Talk:Ruth Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Good articles Ruth Kelly has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Ruth Kelly was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 18 October 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruth Kelly article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (Nov 24, 2005 to Jun 26, 2006)
  2. Archive 2 (Jun 27, 2006 to Jul 20, 2006)


Contents

[edit] The voice - again

Can anyone/someone pls explain to me how a physical attribute which, it has been suggested, could give a political advantage to RK, is not encyclopaedic? Frelke 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

The following problems have compelled me to fail this article in its current state:

  • Sections - The way this article is organized needs to be addressed. Why do individual points (Fathers for Justice attacks, Gay equality issues, etc.) have their own major headings?
  • Point of View - Several sections feel like they violate WP:NPOV. One should especially note the GA criterion all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted.
  • Original Research & Sources - This article appears to synthesize new information ( She did so only after accepting the appointment of Tony Blair's adviser Andrew Adonis as a Minister within her Department, an appointment she did not welcome.). Some of the article makes assessments of situations (Kelly's time as Secretary of State has not been easy. It seems as if Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools will pick up the mantle of trust schools.).
  • Red links - I count at least eight within the article body.
  • Citations - Several cite tags exist, and after reading the article I think there is a lot more that either needs citations or needs to be deleted entirely (WP:OR). (This was reported as the government backtracking on many key issues although they stressed that it was not a climbdown.)
  • Stability - Article appears to have several defenders who challenge every change made... not always a bad thing, but doesn't really give the article the appearance of a clear consensus / stable article, especially when coupled with original research issues.
  • Images - while not an automatic disqualifier, the article could use a few key pictures.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


It should be noted that I am not a British subject and have no prior knowledge of the subject. I also encourage archiving the talk page. /Blaxthos 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reformat of page

I have addressed some of the criticims above in the rejection of this page from good article status.

  • Headings have been redone so that the "gay equality issues" and "Fathers 4 Justice" elements are no longer under major headings. Also, the Cabinet section is replaced by two seperate ones for her two positions at Education and then Communities so these can be expanded.
  • A new photo (with a free license) has been added to replace old Crown Copyright one
  • References have been sorted and new ones added (including for her grandfather's IRA connection which it seems had proved controversial).
  • Talk page has been archived

Hopefully everyone agrees the page is improved. Maybe we can expand on detail about her work as Communities Secretary. WJBscribe 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education White Paper

A disproportionate part of the article is taken up with a discussion of the Trust Schools legislation. Do others feel this is necessary or maybe should have a sub-page? I does look strange given the rest of her Cabinet career is not covered in such detail. WJBscribe 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are totally correct. I wrote most of it and at the time it was very current and newsworthy but in hindsight a seperate article would be better. I need to go and read up on the naming conventions for articles such as those. I'm not that familiar with the area. But if you want to push on in the meantime feel free. Well done on the rest of it. I think there is also a bit of work to be done to the quality of English used in the remainder of the SoSfES section. Frelke 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the quality point (hasn't yet really had by attention though). What do you think about using Education and Inspections Act 2006 as this already referenced at: List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present? It seems to work OK... WJBscribe 12:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported claims

The only unreferenced part of the article now seems to be: She supported new technologies in government[citation needed]. I'm not sure I really know what this means and I can't find a source for it. I suggest it stays off the main page until a source for it is found... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WJBscribe (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 November 2006.


The following sentence in the article section Religion has a lot of claims that are just opinions or OR but are not to be found in source #5 cited for this sentence. The terms „religion in schools“ and „objectively“ don't even appear in the source. Also, the cited scientists voiced no concern about abortion or even embryonic stem cell research, but only about stem cell research.

The effect of her religious viewpoint on her ability to objectively address controversial questions has been of concern to some scientists who have alleged that her religious views could be the cause of conflict over government policy issues such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and religion in schools.

I will correct this according to the cited source. --Túrelio 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


As of 01:56, 30 November 2006 WJBscribe inserted the words „She was not required to do so“ refering to Mrs. Kelly in the article section about the Fathers for Justice attacks.[1] As the reference #14 cited for this paragraph, doesn’t contain such a statement, this is a falsified account of the reference or at least a violation of NOR. Actually the cited reference clearly states: „but he (the attacker) changed his plea to guilty at the hearing“. So if the attacker changed his plea only at the hearing, she (the victim) „was due to give evidence“ and had to go to the court.(italics by me) Honestly, this smells like a sort of apology for the second attacker in a Blaming the victim manner.

WJBscribe, where did you take this from and what are you suggesting? --Túrelio 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


I apologise my wording is unclear and I will sort it. I had meant that she ultimately did not need to give evidence in court once she got there as he had chnaged his plee to guilty. Not that she had not needed to go to the court in the first place. Though I agree my phrasing is slightly ambiguous, I think you jump the point a little in suggesting I was blaming her for the second attack. I remind you of the need to assume good faith on the part of other editors...

