Talk:Ruth Kelly/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Protection

This page is now protected due to revert warring. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my idea, before anyone asks. SP-KP 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So, the discussion then ...

I think the best way to start is for each of the editors who feel strongly about the issue to post a summary of their views here. Over to you, Rob, Frelke & Neuropean. SP-KP 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the following sections need to be merged into an as yet unnamed (Personal Info) section:
Early life, Religion and Family History
The political sections should be reduced to 3 covering her 2 cabinet positions and everything else
References and links to remain.
Everything else to be subsections of those main important sectns.
We should try to authenticate her nationality. That may well be original research and so the results may not go directly here, but could be published elsewhere and referenced from here. If, and it is only an if, she has a personal Irish passport and a Diplomatic British passport, then that would be both newsworthy and encyclopaedic. If not, then I'm not bothered what goes in in that regard.
The voice is significantly interesting from a political POV if her prospects and career progression improve. It's home is somewhere in the political sections. A comparison with Maggie's voice might be the best approach.Frelke 22:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is basically fine. However, we have no proof of any of the stuff like her children's names being given to represent her Irishness (that is speculation, unverified and, basically, unencyclopedic). The same problem comes with her "links" to her Irish roots - where? what links? Unverified newspaper speculation. We have no proof she has an Irish passport - speculation, guesswork? Certainly unencyclopedic and, unless proved, nonsense. The voice thing is just drivel - whilst she was in the education dept it was used a s a way to insult her by suggesting she was a bloke - pointless attempts to have a go at her. The problem I have is with those who are trying to push a POV - to claim she is Irish is unproven, to claim she has strong Irish links is unproven, to comment on her voice is merely an attempt to smear her and, even with the comparison to MT, an attempt to suggest her promotions aren't due to talent and ability. I am also tired of the use of sockpuppets on this article. Robertsteadman 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot - we have no proof she is a member of Opus Dei so why should it be mentioned. And what relevance is her brother's membership. This is unverified stirring and has no place on WP.Robertsteadman 06:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Her Opus Dei connections got a lot of press coverage. Secretlondon 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To claim she is British is also unproven. So do we remove all reference to nationality ?Frelke 08:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

She's a politician right? Maybe you could try emailing her and asking her? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 08:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can a non-british individual be cabinet minister in the UK government? --Túrelio 09:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, certainly Gisela Stuart was a junior minister. I never heard anything at the time of her appointment about "Thats as far as she can go!". But then maybe she has dual nationality. Maybe RK has as well? I don't know. Frelke 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Gisela Stuart is probably naturalised. Her husband is British and she's been here since 1974. Secretlondon 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The names of her children are "as Gaelige" (in Irish), in other words she chose to name her children in the Irish language. Is that clear enough for you Steadman, stop being so disruptive and rallying against the obvious. It is entirely accurate and encyclopedic to state that her naming her children thus is reflective of Irish links. How can you possibly dispute this, what else could it possibly be reflective of? An irrational penchant for names "as Gaelige" notwithstanding her Irish ancestry - would that be your suggestion Steadman. Come off it and give it a rest. The statement holds, is in line with consensus, is NPOV and is worthy of inclusion. Give up Steadman and rally against the obvious elsewhere if, as it seems, it gives you your kicks. Bazzajf 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I really think that this is getting out of proportion. Ms. Kelly is a comparatively minor figure in an encyclopaedia. Ten lines would be sufficient to identify her. As so often, one of the major faults of WP which makes it unencyclopaedic, is the inability of the system to edit (ie shorten) articles which include amounts of information which accumulate and which are arguably not necessary. Rudeness does not help either. Rgoer Arguile June 28th. 2006



In an effort to try to disentangle the above, I'm going to try split up the various issues. As I'd like to participate in any discussion about the voice issue, but I've put myself forward as a hopefully-impartial mediator here, I'm going to rule that out of scope for this discussion, and ask that we deal with that separately later. I also think we should keep the Opus Dei thing aside for now, and return to it once we've resolved the principal issues, Here's what I understand to be the positions on these:

Article structure

Frelke proposes:

The following sections need to be merged into an as yet unnamed (Personal Info) section: Early life, Religion and Family History
The political sections should be reduced to 3 covering her 2 cabinet positions and everything else
References and links to remain.
Everything else to be subsections of those main important sectns.

Robsteadman says "The article is basically fine." (Rob, have I made a correct inference about your meaning in saying that i.e. that you were referring to the structure?)

Any comments on the above? Support/oppose? Alternative ideas?

