Talk:Andrea Leadsom

Leadsom: alleged exaggeration on CV and balanced coverage

Andrea Leadsom's pre parliament cv includes Chief Investment Officer at Invesco Perpetual for 10 years from 1999. I was an employee of Perpetual from 1998 and then Invesco Perpetual from 2001 until 2014. I can state with certainty that this is emphatically untrue. Ms. Leadsom had no hands-on Investment management responsibilities. The CIO throughout that period and beyond was long time member of Perpetual's Investment management team Bob Yerbury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.226.78 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well if you have actual evidence of that with a citation from a reliable news source, great. Until then, we need to rely on sources suitable for an on-line encyclopedia, IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing our attention to this. I trust the update to her position based on her UK.Gov biography is correct Dtellett (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Over the last half hour Phillip Cross and I were editing the section about the alleged exaggerations on Leadsom's CV (in the Leadership campaign section). That became confusing as we were both making revisions at the same time. In any event, at this moment, my content is in place. Phillip might want to add to it if he feels it is missing something. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well two editors did revise my content toning down the smear campaign aspect and making it sound as if Leadsom is guilty; this coverage is less balanced! Peter K Burian (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Surely, for a balanced article, it is appropriate to include info from well-respected publications like The Guardian. I added that back to ensure balance. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, more nasty comments (added by NBeale) about Leadsom in another section:

Now, On 9 April 2014 Leadsom was appointed Economic Secretary to the Treasury following Maria Miller's resignation from the Cabinet. According to the Financial Times Her stint as City minister was seen by officials as “a disaster” ... "The worst minister we ever had" ... "She found it difficult to understand issues or take decisions, She was monomaniacal, seeing the EU as the source of every problem. She alienated officials by continually complaining about poor drafting.”cite news|last1=Mance|first1=Henry|title=Andrea Leadsom seeks to play down pro-EU comments|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5ec81170-4101-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html%7Caccessdate=6-7-2016%7Cpublisher=Financial Times|date=4-7-2016}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 July 2016‎

Quote: Guardian article is already referenced, doesn't say "smear campaign" ... Right. Wikipedia expects editors to paraphrase. I did that. The article does say part of an effort to trash [rubbish] her career, quoting Mourdant. Who writes the headlines and sub-titles for The Guardian? Is that relevant? Clearly the Editor agreed with both headline and sub-title. Clearly, The Guardian is interested in balancing the coverage or their headline would have said something like Leadsom Exaggerated CV ... instead, their slant is on Mourdant's statement that someone is trying to rubbish her career. How is that not relevant? Peter K Burian (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say that "smear campaign" is a bit stronger than "part of an effort to trash [rubbish] her career", because it implies making false accusations. The obvious solution is to just use the direct quote from Mourdant, which is what has been done. If you want to extrapolate from the Guardian's article that they agree with Mourdant, then that is up to you, but it shouldn't go on Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ledsom has now admitted that her claim to have been Director, Financial Institutions Group at Barclays is false and she was only Deputy Director. If this claim was made at the time of her election (and I believe it was) it is in fact a criminal offence under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/106>. There is now no dispute that she falsified her CV - it is up to others to judge the significance of this fact but we cannot suppress it. Nor can we describe it as a "smear campaign" when it is admitted by her to be true. NBeale (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for pointing out this info. She was not honest in her claims of senior financial job responsibilities. I have added that to the article, with The Guardian citation. However, she did not admit that anything was "false" as the previous edit suggested. It was a matter of the facts (published CV) not jibing with claims she had previously made. That is not the same as admitting that something was false. We need to be careful in that respect.