PS. As to my 'only unreferenced part of the article comment, I meant only that it was the only remaining {fact} tag, not that other areas were not still NPOV or needed references cited. WJBscribe 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see User:Catchpole has removed the sentence alltogether as not relevant. I think they're probably right- it probably is an unnecessary detail... WJBscribe 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Section Ruth Kelly#Secretary of State for Education and Skills contains mostly unsourced statements:

  • (2nd paragraph, last sentence) ... have hurt this reputation, with many considering that she is solely interested in the problems and issues of working parents.
    The Guardian article (ref #8) doesn’t say anything of this.
  • (3rd paragraph) As a mother of four she has refused to work the long hours normally associated with her position or take a red box in the evening, which consequently has caused problems with the speed at which she has made decisions or engaged with issues within her own Department.
    Especially the second part of that sentence is a strong accusation. This is not acceptable without at least one credible/reliable source.
  • (4th paragraph) She controversially rejected the proposals of the Tomlinson report on education reform for the 14–19 age group.

--Túrelio 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is by far the worst section. I was planning to have a look at it before anyone assesses the page for GA status. But to be honest whenever I read it I feel a headache coming on! It truly is messy. Shall probably have a go at it soon but if someone else wants to give rewriting it a go, so much the better! WJBscribe 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


The link inserted as ref #10 (<ref>{{cite web | date = [[2004-03-29]] | title = Work-life balance | url = http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Bulletins/PressReview/fullpressreview.htm?bulletindate=29-Mar-2004 | format = HTML | publisher = [[ePolitix.com]] | accessdate = 2006-12-02}}</ref>) by Frelke is not a source for the strong accusation in the second half of the above mentioned sentence in the 3rd paragraph. (ePolitix.com-citation removed to avoid possible copyright violation). --Túrelio 14:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally I found the original article (behind ref #10) in The Independent from March 29, 2004 [2] and at least I didn't find a word about caused problems with the speed at which she has made decisions or engaged with issues within her own Department. So, that statement is still unsourced and, as I see, has already been removed by Catchpole. --Túrelio 14:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


While re-reading the above mentioned article in The Independent (currently ref #10), I discovered that it covers Kelly as Financial Secretary to the Treasury but not as Secretary of State for Education and Skills, whereas the remaining sentence As a mother of four she ... relates to the latter position. We might discuss here whether that discrepancy is relevant. --Túrelio 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is a prob. We have no source to confirm whether or not this policy continued once she was made Secretary of State, when the pressure to take home red boxes would have been greatest. Until a source is found to suggest she still does not take home Red boxes, I shall move this sentence to the relevant part of the article... WJBscribe 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The following: "At the Treasury she would start work at quarter past nine, leave at quarter past six, and famously refused to take red boxes home. Even now, she works no more than two or three hours at weekends."[3] suggests this practice did not continue when she moved to the DfES. WJBscribe 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are 3 pre-formated possible references/sources for the "Kelly hours" statement; pick one.

<ref> Rebecca Smithers: [http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1505054,00.html Dawn to dusk care plan for schools], ''[[The Guardian]]'', June 13, 2005</ref> <ref> Melissa Benn: [http://www.cipfa.org//publicfinance/opinion_details.cfm?News_id=24335 Counting the hours], ''Public Finance'', June 24, 2005</ref> <ref> Liz Lightfoot: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/14/nscho14.xml Welcome to the 10-hour school day], ''Telegraph'', June 14, 2005</ref>

--Túrelio 10:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A task for english native-speakers/writers

In section Ruth Kelly#Career as an MP (2nd and 3rd paragraph) the expression „She had responsibility for …” is used repetitively (3 times in succession). Couldn’t this be replaced at least once by “was responsible for” or would this change the meaning? --Túrelio 10:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. Now that was much more fun than dealing with the paras highlighted above :). PS. no, that wouldn't have changed the meaning at all. WJBscribe 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last two unsourced statements

OK, I have tracked down sources for the last elements tagged as unsourced: the Tomlinson report, and her supposed near demotion after the 2005 elections. I have altered the relevant passages to ensure they are completely supported by those sources. I have also changed the POV language from that part of the article that was criticised during the last GA nomination to something more neutral. WJBscribe 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-nom

I was very pleased with the article after its improvement since the last GA nom. Here is my review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


As a side note, I did notice a previous edit war about a week and a half ago, and that is why I voted neutral on the stability of the article. Diez2 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The new paragraph "Opposition to tall buildings"

What is your opinion about the recently inserted [4] paragraph "Opposition to tall buildings" ?

