Talk:Ruth Kelly/Archive 2

message: This page is now protected due to revert warring. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of  YOUR OPINIONS 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that wasn't my idea, before anyone asks. SP-KP 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: For me there's n problem placing the voice stuff.... just delete it. :-)Robertsteadman 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Nationality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Irish Links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: That's one option, yes. What does Wikipedia policy say on this issue, any idea? SP-KP 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Childrens' names

message: Frelke is working on his own re-write  - thankfully it seems to be ditching most of the POV and the unverifiable. Robertsteadman 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: It seems this might all be pointless

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: ...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)
thread_title: Sadly vandals and POV warriors are back

message: 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)
thread_title:  This Page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  She's Irish