Leadsom’s CV has raised a number of further questions because it omits some company directorships, alters existing claims and fails to clear up question marks over sections of her City career. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/06/andrea-leadsoms-cv-prompts-new-questions-about-career Peter K Burian (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And the FT now does report people as saying this was a "smear campaign" (without endorsing their view). Interestingly her official website still has the false claim that she was Financial Institutions Director. <http://www.andrealeadsom.com/home/biography> NBeale (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased coverage

I keep trying to add a citation that balances the coverage from a highly reliable publication, The Guardian. Someone keeps deleting it, retaining only the content that makes Leadsom look like a liar. Is that reasonable in an on-line encyclopedia? Not in my view. Request for Mediation to follow. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As I and others have said in edit summaries, you are adding a citation that is already in the article just above it, and adding the phrase "smear campaign", which is not in the article. Please justify why that is necessary before trying to re-add the content or requesting mediation, which should only occur after extensive talk page discussion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Retaining a citation (a tiny blue number to readers - most of whom will never read the article)does not balance the coverage. Deleting all of the info from The Guardian article is ensuring that the only remaining sections are from articles that suggest Leadsom is lying.

Repeat: Wikipedia expects editors to paraphrase not constantly quote articles. I did that. Someone does not like my paraphrasing; fine; change it instead of deleteing the entire content from The Guardian.

You might notice that I am the one who first added a section about the Times allegations re: her CV. I quoted the Times and the Independent. The coverage did not seem balanced. Then, I found the Guardian article which did balance it. Perfect! Until it keeps getting deleted.

requesting mediation, which should only occur after extensive talk page discussion. So, this is that extensive discussion. Excellent. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I will wait to see what other major, highly-respected, news sources cover this issue later. Then, I will add that. Hopefully, that will help to provide balanced coverage. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You realise that Mourdant is quoted in the article, so not it is not true to say that "all of the info from The Guardian article" has been deleted. In fact the only positive bit of the Guardian article was Mourdant's quote, and that is what is in the Wikipedia article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Was anyone planning to add info that balances this highly inflammatory coverage? Now, On 9 April 2014 Leadsom was appointed Economic Secretary to the Treasury following Maria Miller's resignation from the Cabinet. According to the Financial Times Her stint as City minister was seen by officials as “a disaster” ... "The worst minister we ever had" ... "She found it difficult to understand issues or take decisions, She was monomaniacal, seeing the EU as the source of every problem. She alienated officials by continually complaining about poor drafting.”cite news|last1=Mance|first1=Henry|title=Andrea Leadsom seeks to play down pro-EU comments|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5ec81170-4101-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html%7Caccessdate=6-7-2016%7Cpublisher=Financial Times|date=4-7-2016}}

Our job at Wikipedia is not to introduce false balance, just because there is an article which shows someone in a bad light does not mean we need to add balancing positive coverage. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Does no one else disagree with the above? Here's what I mean by lack of balance that I sometimes see and what troubles me: Someone does a google search on a topic; he finds 12 articles about it from respected sources. He then selects the one that is the most negative and critical and adds a section to Wikipedia quoting only that one. Ignoring the other 11 that might provide balance. According to Absolutelypuremilk that is perfectly fine for an encyclopedia. (I doubt it's fine for the Encyclopedia Britannica so why is it acceptable for Wikipedia?) Peter K Burian (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, what happened here was that there were many sources which were negative, and only one (the Guardian, ignoring the Telegraph which was posted after this discussion) which was positive. In this case, giving equal weight to the Guardian article on one side and to all the other sources on the other side would have introduced false balance, because most sources were negative. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Here's the Telegraph's take on the issue Judging by this morning's headlines, there's an attempt being made to rubbish Andrea Leadsom. Allegations she massaged her qualifications in the financial world have been vigorously denied by her team. They're also being asked to explain comments she made on her blog about homosexuality, and questions are being asked about her religious beliefs. . is trashing Mrs Leadsom's reputation the canniest thing to do? The danger is: if it looks like fellow MPs are attacking her, she'll be given the plucky underdog, scourge-of-the-establishment badge that modern politicians crave.