Article structure is fine though, in time, I suspect the sections about specific events which, currently, sem major could be reduced. Robertsteadman 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As Rob has pointed out, I am working on my own draft to show how I think it can be improved. To me "The article is NOT basically fine". It is a real mish-mash leading to the silly arguements like where the voice stuff should be placed. If the article was basically fine, the arguements would not be about where, but more about if. Let me get on with my draft and I'll bring it back here for comment when its ready. And that is not now. Frelke 05:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
For me there's n problem placing the voice stuff.... just delete it. :-)Robertsteadman 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

Frelke suggests we should try to authenticate her nationality, but comments that that "may well be original research". My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that it would indeed be, unless we can find it in a secondary source, or prove indirectly that she is British e.g. by establishing that only a British citizen can become a cabinet minister (presume we can find someone on Wikipedia who can answer that? Any ideas where could we post the question?). If we are not able to form a consensus on what her nationality is, the implication presumably is that we have to make either no mention, or use some form of words which makes it clear that we do not know - do people agree? Which of these two options do you prefer? Do they throw up any other issues?

We have no evidence of her being anything other than British. She was born in the UK and for the vast majority of her life she has lived and worked in the UK. To claim other is speculation and original research. When this problem arose a few weeks ago I DID email Ruth Kelly and ask whether she had joint nationality or held an Irish Passport - sadly I received no reply. So I guess she doesn't see it as an important matter. Robertsteadman 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Frelke - can you give your views on Rob's line of reasoning? SP-KP 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this, but what't the point? WP:BLP seems to imply that information supplied by the subject should be included even if unsourced unless it is controversial. What is controversial about her claim of having Irish heritage. Or rather, why would it be harmful to state that she has Irish heritage if she in fact does not? Would it be acceptable to state that she has claimed Irish heritage without stating it as fact? My bottom line, is it related to her reason for encylopedic notability. (No one cares about Bill Gates' family tree, do they?) I would suggest that if she has attempted to use claimed Irish ties to boost her political standing, then they should be included; as "claimed" if not otherwise proven by RS. If her claim of Irish heritage has nothing to do with her reason for encyclopedic notability (and as it stands, no such link is made) then it should probably be tossed altogether. Thatcher131 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
She was born in the UK and, for the mostpart, lived in it. She has not, since adulthood, stated she feels Irish and has made no speeches to suggest she feels Irish. She has not "claimed" Irish heritage. I agree this should be removed beyond stating place of birth and a little family history. Robertsteadman 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
RK's religion and nationality are inextricably(?) linked. As an RC born in NI, she would undoubtedly have come from a Nationalist or Republican background. Claims, as yet unverified, have been made here about her extended family's membership of the IRA. Anyone who understands the NI situation - and sorry Rob, but I count you out here - would understand that she is more likely to have had an Irish passport than a British one. It is not accurate to say that anyone's place of birth defines their nationality. Nationality is much more personal than that. If RK is obviously British because she was born in NI, then Keith Vaz is obviously yemeni, Prince Philip is greek and Gisela is german. Maybe the latter is naturalised. But thats speculation, not fact, and therefore cannot be included in WP. Similarly saying RK ... is British. is speculative POV at best. It is uncyclopaedic. If someone wants to find a citation which says she uses a British diplomatic passport when travelling on govt business (which is likely to be the case according to a contact of mine in Brussels) then I am happy to say she is British. Until such evidence is presented then I am afraid I won't agree such an inclusion. I can suggest any number of variations, but I suspect that none will be acceptable to Rob so I won't bother. I'll let others fight this battle. However I will address the issue in my draft, but will not discuss the content of my draft until I am happy with it. Frelke 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is simple POV pushing. However a compromise - we make it clear she was born in Northern Ireland, UK and we refer to her as a British politician - ie a politician working in the UK - there is no evidence that she is anything other than British nationality so this is factually correct.Robertsteadman 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To suggest that my opinion is POV whereas yours is not, is disingenuous in the extreme. Can you point out any other instances on WP where we use "Northern Ireland, UK". I'm glad you like the British politician style that I have used in my WIP. This obviously does not refer to her nationality in the slightest but her residency and place of work instead. Nice and neutral and NPOV. Frelke 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Our first piece of agreement between Rob & Frelke - excellent! So we are going to describe her, in the article lead, as a British politician then, yes? Everyone agreed? SP-KP 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

She nis a British politician and, to be factual, we should state that she was born in the UK, has lived in teh UK most of her life and has worked almost exclusievly in the UK. Robertsteadman 07:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we say that for every British politician, or just RK, for some unfathomable reason ? Frelke 08:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is said for virtually every other British politician - not is as many words but then they don;t have POV warriors trying to claim her as a foreign national. Robertsteadman 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Although interestingly, not for Patricia Hewitt, the Australian-born Health Secretary. Must check a few others. Which ones have you already checked ? Frelke 11:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Irish Links

Robsteadman feels that there is not enough substance in claims that Ruth Kelly has strong Irish links to warrant mention in the article - is that correct Rob? ther editors point to her childrens' Irish names (does anyone disagree that these names are Irish?), and to various pieces of information and comment in the Guardian article. How can we resolve this one?

