Talk:Ruth Kelly/Archive 1

message: I've also added some text about her performance whilst SOS for Education as references to this have been removed in a previous change. The amount and strength of the criticism she has experienced whilst in post cannot simply be ignored as not worth mentioning. --Alibi 22:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: As yet Ruth Kelly's membership of Opus Dei has not been confirmed, so I have changed the part about being a member of Opus Dei to allegations and some evidence.
More details:
:Ruth Kelly is a confessed member of Opus Dei I thought. The first source above in the text reads Ruth Kelly is a member of Opus Dei!!! I thought she was open with her membership of Opus Dei, but simply rejected the idea that it was a 'cult'? Matthewfelgate 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the proof of her membership...... I don't think this has ever been proven. Robertsteadman 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opus Dei Membership

message: I do not believe the comments regarding Kelly's actions re: approval of a teacher to the Hewett School in Norwich conform to NPOV.
Comments such as she thought she knew better have no basis in fact, and have not even been reported in the press. They seem to have been written by an angry Daily Mail reader with a chip on their shoulder. 
...well by the actions she took it does seem that she thought she knew better. 
I have added a paragraph on the other side of the problem of non convicted offenders being registered as offenders against children. I am not sure how to modify the rhetorical question in to a statement and capture the same meaning.
:Yeah.  This is a more more complex issue than is being portrayed by the media at the moment.  It's not even clear if she was personally involved - or when this decision was made.  My understanding is though that people who are cautioned have admitted the offence.  But of course, there's no figures on the number of people who wrongfully admit to offences to spare themselves the trauma of contesting a trial.  Morwen - Talk 11:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hewett School Controversy 

message: I've reinserted a comment about Ruth Kelly's remarkably deep voice. Whilst not suggesting that this is in any way important (which is why I put it in a "trivia" section), I do not believe it merits deletion. Trivia sections are fairly widely used across Wikipedia biographical articles to make mention of little factoids such as this. Kelly's voice is undeniably very deep (plenty of googlable sources out there on the web which remark on this). There is plenty of precedent for mentioning physical attributes of people in their biographical articles — William I of England & Henry VIII of England being two examples which spring to mind; I could add plenty of others but I'm being a bit lazy. No problem with deletion given a good reason, of course. Anyone? SP-KP 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not the slightest interest in getting into an edit war on this, but really, where is this going to end? Trivia sections which seek to enlarge the sum of human knowledge by informing their readers that "Charles Clarke has sticky-out ears", "John Prescott is fat", etc.? I think it demeans an article on a serving politician to include such stuff, except where it is demonstrably relevant (in which case it wouldn't be trivia, but integrated into the body of the article). I'll leave it for the moment, but I hope it will be thought inappropriate and quietly disappear. Vilcxjo 00:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought I'd check Charles Clarke and John Prescott. Although the former doesn't mention his sticky-out ears, there is a fine photo of them, so I guess there's no need. John Prescott's article doesn't mention his size, and the photo is quite flattering in this respect, so the article could include some mention of it, I guess — the topic often gets referred to (e.g. the recent story on the whale in the Thames, which I understand was originally thought by some to be the Deputy PM going for a swim), so probably worthy of inclusion. However, I think it would be wrong to say that Clarke's ears are particularly sticky-out or that Prescott is particularly fat. Kelly's voice however is particularly deep (i.e. down there with Brian Blessed, and not just a bit deep, like that of Ann Widdecombe), isn't it, or is it just me? SP-KP 09:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should stay. I also believe that "Rufus is a man" should be added to the trivia section. 195.93.21.33 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to be able to interpret the above comment as a constructive contribution to this discussion but that is very difficult given the way it is worded - would you like to have another try? SP-KP 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you are adding it to insinuate she's either a dyke or man, no? Secretlondon 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm afraid not. Could you tell me why you believe this to be the case? SP-KP 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to explain why this is of such great importance to you? Secretlondon 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try to answer this question. I wouldn't say it was of great importance to me at all. I have made many edits to Wikipedia, and would regard very few of them as important. I am merely expressing a view, as any editor is entitled to do, on whether a particular piece of information should or should not be included. My first contribution to this talk page above summarises why I think that this is a valid piece of information to include. As I hope I'm making clear, I'm very pleased to discuss this with anyone who disagrees. I'd be interested in hearing your arguments on why this piece of information should not appear in the article. SP-KP 20:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Its obviously not of great importance. Its in the Trivia section. Frelke 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The voice 

message: Does anyone have any evidence for the statement that "Kelly has ...championed the role of parents in the education system..." Certainly her latest foray into the influence of parents of the educational system (aka the white paper) doesn't show much of a champions role as far as parents are concerned.Frelke 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Champion of parents?