So, some May supporters know they've got to tread carefully, while others don't think Mrs Leadsom's the real enemy anyway. They trust the grassroots to steer clear of her inexperience. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the Telegraph coverage to the article to balance the coverage. Not all media lambaste Leadsom. And the Telegraph agrees that there has been a "smear campaign" although they do not use that term (so I did not either when making that revision). Peter K Burian (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that the Telegraph has commented, it is appropriate to add it, and thank you for doing so. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the Telegraph quote and assuming that it is not deleted, I am satisfied that we have balanced coverage now. The Daily Telegraph surveyed the coverage of Leadsom by other media on 6 July 2016 and provided the following comment: "Judging by this morning's headlines, there's an attempt being made to rubbish Andrea Leadsom. Allegations she massaged her qualifications in the financial world have been vigorously denied by her team. They're also being asked to explain comments she made on her blog about homosexuality, and questions are being asked about her religious beliefs."[48] Peter K Burian (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

UPDATED THE ARTICLE ... She was not honest in her claims of senior financial job responsibilities. I have added that to the article, with The Guardian citation. Her CV now confirms that some previous claims of senior (or many years of) responsibilities were exaggerated.

Leadsom’s CV has raised a number of further questions because it omits some company directorships, alters existing claims and fails to clear up question marks over sections of her City career. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/06/andrea-leadsoms-cv-prompts-new-questions-about-career

The overall impression of this article is that it's an attack piece - going on at length about criticisms and allegations and hardly mentioning achievements. Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What achievements do you think that the article has missed or not given enough coverage to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that at times the content did seem overly negative about Leadsom. That's why I had insisted on adding sections with citations from other media that were more favourable, to provide balanced coverage. But right now, I feel that it is balanced, after I added her response to allegations about her CV. (I cannot imagine Wikipedia ignoring that issue; it just needs to be presented in a balanced manner, in my view. Perhaps the negative content about her CV could be condensed, however.)Peter K Burian (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How can we protect this article?

Someone (89.240.201.233) added specific information with absolutely no citation. I deleted both items he had added. Content such as this MUST have citations from highly respected media sources. QUOTE 1: The hedge fund paid £70,000 for a member of staff in her Westminster office after her election in 2010, and also paid £670,000 to the Conservative Party. She was a leader of the 'fresh start' group of Eurosceptic, anti-regulation MPs to which the hedge fund gave $680,000.

QUOTE 2 (the next edit he made)In 2005 she handed control of her and her husband's buy-to-let company, which currently holds £1.6m worth of property, to her young children through an inheritance tax-efficient trust arrangement, so avoiding UK tax. Is there some method to protect this article so only registered, recognized users can edit it? Peter K Burian (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No responsibility for balanced coverage?

Absolutelypuremilk posted this comment: Our job at Wikipedia is not to introduce false balance, just because there is an article which shows someone in a bad light does not mean we need to add balancing positive coverage.

Does no one else disagree with the above? Here's what I mean by lack of balance that I sometimes see and what troubles me: Someone does a google search on a topic; he finds 12 articles about it from respected sources. He then selects the one that is the most negative and critical and adds a section to Wikipedia quoting only that one. Ignoring the other 11 that might provide balance. According to Absolutelypuremilk that should be perfectly fine for Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopaedia. (I doubt it's fine for the Encyclopaedia Britannica so why is it acceptable for Wikipedia?) Peter K Burian (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Article in The Guardian about Wikipedia's coverage of Leadsom:Here in The Guardian. They have found this edit from 30 May 2015 and the subsequent revert. It is also in The Sun here. ... I wonder if The Guardian will agree with me that balanced coverage of controversial topics is important. (Assuming their reporter reads the TALK items.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We should show the balance from Reliable Sources. And we should not quote headlines and esp. sub-headlines because they are NOT what the journalist wrote and are often highly misleading in relation to the (newspaper) article as a whole. NBeale (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

When you read a newspaper, or read it on-line, the Headline and sub-head are prominently displayed. I don't understand how that can be "highly misleading". A senior Editor of the publication would revise that if he did not agree that it was fully suitable.Peter K Burian (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, we need to be careful not to cite questionable sources such as the so-called Guido Fawkes that you had cited (http://order-order.com/2016/07/05/leadsoms-old-blog-a-little-old-school/) That can put the credibility of the Wikipedia article at risk. And such sources are not always accurate. You cannot go wrong with (Reliable sources as you said): The Times, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC, and other highly-respected sources. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is in the news