There is NO evidence of continuing Irish links. As i have said below we don;t know why the children had those names- sure they are Irish names but did she, her husband or family chose them? Is it just because they liked the names? Was there more to it? We have no proof it is unverified. What has she done in recent years to show she still has a link to her Irishness (remember it is to her Northern irishness as she is British). We also have no proof(only random speculation) that she has an Irish passport. We must stay factual and verifiable. This is meant to be an encyclopedia not a red top. Robertsteadman 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to check - you'd be OK with mention of past links? SP-KP 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true to say that she was born in Northern Ireland and she lived, all be it briefly, Ireland. We must onlreport the factual and verifiable.Robertsteadman 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I realy feel that discussion of 'Irish links' is trivally pointless. I have better things to do. Sorry. Frelke 06:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So why did you push for it so much? The Irish links are pointless POV pushing and have no place as there is no evidnece. Robertsteadman 06:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I never pushed for discussion of Irish Links. Read it again. The discussion (of Irish Links) is the thing that I view as pointless. Not the links themselves. Frelke 06:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The only "Irish" thing we have verficiation for is place of birth (though that is in the UK NOT Ireland), brief time living in the ROI and her family history - to suggest anything else is unverified speculation, guesswork and, as pointed out below, POV pushing, smear and an attemnpt to suggest much, much more than we should be doing in an encyclopedia. Robertsteadman 07:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Childrens' names

Do we think these should be mentioned and linked to their respective Wikipedia articles?

We do not have verification how or why her children were named. Did she chose the names? Did her husband chose the names? Are they family names? Were they chosen to reflect her Irish roots? Did the parents just like the names? I don;t see a problem with mentioning the names (beyond invasion of privacy of minors0 but to claim the names represent something is beyond the proof we have. It is mere speculation. Robertsteadman 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob - I'm not clear on whether you are OK with wikilinking the names to their articles? Any views? SP-KP 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking them? Absolutely not - they are not notable people and do not deserve articles about them and, personally, unless they are public figures or their parents have put them in the pub lic domain I would suggest that use of their names is invasion of privacy of minors. Robertsteadman 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean wikilinking to the definition of their name? - well, as I don;t think we should actually be mentioning their names then no. Robertsteadman 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts:

  • She has 4 children
  • They all have distinctly Irish forenames

Speculation:

  • She chose the names to reflect her Irish roots
  • She just 'liked' the names
  • Her English husband chose them

At what point does speculation turn to 'make your own minds up'?

I have no problem about not mentioning them if her Irishness is referenced in some other form. But if not then I don't see any problem with the current linked version. I don't think there are any child protection or POV issues either. Frelke 06:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - to claim anything beyind she has 4 children is nonsense. We have no need to mention their names - they are not notable, they, for the time being, will not have their own articles - why should we name minors? Just because their names appear to be Irish is pointless and does not justify inclusion.Robertsteadman 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a small bit of research to see which approach is taken in other articles - don't know if this helps?

  • Tony Blair - has 4 children, one a minor, three now over 18, all are mentioned in his article, names are wikilinked to articles about them
  • Gordon Brown - has 2 children, one minor, one now deceased, names mentioned but not wikilinked either to an article about them or an article about their name
  • Charles Clarke - mention of 2 sons, no further details given
  • John Prescott - can't see a mention of children, don't know if he has any
  • Jack Straw - mention of son Will Straw, over 18, name wikilinked to article about him, don't know if he has any other children
  • Margaret Beckett - has no children, article mentions this
  • David Cameron - has three children, all minors, all named, but no wikilinks
  • Menzies Campbell - has no children, article mentions this

SP-KP 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the other politicians should have their children's names removed to protect minors then? Robertsteadman 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's one option, yes. What does Wikipedia policy say on this issue, any idea? SP-KP 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And as for saying someone doesn't have children how very silly - is that a way of trying to iply something like homosexuality? It certainly used to be. Robertsteadman 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What is silly about saying that someone has no children? Its a fact. If anyone sees anything sinister in that, can I suggest it is probably because their mind is reading it like that. The rest of us can see it for what it is - a simple fact. Frelke 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But what other negatives get reported in an encyclopedia - has never run the London Marathon? Has never been to Iceland? Come off it - mentioning no children is trying to infer something. If they haven't done something there is no need to mention it. Robertsteadman 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Have I missed anything?