As for me, the heading/lemma "Opposition to tall buildings" violates NOR, or has any reliable source said that of Kelly? Even in case that Kelly really had decided against building of the three skyscrapers mentioned, then to suggest an attitude of “opposition to the development of skyscrapers” is clearly a hypothesis and therefore going against NOR.

Also, the first sentence “Ruth Kelly demonstrated strong opposition..” is currently unsourced and, if no source is supplied, violates NOR.

As of yet both references given come from the same source, the website http://www.skyscrapernews.com/index.php that calls itself “tall building database and news source“, surely not a newspaper and probably not a “reliable third-party source” (as described in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources) as the strongly biased wording especially in ref 26 suggests.

Since the whole paragraph has a clearly derogatory wording and reliable sources for the main message are missing, it also violates the official policy for Biographies of living persons.

Finally, there is the question of relevance. If we go on with this, next time there will be a paragraph about Kelly’s attitude towards black cats. Just my 2 cents. --Túrelio 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

OK, this is my initial reaction to the additon and Túrelio's comments.

  1. Reference. I agree that better refs are needed and will look into it.
  2. POV. I'm not sure this is so much of a problem. Its only POV if you assume that opposition to tall buildings is a bad thing. Many would disagree. That tall buildings already exist in an area is fact. Thatan enquiry recommended approval needs to be confirmed. But in general I think the three examples do back up the suggestion that she is opposed to new tall buildings.
  3. Importance. I think this subject is important and not trivial. Planning and urban regeneration are important parts of her remit as Sec of State. She has no official responsibility for black cats. Whether skyscrapers are an improvement or to the detriment of the urban landscape is a controversial topic and Kelly's views on this should be covered if they are confirmed.

In conclusion, I support the addition of the section, but agree that stronger references are needed to make it compliant. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


How about the currently partisan wording: Kelly demonstrated strong.. she blocked.. she forced.. insisting that.. in spite of a...?
She has no official responsibility for black cats. Regrettably...→
Ok, when you put it like that I see your point... What do you think of my changes to the language? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite better wording now. Thanks! --Túrelio 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Relevance?? Túrelio, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The implications are massive. She could prevent global multinational companies from locating their headquarters in the City of London. She could prevent famous, iconic landmarks from appearing on London's skyline (plus other cities around England - see what she did to poor old Liverpool last month). She could prevent whole areas from being regenerated, she could stagnate economic development and growth where it's vitally needed, she could scare away developers and investment. And she's going against the advice of the planners and other advisers who originally approved these schemes. Wjfox2005 17:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That might have been true if she really had a attitude (or a policy) of "no more skyscrapers". You did not prove that according to wikipedia standards. Did she say so herself? Has that been perceived so by any mayor journal? How many building decisions (skycraper type and non-skyscraper) has she made since appointed on her position? Can you really deduct a new policy from 3 skyscraper-related decisions? And advisers are advisers, but a minister/secretary is appointed for making decisions. --Túrelio 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ok... as someone who has been referenced here as a source i agree with some of the criticism. ruth kelly is not against tall buildings per se, what should instead be emphasised is that a new minister, ruth kelly has ignored planning guidance including the findings of a public inquiry to over-rule buildings with reasons that NO-ONE, not even their opponents had used. she has disregarded past guidance and planning precendents that have been set. people should read the scoping reports that were compiled and in particular the one by wirral council and then read the ministers decision on brunswick quay to find out more about this. i would recommend that the article be redrafted to reflect this. journals critical of the minister have included property week and estates gazette. as for not being reliable, funny isn't it how we're so unreliable that the bbc, itn, channel four, the evening standard, the daily telegraph, and the independent all use skyscrapernews and you can find interviews with me on their websites and them linking to our pages and describing us as sources :) our data is used by foxtons estate agents, our data is used by jp morgan's property funds and our articles are syndicated in print magazines in five countries around the world. j newman - skyscrapernews.com

[edit] Name

I read in one of the quality papers that her name was actually Rufus rather than Ruth. Anyone know if this is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.59.162 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Hmmm...

From what I see, this article is not encyclopaedic but a rant against a public figure. How you think any serious encyclopaedia would quote the likes of a lunatic like Peter Tatchell I do not know!

Unless there is more balance this just reads like a "Why I don't like Ruth Kelly" attack.Iamlondon 07:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg you pardon... lunatics like Peter Tatchell? Is there any reason why Tatchell's criticism should not be noted?
As to your more general point, Ruth Kelly has attracted a lot of controversy in her time in government. All of it is, in my opinion, reported fairly and in a neutral manner. If you feel that there is reliably sourced information available to further balance the article, you are welcome to add it. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


As of today IP 147.114.226.175 inserted the following statement and reference:

„but acknowledges that she has attended Opus Dei meetings“ [5]

What the referenced article really says is: Ms Kelly has attended meetings of Opus Dei but has not revealed whether she was a member. [6]

With that wording, the only thing sure is, that Kelly has not revealed whether ... The other part about attended meetings as written are words of the journalist/author of that BBC article (though Kelly may have said that to him). Therefore, to say „(Kelly) acknowledges that she has attended ...“ is a clear falsification of the referenced source.