Here in The Guardian. They have found this edit from 30 May 2015 and the subsequent revert. It is also in The Sun here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting! So, we watch the media and they watch Wikipedia. May not be a bad thing. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me a bit of the Hillsborough disaster, where someone at the Liverpool Echo must have spent an inordinate amount of time going through the history of the article and looking for old vandal edits from IP addresses, most of which were reverted quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I always wonder why Wikipedia allows unregistered, anonymous people from editing encyclopedia articles. Quote: The changes were made by an unregistered user, with an IP address in Towcester, which is in Leadsom’s constituency of South Northamptonshire. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if The Guardian will agree that we editors have a responsibility to provide balanced coverage of controversial topics? (Assuming their reporter reads the TALK items.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We do of course have various policies on biographies of living people. If the edit was by a local supporter of Leadsom, there's surely nothing improper in that? Moonraker (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP address itself is not a smoking gun, but the style and tone of the edit suggest that it may have been made by someone connected to Leadsom. This would be seen as a conflict of interest unless the edit was obvious vandalism. The correct way to handle this type of situation is to raise the matter on the talk page or at the BLP Noticeboard. I'm not sure that this needs mentioning in the article at the moment per WP:RECENTISM, but somebody is likely to add it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There are biased people everywhere including in the area of Leadsom's riding. Some biased in favour of Leadsom and some biased against her. But when someone makes controversial edits as a totally anonymous person, it does raise suspicions. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This also happened with Chuka Umunna's Wikipedia article but again it came back to suspicions of COI rather than a smoking gun. Contrary to what the media says, it is very hard to prove for sure who made a particular edit, although the style and tone of edits can set off suspicions that it was a person linked to the subject of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As for "why Wikipedia allows unregistered, anonymous people from editing encyclopedia articles" - I do believe that on balance, it's more good than bad. Many registered editors started out as IP editors. Many IP edits are good edits, and to shut those off would mean a smaller pool of editors doing good work. The IPs doing bad work get routed fairly quickly. And consider this - if that particular edit had been made from a registered account, no one would ever have known that the edit came from Towcester. A curious side benefit. Rockypedia (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

From personal experience, people with an apparent conflict of interest in a political BLP are just as likely to edit from a registered account (sometimes even a staffer openly using their name) as from an IP address. IMHO COI editing of politicians' sites happens a lot more than it's picked up by newspapers as well, and isn't always without justification. As for the edit on Leadsom's page which I reverted, it probably was someone connected to Leadsom judging from their confidence in the HMRC's view of her tax affairs, but there's no particular reason to believe it was done on her initiative or even with her knowledge. Dtellett (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "Questions about her credibility" right?

The main discussion of falsification of her CV is entitled "Questions about her credibility". But I wonder if this is quite right? Other questions have been raised about her credibility, this is something rather more specific. NBeale (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a thinly disguised form of criticism section and it is discouraged in a biography of a living person. The material should be presented in a more neutral way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue is covered by all the major newspapers. btw, I have been striving for the most neutral coverage of Leadsom and even I agree this content is necessary. I suppose we could condense it significantly if it really is "thinly disguised criticism". But is there consensus to do so? (Not just from Leadsom supporters)? Peter K Burian (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of typing I suspect most of it belongs in the "leadership campaign" section, particularly as some of the comments also allude to other criticisms of Leadsom. But it seems you're in the process of making that move Dtellett (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

♦IanMacM♦ could you suggest an alternative title for the section? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

New title for that section: Alleged exaggeration of job responsibilities .. in light of the suggestion that it was "thinly disguised criticism". Peter K Burian (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

AND in light of the allegation of thinly disguised form of criticism section, I revised the article, adding the full quote of Leadsom denying the exaggeration of her CV. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Things look better now. Properly sourced criticism is OK, but lumping it all into one section with a title like "Criticism/controversy" is discouraged by the relevant guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting that even the Telegraph, which up till now has been the most favourable newspaper to Leadsom, is now running a piece "In such challenging times, Andrea Leadsom is not the heavyweight Britain needs" by its former City reporter Juliet Samuel, filed this morning, that will presumably appear in tomorrow's paper. Some highlights:

"I covered the City as a reporter for five years during the period when Ms Leadsom was on the Treasury Select Committee. I covered many hearings during that time and I often found her questions imprecise, provocative and unhelpful. They seemed like grandstanding rather than forensic examination aimed at catching out a witness." ...
"none [of the people in the corporate governance field] I called had heard of Ms Leadsom before the recent campaign. “As far as the City is concerned, she is the invisible woman,” said one mystified source." ...
citing Robert Stephens: "“She didn’t run teams of people or billions in money... She had a desk outside the chief investment officer’s private office and worked on special projects for him. She was part-time.” Nothing in her role could be described as “senior investment officer” or “head of corporate governance”, he said. She managed no one." ...
"Ms Leadsom has not been straightforward about her skills and experience. She has allowed a misconception to exist and in some cases, seems to have encouraged it. The second, more important reason [this matters] is that without the City back story, it’s clear she has a worrying lack of preparation for the top job."

Quite a hit piece, that wouldn't have been run if the Telegraph hadn't felt it had been taken in. Jheald (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

BUT Samuel's rant is clearly labeled OPINION... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/07/07/in-such-challening-times-andrea-leadsom-is-not-the-heavyweight-b/ It's not the newspaper's official position, just an OpEd. I would not cite this article. I did cite Nick Robinson's comment about Leadsom's lack of experience, although it was getting close to criticism section. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia discourages criticism, criticism section why did we have a heading Criticism. I just changed that to Controversies. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Born in 1963?

Wandering off topic, she was born in 1963
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people definitely look older than their age - a lot of bald football players come to mind, like Attilio Lombardo or Yordan Letchkov. But Mrs. Leadsom seems to push the limits. She looks much older than 53 here or here or here or here, or, in fact, anywhere. Does her birth certificate really bear the date "1963" and not "1953"? (No, it is not sexist to ask). Edelseider (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC) If she graduated from Oxford in 1987 and she was in fact born in 1953, that would make her 34 years old in the former year, and she would be hitting 40 when she married in 1993 BEFORE her children arrived (when was her youngest born?). It would help if someone can date her university career's start.Cloptonson (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC) According to UK birth records available online, Andrea J Salmon was born in Aylesbury in 1963.[1] That pretty much settles it. Also, if she was lying about this, it's almost certain that the media would have found out by now, given the amount of research they have been doing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Thank you. Yes, that settles it, but it raises another question. How come that she looks so old? The un-youthful hairstyle, make-up and wardrobe are obviously her choice. But the wrinkles and exhausted features are not! Is she suffering from continuous, excessive stress or something like that? --Edelseider (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)--Edelseider (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) It's off topic unless reliable sources mention it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ... and editors on this page should be aware of the need not to contravene WP:BLP policy, even on such matters as physical appearance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Don't know about her age, but her maiden name sounds a bit fishy. Peteinterpol (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC) No more fishy than sturgeon but a bit more fishy than salmond. Thincat (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we need a separate heading for Interviews and Media Reactions?

Absolutelypuremilk added that sub-heading within the leadership campaign section a few minutes ago. Why is that necessary? There is no such sub-heading in the Michael Gove or Theresa May articles. I suggest deleting that heading and leaving that content under the Leadership Election heading. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it splits up the section better and makes it more readable. If you think the section header is unnecessary, then I think we should merge the one sentence paragraphs into longer ones, as I did but you reverted. This is how the Theresa May#2016 Conservative leadership election and Michael Gove#Candidate for Conservative Party leader sections are laid out. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, the May article has a sub-head, Personal Idealogy, within the Leadership campaign section; I really don't believe that fits into that section at all. It is a more general concept that is only incidental to the campaign. I might do some more work on that article too. Let's see what others say about the sub-head in the Leadsom article. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we be removing questionable comments about Leadsom from the TALK page?

