't believe in God).
Here's the link to the Labour Shadow Cabinet taking their affirmations + oaths, Yvette Cooper is about 1min50 in. --Omarraii (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the godless oath is not a reliable reason to add atheist to the article, if the Christianity is uncited we can remove that. Also that youtube source is not a reliable source either.Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The source isn't reliable as it requires our own interpretation. In addition there may be other reasons she wishes not to take the other type of oath; random example I know a local politician who is Christian but asked to use the non-religious oath at the local council due to his strong belief in a secular state. Unless she, or a reliable source, has commented on religious affiliation we do not know --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes there are many reason you would not take the religious oath, perhaps she is a Buddhist or whatever, I really dislike asserting such affiliations with weak claims or even worse, no citation at all. I dislike all of this attempting to stuff people into little boxes, the wikipedia seems flooding with this over categorization. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Nothing grinds my teeth so much as when I tell someone I have no interest in religion/god beyond a passing academic one they go "ooh, your an atheist" bah :P --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Father's Daughter ? - reduce references[edit]

The first two lines of the Early Life sub-heading presently read:

Born in Inverness, her father is Tony Cooper, former General Secretary of the Union Prospect, a member of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and a former Chairman of the British Nuclear Industry Forum. He was appointed to the government's Energy Advisory Panel by the Conservatives and has been described by the Nuclear Industry Association as an "articulate, persuasive and well-informed advocate of nuclear power".

I propose that the second sentence be deleted as it appears to the casual observer that this article is more about her father than the subject herself. Somewhat sad if we have to proceed in this world bench-marked against the achievements of our parents, even when they don't even rate an article--Calabraxthis (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Yvettecooperguardian.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Yvettecooperguardian.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Main picture[edit]

Awful and years out of date. Surely there must be a better one? (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed Balls[edit]

I've taken out the reference to Ed Balls from the lead, and moved most of the information to the personal life section. If editors feel it is relevant in its own right and deserves a place in the lead, by all means move it back. SocialDem (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I have readded a one-sentence mention of him in the lead, because important information like that belongs in the lead. If a politician is married to somebody notable enough for his or her own wikipedia article, that is almost always mentioned in the lead. Also, we don't have to be concerned about lead length; the lead doesn't become too long if Balls is mentioned. pbp 15:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yvette Cooper. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)