Just for the record, she may well be a member, but that article does not prove that at all. --Túrelio 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's entirely possible that she is a member, but newspaper reports quoting "unnamed sources", "sources within the organisation" are pretty dubious as proof goes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.86.52.10 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 January 2007.


I would prefer to change in article section „Children's schooling” the words “her nine-year old son” into “one of her children”, first in order protect the child's privacy (and a stressing label as „dyslexic“), but also as this is the actual wording in the Mirror report (ref. 13) and as the reference currently given for that sentence (ref 12) does not contain that information (age, sex); so it’s also unsourced. Can the others agree to that? --Túrelio 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The referencing problem is easily solveable - see, for example this link where Ruth Kelly states that it is her son that is involved. No need to change the wording therefore IMO, just add this or another similar ref. SP-KP 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't touch the more important issue of child's privacy. Politicians' children have the same right to privacy as citiziens' children. As both are living persons we also have to adhere to WP:BLP. Also, your ref didn't say a word about the privacy-violating tag "9 year old"; so again it is not a ref for that. To the contrary it cites Kelly by "It is particularly difficult when dealing with details of individual circumstances which any family would want to deal with privately. I had hoped that would be the case regarding my son." But it is also a ref in regard to the additional cost "I have not and will not seek the help of the local authority in meeting these costs." (Kelly) So thanks for the ref. --Túrelio 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad to be of use with the reference - let me know if there are any other areas where you'd like help with the referencing. We disagree on the importance of the privacy issue, I'm afraid. In editing Wikipedia, I'm solely in the business of helping to create an encyclopaedia, so important issues to me in that capacity are things like comprehensiveness, verifiability, neutrality etc. Whilst, as an individual, I have opinions on the merits or not of the media compromising the privacy of politicians' children, it would be wrong of me to let those views influence editorial decisions I make here. My approach is that we should be guided by policy (as you say, WP:BLP is probably the most relevant one here) and not let our personal views get in the way of that. If the material is relevant to the subject under discussion, notable enough, verifiable, and there are no other over-riding reasons why we shouldn't include it, I would support inclusion. SP-KP 11:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
SP-KP, thanks for your thorough answer. For this moment just a quick thought in regard to relevance: I doubt it is relevant for future readers to know that it was a then „9 year old boy“, especially as the school the child was sent to is characterized in the article as „specialises in the education of boys aged 7-13”, so there you even have the “boy” and the age-range already.--Túrelio 13:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Or you could say that, as the article already mentions the age range 7-13, saying that the boy is 9 doesn't really cause much of an increase in the extent to which his privacy is invaded. One point about the relevance of him being 9 is that it helps to understand the timing of the decision. My understanding is that Kelly had hoped his current school would be able to solve the problems, but the lack of progress, combined with the fact that he is due to move into secondary education in just two years is a key factor why the decision was taken. However, I've not really got any strong feelings on whether we say 9 or just leave it as the 7-13 age range. Regards SP-KP 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any objections to a rewording of the religion section?

Ruth Kelly's membership of Opus Dei appears to be being widely quoted as fact by news outlets now. e.g. the BBC here and the Guardian here. I'd like to suggest we amend the rather tentatively worded passage on this in the religion section. Any objections? SP-KP 19:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Catchpole 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the second sentence in that section (She herself refuses ..) should remain, as long as she didn't say otherwise. --Túrelio 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made the change, in a way which I hope deals with your concern. SP-KP 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Being not a native-speaker, I'm unsure about the word questioned, to me that sounds somehow like the situation with the two spots dazzling into your face and the inspector on the other side of the table. --Túrelio 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to tall buildings

I have reverted an attempt to delete this section because whole sections, that have become established in the article, should not be deleted without discussion here, and agreement. I don't have a strong position on this but it is not an entirely frivolous section since very expensive projects hang on Kelly's views. BlueValour 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

I've deleted previous talk per BLP. The rule is very simple: we just don't insult people with our personal opinions. I note that there was an uncertainty about what was acceptable and what wasn't so I'm clarifying it now, and hope discussion can be resumed appropriately. Thanks. Tyrenius 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious tag

The article cited as a source for Ruth Kelly being a future PM is 2 years old, and simply says;

In a short time she has earned a reputation as a brilliant thinker and has even been touted as a future Prime Minister.

In my opinion, this really isn't grounds for WP repeating this rather spurious and out-of-date thinking. Emoscopes Talk 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have changed the phrasing to better reflect the fact that this is old information that has not been repeated. WjBscribe 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/t/Talk%7ERuth_Kelly_7706.html"