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've hatted this, it was wandering off topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Now that this page is so high-profile, might I suggest that we make it semi-protected to prevent vandalism as seen today? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the amount of vandalism. Simply being high profile is not enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

A "controversy" section should generally not be used for BLPs, as per WP:COATRACK. I think it would be much better to fit them in chronologically to the rest of the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and there is also some WP:RECENTISM going on in the article. In twelve months' time, the finer details of the controversy over Leadsom's leadership bid will not be worth the amount of weight and length that they are being given at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Times transcript partial, not complete

Which it was in all the no pay wall citations, personally have no access to the newspaper. Plus the Leadsom team called for the whole transcript to be published apparently to show how unrepresentative the selective quote was. Cpsoper (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a full transcript of the relevant comments. Do you have a source for that? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Leadsom team asked for a full transcript, not one of the questions. It was a tweet, although there may have been other requests. Cpsoper (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a tweet, could you link to it? In any case, I don't see why the full transcript would make a difference? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Titled Andrea Leadsom, it asked in reply to Sylvester's tweet about the audio being released, 'where is the rest of it?' - sorry can't find it, I'm still hopeless with twitter. I see her feed has more recently retweeted Mensch's claim Kamm acknowledges the rest of the transcript may be significant, 'The Times are now admitting that on unreleased audio, @AndreaLeadsom says that motherhood has no bearing on Tory leadership contest.'Sorry can't link it, pinned to Mensch's feed. [2] So the question of a partial release is still material (at least for today!). Cpsoper (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/751555183784579072 Ah here it is. Well that was already in the released transcript, where she said that she didnt want it to be an issue, but.... Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, I had the impression that an obsessive pursuit to find something controversial related to family and children would be unmasked by the full transcript, but not by a selected portion. Cpsoper (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks by the way. Cpsoper (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Huffington tabloid - really?

I'm not a Huffington advocate, but if HP is a tabloid what about the so called broadsheets that aren't so broad any longer, they seem to be at the same level of semi-professional journalistic comment. On what grounds has the citation of HP been removed? The latest Times article famed for its characteristic detachment and nuanced journalistic objectivity was after all sub-titled 'Andrea Leadsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign'. Times change. Cpsoper (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Broadsheet newspapers never have been or never will be remotely close to "objective" in their coverage. They do however tend to be rigorous in their sourcing and selective about what they'll publish. Self-described "News aggregator and blog" the Huffington Post is neither of those things. Dtellett (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Huffington Post isn't on my list of preferred sources for a Wikipedia article, and neither is International Business Times. They are typically using churnalism to recycle news material found elsewhere, or news aggregator to give it the full technical name. As the saying goes, Speak to the organ grinder not the monkey.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair comment, however in this instance, the article is not recycled or resourced. Chris Wimpress, a former political editor wrote the piece, and gave an independent assessment of the proceedings. Where else will you find the judgement, 'She was the only person on the committee to know how important the role of the desk supervisors on a bank trading floor is. Her questions revealed that these supervisors also did nothing about the Libor-rigging'? It's as RS as any ordinary hack, in fact it's seems considerably less tendentious than what passes for journalism elsewhere. Cpsoper (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail and FCA Website are Reliable Sources

Absolutelypuremilk keeps tagging references to the Daily Mail and the FCA website with "Better source needed". But claiming the Daily Mail is a "tabloid" is not a valid reason under the relevant policy for disregarding it as a source. And in the case of a claim that "the FSA website says X" the appropriate ref is the FSA website where is says X. I have for my sins been Editing Wikipedia for just over 10 years. If anyone wants to tag these again can web discuss here rather than reverting. NBeale (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

We do have WP:DAILYMAIL especially linked. Also it is usually not sensible to rely on registers such as the FSA - principally, there's little guarantee it's the same person. I'll wager there are better sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that's not a policy it's just an essay. I agree that the Mail is often biased and occasionally highly misleading, but it is (for better or worse) a very serious newspaper and is definitely a WP:RS NBeale (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A search at WP:RSN will bring up some differing opinions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Mail's coverage of the entire EU referendum issue has been exceptionally biases, they clearly don't have an NPOV here. It is a source that should be used with caution. Shritwod (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." From the WP:BLPSOURCES section of WP:BLP. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Black ops allegation

Have added a section, given IDS' allegation, in response to comments about criticisms being given undue weight in the media. As I write Ruth Lea has echoed them on R4, the motherhood spat, being 'blown out of all proportion'. Since the CV issues are contested I have also added 'alleged', per BLP. Cpsoper (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This section ought to be discussed here before its summary removal. I have added further comment from the Telegraph today. Cpsoper (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please spell out to me carefully why 'sic' is needed here. Cpsoper (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Motherhood comments should be mentioned in lead