Yes, the inferences about her Opus Dei membership - we have no verification taht she is or ever has been a member and her brother's membership is irrelevent. That should be removed. Robertsteadman 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any strong views from anyone that her brother's membership is inclusion-worthy information? If so, can you explain your reasoning? SP-KP 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment above from User:Secretlondon - "Her Opus Dei connections got a lot of press coverage". Can we back this up with citations? SP-KP 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian web site finds 43 articles with "Opus" and "Ruth Kelly" in. eg [1] (by former editor of the catholic herald). [2] reports that education union NAFTHE conference comdemned her appointment because her voting record and Opus Dei links. The Independent has many critical articles on the issue eg [3], [4]. Secretlondon 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
But the links are speculation - unverified, unconfirmed - what is the point. Maybe we could say that several groups have tried to smear her in verios ways - the deep voice, suggesting she is a member of Opus Dei etc. but to claim anything more is a nonsense. Robertsteadman 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The mainstream media is reporting her as a member. The gay press were unhappy with her as minister for equalities because of it. You suggest not mentioning it as she hasn't confirmed it? That's just a white wash.. Secretlondon 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we might be able say to that some have speculated but it has never been confirmed and that many have used such things, and the deep voice, etc. as ways of smearting her. Without verification we, unlike newspapers, should not report things as fact. That's one of the basic principles of WP without which it stops being an encyclopedia. Robertsteadman 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But it was all speculation - her membership has never been confirmed (I know someone will say it has never been denied - but I, as an atheist, have never denied membership of Opus Dei - doesn't mean I was ever a member)!. Robertsteadman 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If her brother's membership in Opus Dei was used by her opponents to try and discredit her, then the article should state that her brother's membership in Opus Dei was used by her opponents to try and discredit her (with citations, and any response by her). That is to say, if it has made a measurable and noteworthy impact on her career (as catholicsm certainly did for JFK) then it should be mentioned. (And thus should be included in the politics section. If it's not a political issue, its not relevant.) Thatcher131 21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not a political issue. Robertsteadman 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It is - it's been raised in connection with her equalities portfolio. Secretlondon 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As she has never confirmed membership and there is no proof of membership it is irrelevent. Robertsteadman 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

She is reported to have said that she had received spiritula advice from Opus Dei - her words. She has also attended Opus Dei meetoings. Sufficient reason for a sentence.... has links with opus Dei.....?Neuropean 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So what, I have attended church services but am an atheist. It means nothing unless we have verification. You are speculating and guessing and trying to smear still. An interesting tactic hedging your bets like this. Robertsteadman 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Reporting "smears" does not make us smearing ourself. Not mentioning this issue would seem really bizarre. Some BBC news articles on the issue - [5], [6], [7]. Pink News on Kelly - [8], [9]. Secretlondon 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably not unless it connects somehow with the reason she has an entry. I think I used Bill Gates as a hypothetical above. Suppose Bill Gates takes spiritual advice from Opus Dei. Non-issue. Suppose Bill Gates takes advice from Opus Dei on the feature set for Vista. Big issue. There is a nexus, to be fancy about it. Is there a nexus between Kelly's religion and her politics or political career?
For example, the Frelke draft states, "Some commentators 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." This looks like a lot of hot air to me. If a commentator or activist had said "Kelly's position on issue X seems influenced by her religion and is clearly at odds with her ministerial appointment and the party platform" that would be important. But to argue that her views could cause conflict at some unspecified future date is blowing smoke rings. (My religious views could cause a schism within the Catholic church if I was ever elected Pope. Likelihood? not very.) Thatcher131 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But have you ever been wined, dined and given a free bed by the vatican (and we aren't talking a 2 day retreat on Caldey island here)? THe word 'could' in this instance is not time related. There are just too many articles stating that her religion 'may' be the reason for conflict to ignore.Neuropean 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But her religion and Opus Dei have NOT been shown to be the same thging - totally different. You are confusing two things - 2+2 does not equal whatever you want it to..Robertsteadman 06:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Honestly my intitial reaction is "So what?" To be frank, anyone implying that she can't be a good Liberal MP because of her religious beliefs is prejudiced (pre-judging) and I don't think it has a place in wikipedia no matter how many voices raise the claim. The implication seems to be that because she may be a member of Opus Dei, she can not be trusted to follow the Liberal party platform on social issues. There is no way to refute this kind of prejudice; other than saying I promise to keep my personal views separate from politics, to which the reply is to repeat the same allegation saying, that's what you say now but the real test hasn't happened yet. (And I suspect that if a conservative politician broke with his party and church and voted to support a liberal social issue, he would be praised for voting his conscience.) The issue of undue weight also comes into play. That is, if her religion is not a factor in her political career, it should not be given undue weight in the article. You say there have been too many articles to ignore. Have they impacted her career? Has she been forced to make public concessions, or have other party figures been forced to defend her or make guarantees on her behalf? If she and her party have successfully ignored the issue, then wikipedia probably should too. The Frelke draft is heading in the right direction, reporting that her qualifications as Equality minister have been questioned because of votes she made and abstained from. (Although I'm not sure about the inclusion of her religion there either; the draft quotes a Cardinal but says the real opposition is that she may hold personal views that are incompatible with her ministerial portfolio.) In other words, it is appropriate to report that some people question her qualifications for her present role based on past actions; it is generally not appropriate to report that some people think she may in the future take certain actions based on religious beliefs that she has not even confirmed having. (The exception would be if this had been a significant issue in her election, in which case it would be covered from both sides, quoting her supporters as well as detractors.) Thatcher131 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that her religios views should be missed out - however we have no verification that she is a member of Opus Dei - total specxulation and gossip. STick to the facts - her Catholicism has been questioned as incompatible with some of her roles. Robertsteadman 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There are a whole bunch of people not following this discussion who are going to be extrememly pi**ed off if we just delete huge swathes of contributions. If we AGF on all of those - which we should - then the natural outcome is to assume that they believed their contribs were easily as important as anything else there. Can I suggest that a good copyedit and knocking into shape is all that is needed. My draft in this area is exactly the same as the original article. I haven't even got to it yet. Frelke 06:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If edits are unenmcyclopedic and unverified they need to be removed. What's the problem with that? That's how WP works. Robertsteadman 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems this might all be pointless