message: This message is a response to User:Robsteadman's request for a discussion on the subject of this page's trivia section priot to any reinsertion of the section, which Robsteadman has deleted. Further up this page are arguments for inclusion of this section - these summarise my current position on the issue. Very happy to discuss further. SP-KP 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I add my willingness to discuss further. I would suggest that in the absence of discussion the trivia should be returned to the article. Frelke 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I add the this is not only mentioned on Wikipedia. A quick Google will give a number of interesting references including a good Guardian article sowe are not just making it up. Frelke 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding the Guardian article to the External Links section? SP-KP 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I was the first to remove this Trivia item, but really couldn't be bothered arguing about it and walked away. Having just stopped by, I think the present edit by Frelke actually makes it a worthwhile contribution, indicating context and relevance. Even a Trivia item needs to be something relevant, rather than just a random thought - and now it is, so good! Vilcxjo 15:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: Citation needed on this line but also some mention that as with the likes of Shirley Willams (first female party leader/PM), Paul Boateng (first black leader/PM) being touted as such is usually the career kiss of death.Piersmasterson 14:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Party Leader 

message: I think this section is going to get very busy as time progresses. Can we agree some basics here and now? Firstly, if there is some proof or source that indicates that she actually does hold views prejeudiced against the LGBT community, that we cite them here. If not not, can we please stop hinting that she might. It is only conjecture in such circumstances. allegations that Ruth Kelly’s Catholicism might be considered incompatible with her role as Equality Minister need to be cited. Reports that some people have made such allegations is not a citation.
:Hi Frelke. I took this claim (by her critics) actually from the Cardinal's letter, though it doesn't contain the word "allegations". The press release of the letter on the archdiocesis' homepage  reads as follows:
:In a letter published in The Times on Thursday, May 11th, 2006, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has said that he is 'astonished that Ruth Kelly's Catholicism might be considered incompatible with her role as Equality Minister.' The full text of the Cardinal's letter can be found below.
:“I am astonished  that Ruth Kelly’s Catholicism might be considered incompatible with her new role as Equality Minister. The Catholic Church teaches that some actions are sinful, sexual acts outside marriage among them. St Thomas Aquinas taught that not every sin is necessarily a crime, and not every crime is necessarily a sin. From this stems the Church’s defence of human rights. Homosexual people are first of all persons, and have the same entitlement to legal rights as anyone else. The Church has consistently spoken out  against any discrimination against homosexual persons, and will continue to do so. Every politician needs to balance the demands of his or her conscience with the need for collective responsibility in Government. Ruth Kelly is finding that balance for herself. For this she deserves respect, not criticism. Ms Kelly may well be scrutinised for her fitness for office. That is a political judgement. But her Catholicism should not be a criterion in forming that judgement.'  --Túrelio 16:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her voting record (which is referred to in the article, and in the published sources referred to in the article) seems pretty clear.  She hasn't supported a single one of her party's homosexual equality and anti discrimination measures.  Chelseaboy 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of our key principles here is WP:AGF. Although she has not supported any of them, none were borderline votes. Absence of support does not mean opposition. It means she didn't support them. Full stop. I am quite happy to say she didn't support. I am not happy to twist that, in any shape or form, into opposition. Without evidence. If she wrote against, spoke against or marched against, then fine. But silence is not opposition. Perhaps she had better things to do than march through the lobbies on those evenings. She seems to like getting home early to the kids. Maybe she couldn't be bothered voting. I think Cormac's letter is more a defence of the RC position than of RK's. He never refers to allegations because - IMHO - there are none. There are suggestions of prejudice, but no proof. RK has been very careful. Have you read the Decca Aitkenhead bio? "Kelly's Commons voting record reveals no clear strategy for her negotiation of private faith and public policy. On most votes that overlap with explicitly Catholic concerns she has abstained. She was absent on maternity leave for the vote to repeal Clause 28. What her record cannot tell us is whether, in the privacy of her own conscience, she dissents from any Catholic strictures." Frelke 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are willing to assume good faith then we must be willing to consider the possibilty that she abstained from voting because the only way she could vote in all conscience, was against the line that her church takes. Frelke 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that make the point?  Your (interesting, if hypothetical suggestion) is that, in a conflict between her religious allegiance and her political responsibilities, she places her religious allegiance first.  Chelseaboy 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Its not. Its all hypothetical. We do not know why she didn't vote in those divisions. So we can't attribute motives to her actions. Abstentionism does not equal opposition. In fact it doesn't even equal a lack of support for a concept. It means she - very astutely IMHO - abstained from commiting herself one way or t'other. If she felt that her conscience would only allow a vote in favour, then maybe the reason she didn't was to not embarress her family. But as I said, I don't know, but neither do you. Only she knows for sure, and she is not saying. Frelke 09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why doesn't she say?  She has been asked many times, and she won't say.  You suggest this is astute - it cannot be insignificant.  Isn't the clear inference that she won't say because if she does she will get into the same trouble as Rocco Buttiglione? Chelseaboy 11:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why she doesn't say. Neither do you. It is not insignificant. I never suggested it was. But no, that is not the clear inference. It could be that in fact she holds very tolerant views which are at odds with her church's teachings. But I would welcome any evidence to the contrary. We must assume good faith. Frelke 12:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must assume good faith on the part of other editors, indeed - a wonderful policy!  We don't assume good faith in relation to the subjects of articles, we strive for neutral point of view.  Where a politician is concerned, this can include references to controversy surrounding them (including sources demonstrating the controversy), and a fair statement of both sides of the controversy.  I'm sure that is what we are all looking for here.  But I think I understand the point you are making.  Chelseaboy 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and equality issues