Frelke is working on his own re-write [10] - thankfully it seems to be ditching most of the POV and the unverifiable. Robertsteadman 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think discussion might be pointless. Yes, I am working on a 'frelke draft'. However that is only one person's opinion. If the rest of you want to agree something completely different thats fine by me. Whatever is agreed here will not stay as is forever. Many who are not contributing to the discussion, have contribed to the article and will do so in future. Frelke 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Backdoor

It has become clear to me that the issues under discussion here are being used as back doors to try an introduce information that they do not feel can be added directly. Ths Irish issue (children+heritage) is really a way of insinuating that she has an IRA background. The Opus Dei issue is really a way of insinuating that she will not follow the gay rights agenda.

To me, then, the answer is clear. If you can't say something openly, per reliable sources etc., then you shouldn't try to get around that through vague hints and insinuations.

The question then becomes, can you say it openly. For example, "Gay rights activists have criticized Kelly's appointment as minister for Equality and Women's Rights, claiming that her husband's membership in Opus Dei points to a religious background that is incompatible with their agenda.Citation needed Phrasing it this way makes it clear that the critics are not just "commentators" but are people with their own agenda. It forces you to provide specific citations and provides opportunity for rebuttal from Kelly's defenders (she has never not voted the party position, has vowed a committment to her ministerial portfolio, whatever.) This gives you your strongest case for inclusion. You will still have to deal with the issue of proportionality and significant point of view (if the charges generally come from one activist group, does that constitute a "significant point of view" per BLP and NPOV policies). But if you can't find a way to say what you mean up front, you shouldn't try to wiggle around it with hints.

Same way with Republicanism, which I think will be a much harder case to make. The whole point of her Irishness, children's names, etc., is to give hints that UK editors will realize points to Republicanism, the IRA, etc., but will leave non-informed readers clueless and even somewhat puzzled (why, for instance, should anyone not clued-in to the history care what her kids' names are?) So here again, find a way to say it up front per policy, and if you can't, don't try to sneak it in with sub rosa hints for the in-crowd.

Hope this helps. Thatcher131 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - that is why I have been reverting the blatant POV pushing. That's why something needs to be done to stop those who are acting against the basic principles of WP and are trying to smear a public figure. Robertsteadman 20:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I really think you are ascribing far too much depth of thought to the contributions. Certainly with the Irish stuff, I am not suggesting, nor is anyone else IMHO, that she has any more links to the IRA or republicanism than any other NI-born RC. What I am suggesting is that most NI-born RC's would consider themselves Irish as opposed to British. Now I believe that to be a factual assertion, but maybe others disagree with me.
If you view hints of Irishness as pointing to Republicanism and the IRA then maybe we have more work to do in this area. I think a lot of people in the english speaking world, i.e. the main user base of WP:EN, will understand the references to Irish heritage and background. That many English people won't, is, I think, regrettable, but possibly not entirely unexpected.
I think people add sections to different articles for various reasons. To try to suggest that all or most of them are blatant POV pushing is in itself against the WP:AGF basic principles of WP. Frelke 06:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I know several NI RCs who do not consider themselves to be Irish. So your sweeping generalisation doesn't hold up. The references to Irishness are, as has been shown, speculation, guessworkj and, at times, POV pushing - stick to the verifiable and we're ok. She was bnotn in the UK - FACT! By the way there is a prcedent for mentioning NI, UK - Belfast.Robertsteadman 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Things seems to have ground to a halt. Two questions then - Do we think we have established ANY new common ground? Do we think we are any nearer to consensus on any of the major issues? If not, presumably the article is going to stay protected. SP-KP 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we just have this unprotected - the POV warriors seem to have left the scene, maybe the rest of us can get on with genuine editing. Robertsteadman 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Sadly vandals and POV warriors are back