message: I changed the wording of the end of the Early Life paragraph, as I feel it is more accurate. Irish roots would apply to someone who's parents, grandparents or ancestors came from Ireland, but the person themself was born elsewhere. This is not the case with Kelly, who was born in Northern Ireland. Fergananim 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Roots to Irish background

message: I don't see exactly what the fuss is about her choice of names for her children. Eamonn, Sinead, Roisin and Niamh are all fairly popular Irish names; thus is it any supriseing that Kelly, as an Irish woman who has made her life and carrear abroad, should choose names reflective of her background? It is something that is quite common among immigrants of any nationality. Fergananim 09:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - it is irrelevent at best and simply nonsense at worst - the commen that there was a reason behind the names has no citation backing it up and should be removed. Robertsteadman 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Her children's names

message: I'm posting this section heading in the hope that those editors who have recently been disagreeing about some aspects of the content of this page (let's call it the "Irish" issue) will be willing to enter into a talk page discussion on the subject, as a potentially more fruitful way of addressing the issue than the current cycle of edit/revert. The proposed ground rules are:
a) that edits on the subject in question are not made to the article while the discussion is going on i.e. that when I kick the discussion off, the content of the article relating to that subject is left in its then state by participants in the discussion 
b) that we focus on the issue, and not on personalities, merits & demerits of individual editors' approaches or whether sockpuppetry is or isn't taking place
c) that I should try to act as an impartial mediator, but that if contributors feel that I am not acting in that manner, they are free to walk away without 'retribution', for want of a better word.
Please indicate your willingness to take part by signing below. SP-KP 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not off to a good start, are we :-) Remember rule (b) please. For the purposes of this discussion, I expect all editors, regardless of what they actually think themselves, to Assume Good Faith and regard the three of you (unless overwhelming evidence emerges to the contrary) as distinct individuals. As for stacking, please remember that this is a discussion, not a vote. Rob - hopefully you still feel comfortable and will be willing to join in? SP-KP 21:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving some issues with this article