...and not allowing comment. user: Neuropean has now broken 3RR on here, has vandalised my talk page and is intent on cotinuing his dirsuptve and negative behaviour. Robertsteadman 09:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This Page

Just wondering, what's going on here? The page has been protected for 2 weeks in a very unsatisfactory state so nobody can edit and any discussion has long died out. Also I really can't see what the problem is. I'm a half Irish Catholic myself but really don't understand the desire a lot of editors have to point out everyone's alleged Irish origin/ descent in very prominent places. A note that Miss Kelly was born in Ireland and has given her children Irish names can go in the family history section without any unsupportable assertions that she feels a strong affinity. At the moment the opening paragraph doesn't even detail Miss Kelly's full political career or when she first won her seat so I don't see why this comparatively irrelevant fact gets a mention. Opus Dei is pertinent and of course it should be included - there are numerous sources saying that she has "links" and "alleged links" that might be brought up but as far as I can see, all that can be stated as fact is that she has attended an Opus Dei meeting and received advice and this has received such publicity that it needs to be mentioned. This isn't a smear either. Opus Dei really isn't evil and the only reason people think so is Dan Brown's book. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Unprotecting

I think it's time for a bit of editing here. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Children's names

I still disagree that we need to name their children. They are not public figures, they have not sought notoriety and Kelly/Gadd have kept them out of the public. It should be sufficient to say they have four children. If, at a later date, these children become notable then, sure, name them and give them their own articles - until then leave them in peace. Robertsteadman 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we can name all of Anne Frank's cats -even casual acquaintances, we can name the children.Neuropean 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
A complete irrlevance to this article. The point is her children are not public figures, they have done nothing of note, they are not paraded in public by their parents who try to keepo them privaye - we have no reason to name the children. Robertsteadman 20:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Rob, I don't understand your reasoning, I'm afraid. The names of RK's children are facts, they're facts which are related to RK, they are the kind of thing that the "average reader" would expect to find in an article about a famous person, and they are potentially useful facts to someone wanting to research the subject in future. As such they seem like perfectly valid things to include. The deficiency here is mine, I'm sure - what am I missing? SP-KP 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is that they are moinors who are private people, not sought fame, not been pushed into fame - they have done nothing of note and there is no reason for their names to be included. It is sufficient for the number of children to be given - there is no need fro their names and it is intrusive on minors to do so.Robertsteadman 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Rob, I could understand that argument if we were talking about including articles on each of them, but we're not. Let me explain my thinking in more detail. The piece of information "Ruth Kelly and Derek Gadd have a son called (picking one at random) Eamonn" is not just a piece of information with a link to the person bearing the name but a piece of information with a link to Ruth Kelly and with a link to Derek Gadd, because they chose the name. Clearly the link between this fact and Eamonn is a very strong one (it's HIS name), whereas the link with Ruth Kelly & Derek Gadd is less strong, but it's still a link. We have a presumption here, don't we, that Wikipedia should present pertinent facts that are linked to notable people in their biographical articles. The names that Ruth Kelly/Derek Gadd chose for their children is therefore a pertinent fact in an article about Ruth Kelly, and so we should include it, unless there is a good reason not to. The idea that this might be intrusion would, you're right, be a candidate "good reason", but we can't just use that without evaluating it. All I'm hearing so far is that it is the opinion of one editor that we shouldn't include that fact because it would be intrusive. That doesn't constitute an evaluation of whether it's a good reason or not. We need more, I think. For example - What is the practice in other Wikipedia articles? What does Wikipedia policy say? SP-KP 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What happens on other WP articles is not the issue (it could be that they are all wrong) - the question is "Is it fair and reasonable to name minors who are not public figures? Is it reasonable that private persons (and particularly children) are named in an article about their parents?" Sure mention they have children but it is of no benefit to name them. Schools go out of their way to protect the names of children so they are not used by the wrong people who might wish to cause chidlren harm - I am concerned that naming these minors has teh potential to put them at risk when they have done nothing, and their parents hace done nothing, to court publicity or notoriety for the minors.Robertsteadman 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I'm still not understanding your train of thought, I'm afraid. You're asking us to agree with you that something is not fair or reasonable, but without saying why you think it is not fair or reasonable. I appreciate that to you it may seem obvious that this is the case, but it isn't to me. Why is it neither fair nor reasonable? On the question of benefit, be careful with your use of words - you cannot possibly know that there will never be anybody who wishes to find out the names of Ruth Kelly's children, for perfectly legitimate reasons - in fact I think it's quite likely that there will be many such people. So when you say "no benefit" you mean, I think, "little benefit". Little isn't none, and therefore doesn't this become a question of weighing up benefit against any potential harm. At the moment, I don't see any possible harm that can come from mentioning the names (and it is only their names, and their first names at that) here. Remember, all we're doing is taking some information from a secondary source and re-publishing it. SP-KP 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I supported you on the Irish ancestry thing but I'm also at a complete loss to understand your reasoning concerning the naming of her children. As I see it, you may have two reasons: your first is irrelevance and I don't think that anyone can question that the names of Ruth Kelly's children are relevant facts about Ruth Kelly, in fact even you don't actually seem to go that far; secondly you assert that this information is intrusive. SP-KP asks, "What does Wikipedia policy say?", and it does say something: "Wikipedia is not censored". The fact that someone may not like a piece of information to be published is not reason enough not to publish it - if the fact is noteable. Also, I'm not really sure how this is an invasion of privacy. We're not publishing photographs of them or the address of their school. Nor are we publishing any family information that is confidential. The fact that this information can potentially be included shows that it is in the public domain anyway. It'd be different if Wikipedia contributors had searched birth records to get the names but that would be original research. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also you've removed information about Miss Kelly's grandfather's connections with the IRA that is perfectly relevant to the article. Many, many Wikipedia articles contain information about their subjects' ancestry. Why shouldn't this one? It's a notable and interesting fact that people would expect to read. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I must admit, I was a little confused by the edit comment on that one too. I don't think the merits of including this info are quite as clearcut as the children's names issue, so haven't formed a view, but deletion with the comment that is not relevant at all seems a bit too bold. It would be good to understand your reasoning Rob. SP-KP 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW take a look at this. Plenty of newspapers and websites name her children. You've said, 'the question is "Is it fair and reasonable to name minors who are not public figures? Is it reasonable that private persons (and particularly children) are named in an article about their parents?"' and I have to say, no that's not the question. That's your question and those are your criteria for inclusion. Schools aren't allowed to give out the names of children to strangers for data protection reasons and would be suspicious of strangers who asked for them anyway - I've tried hard to think of a way in which it could harm Ruth Kelly's children if someone found out their names (even if they weren't public knowledge anyway). I'm not saying it's impossible but I can't so please tell me if you know of one. If it were necessary to show some "benefit" in order to include information on WP, I'm sure most of the articles we have now would not exist. Fortunately it isn't.--Lo2u (T • C) 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The info about her grandfather - which has no bearing on RK - is more POV pushing by those trying to make out she is an IRA sympathiser. I maintain the naming of her children (whether done by others or not) is intrusion into the privacy of minors - and maybe WP should have far fewer articles. Robertsteadman 05:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Rob, sounds like the children discussion has run its course, then? My reading is that although we don't have a consensus on this, we have the next best thing which is broad support for leaving the names in, so are you OK to accept that we do that, for now at least?
On the grandfather thing, my view is that we can't decide what to include and what not to include on the basis of the perceived motives of editors - we need to decide on the merits of the information itself. Let's assume you are right about the motives for inclusion of that information. But now the information has been included, it's been read by two editors (me & Lo2u) who don't have those motives and who feel there is a case for inclusion, rather than deletion. I feel you may have a point when you say that the information has "no bearing on RK" - again, this could be a good candidate reason for deletion, but I'd like to see you back that up with a bit more reasoning. Lo2u clearly thinks it does have a bearing, I think it could have a bearing - why are we wrong? SP-KP 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest SP-KP I'm not nearly as concerned about mentioning RK's grandfather as I am about her children and if Rob really does object I'm not going to stand in his way. I tend to think that when there's no size limit we should include any noteworthy and interesting facts provided the section titles are accurate so that people can skip what they don't want to read. It is at least a little relevant that the grandfather of a British minister was in the IRA. Also I think that if other editors have to make an argument for the inclusion of every piece of noteworthy and relevant information in this article, it's kind of setting a bad precedent. I'm not going to reinsert this though. Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If her hranfather had done something which set up a family tradition which she followed I could see some sense in inclluding it but as that is not the case it seems totally irrelevant. Children's names - not sure we have broad support but we can leave it for now - though I maintain it is invasion of prviacy of mibnors and risks putting them at risk. Robertsteadman 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see why it's irrelevant. Maybe I'm missing something but there's a link with RK isn't there?--Lo2u (T • C) 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
There;s a link - but, really, is what YOUR grandfather did relevant to what you have done? Certainly what my grandfather did has had no consequence on my life and as RK's grandfather seems to have done totally different things to her there seems no point in mentioning it. Perhaps if it had been her father (ie one generation) and it showed she either followed or opposed her father there might be a tiny point in mentioning it but I see no relevance other than for those tryng to make out that RK is an IRA sympathiser. Robertsteadman 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That reasoning seems pretty fair to me. I'm happy that this doesn't need to be mentioned. Thanks for agreeing that we leave mention of the children's names in too btw - that's is exactly the kind of collaborative attitude we need in order to bring some stability to the article - well done. SP-KP 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm backtracking on what I've said a bit but I do want to defend my standpoint. Anyone with minimal common sense can work out that there's not a shred of evidence that RK's an IRA sypathiser and that, given that she's in the UK government, it's also very unlikely. I don't want people to think that and it's something that crossed my mind too. But, rather than hiding information from people in order that they might make what we both believe to be the correct decision, can we not just provide them with facts that are relevant and let them decide for themselves? Why must so many things in this article (Opus Dei, children, family history) satisfy some special criteria in order to be included and where is the WP policy that says that the noteworthy deeds of close relatives cannot be mentioned. I'm not suggesting we draw any conclusions from this information - we shouldn't - but can't it be stated. Most published biographies go into great detail about their subects' family history. Wikipedia generally mentions notable relatives and when it doesn't there's an obvious omission. When I look at Clement Freud's biography I expect to be told that he's the grandson of Sigmund even if he has done his own things. I certainly don't want the article to assert that SF set some family tradition that CF followed - in fact I'd remove such an assertion. Anyway, as I say, I'm not going to stand in your way over this. I don't think it's that important but please think about what I've said. Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No special criteria are being applied - there is no evience that she is in OD, there is no need to mention anything about her grandfather, and, although I'll let it be for the moment, the children's names are irrelevant (they were initially added by a POV warrior trying to prove she was Irish). The same criteria is being applied here as with other articles - the problem has been that some people are trying to make this article and the subject of the article into somehting that they are not. Robertsteadman 18:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Rob, no one's suggesting that she's a member of Opus Dei and there are perfectly good reasons for including the other two pieces of information that I've been through more times than I can count. Your sole criterion for selectively removing information you don't want to be in an article seems to me to be "it doesn't need to be included". By the way since I've been editing here I've been watching what's going on between you and Neuropean and how it's ended and I feel I have to say add something. I want you to know I think you've been perfectly civil (if a little evasive) in your dealings with me on this page and this is not revenge. I just can't watch someone being driven away like this and do nothing. --Lo2u (T • C) 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Several edits and talk page contributions have said she is a member of OD (sure not you), ohers have wanted to have it heavily implied. That is unencyclopedic and, as far as is known, factually inaccurate. My reasoning behind "it doesn;t need to be included" is simply that these things are losing focus on the subject or going off at a tangent, or simply invading the privacy of minors. As for Neuropean - there is far more history - he is a stalker from elsewhere who came onto WP to persue me, has used other accounts to have a go... It's very sad, particularly when he manages to persuade others to support his "little game".Robertsteadman 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I've put off doing this for a few days because I don't like kicking people when they're down. But information about RK's grandfather should never have been taken out and I would have made more of a fuss about it if I hadn't thought it important to end any disagreement quickly so that I could say something about Neuropean's treatment (I don't think I could have done both). Anyway it looks like Rob is probably never going to be back and I think he has larger battles to fight and probably isn't too concerned about this. --Lo2u (T • C) 09:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Doing likewise with the info about her voice, although it would be good if we could make the section a little less stubby SP-KP 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting anon's contributions I'm happy to entertain the possibility that this wasn't Rob but the edit summary is just wrong. How is this information not "veifiable, fatcual [sic] and unbiased"? Is anon suggesting her grandfather wasn't this? I don't see any point being made, simply an observation. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well its a BT address, like RS, not AOL, which NE usually had. Anyway, Lo2u, Lo2u. We haven't met formally. I've done a little tweaking on the voice, which I hope doesn't suggest she's a dyke, which was Rob's big objection. Is it ok? If not, then someone pls revert it.Frelke 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No please don't mind me. I objected to facts being removed and the slightly dodgy original assimilation of info going in. If you were responsible for anything I removed or added I don't hold any grudges, in the face of what you were up against I think you deserve praise. When I first noticed this page I thought it was just a few editors being very silly and didn't look at the history. BTW I think the identity of 86.140.197.168 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is now confirmed beyond any doubt. So just revert, anybody. The three revert rule doesn't apply. Best--Lo2u (T • C) 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

She's Irish

She's Irish. Don't you know? Everyone is Irish. Queen Elizabeth? Irish. Kunte Kinte too. So was Jesus O'Nazareth. All Western Civilisation is from Ireland. George Bush and Reagan. Gorbachev. Nelson Mandela too. Everyone - just look at the list of Irish Americans in which even Eddie Murphy keeps appearing (of course he's Irish: look at his surname). Apart from the mass-murdering terrorists who are all Northern Irish.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.246.75 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

:-) Thanks. I think the worst example of the everyone's Irish thing that I've seen is at the beginning of the second paragraph of this - a mathematical impossibility. As for what you say about Opus Dei, sorry, I completely disagree with you. But that's a discussion for somewhere else. I'm going to bed now. Best, --Lo2u (T • C) 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/t/Talk%7ERuth_Kelly_Archive_2_2fc5.html"