There have been numerous reports[3][4] that she withdrew from the leadership contest because of the motherhood controversy, and more particularly because of the harsh criticism of her in the media (including conservative newspapers) and from fellow party members. Virtually an unknown before her candidacy, she has mainly become known for two issues, her fraudulent CV and the motherhood controversy, which ultimately led her to withdraw. This is not a trivial issue, but merits inclusion in the lead, as an important (apparently the main) factor in her withdrawal. As The Sun sums it up (I'm not personally a fan of The Sun, but apparently she is, and counted on their support): "She was ridiculed by fellow Tory MPs for her hustings performance, ex-colleagues questioned key parts of her CV, and her slur on Theresa May having no children drew wide condemnation."[5] --Tataral (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead is already too long for Leadsom's short career and campaign, and the motherhood comments already have far too much detail in the article proper. The Sun has no place in biographies of living people on Wikipedia, period. Dtellett (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I have trimmed the lead. It should be a summary of the article, not an in-depth discussion of one particular issue just because it is recent. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your strawman comment about The Sun (whose inclusion in this article I have not advocated anywhere, as everyone who read my comment are aware). And no, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead is not too long. The motherhood controversy is not "one particular issue," but a key point in her biography and the main reason for her withdrawal from the leadership contest (for which she is mainly known). --Tataral (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See the new Talk topic Leadsom's gaffes do not warrant coverage in the Intro section Peter K Burian (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do I still feel that this article's tone is critical of Leadsom?

Hmmm ... I edited this article, including Leadsom's reasons for quitting the race. Then, my friend Absolutelypuremilk immediately removed that content from the first section, ending that with the following:

but withdrew from the contest before this could happen. She had come under criticism for misrepresenting or exaggerating her professional experience.

The reader is now left with the impression that she had misrepresented. Well, that may be true - although exaggeration is a more accurate assessment - but should that be the final thought in this section? Sure, he then added the deleted content to a new section about her resignation but not everyone who accesses this page will go all the way down to that section.

I am revising it so the intro includes her reason. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That last sentence was already in there, I thought about removing it as well but decided that it was notable on its own, not just in relation to her withdrawal. I am happy with your revision. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we now agree that the intro needs mention of both her exaggerating her experience AND her stated reason for quitting. Both are essential and I would not remove either. But sure, the intro was too long when it included so much content about her statement and the opinion that she had resigned because of "abuse". Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

However, someone else feels that the last thought to be left in the reader's mind is that she was criticized for exaggerating her experience. I don't agree but it seems that more editors are of that view than of my view as to how the intro should conclude. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My view is that the comments about exaggerating her experience should not be in the lead, but until I came to this talk page I assumed that there was a consensus to include them. If they are included in the lead, there should also be a reference to her comments about motherhood, which have proved to be at least as significant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

For balanced coverage, I believe we need to include both her stated reason for resigning and the criticism she was under; I'm convinced that was an important reason for her resignation, as hinted by the BBC quote in the Resignation section. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Should this speculation be included in the Resignation section? Earlier The Sunday Times had reported rumours that up to 20 Tory MPs would quit the party if Leadsom won the leadership contest. Where is this information coming from; is the source reliable? Have other media reported this?? Peter K Burian (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC) ADDING THIS COMMENT 30 MINUTES LATER: Yes, it should be included now that other highly-respected media are also quoting that. e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/if-andrea-leadsom-had-won-the-conservative-party-would-have-beco/ At the weekend, it was reported that up to 20 Tory MPs could have left the party if Leadsom had won, such was the alarm that her candidacy was picking up support in the grassroots (Leadsom had come top in a poll of activists for ConservativeHome last week). Nick Boles, Michael Gove’s campaign manager and one of the Tories’ leading modernisers, vociferously denied being among those considering quitting. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) For clarity - are you talking about the main text (in which case I agree) or the opening paragraphs (in which case I think including the reasons is unnecessary). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources tend to agree that the CV revelations and the motherhood controversy were both important factors in her withdrawal, and both should be included. In fact, without them, the lead would become meaningless and fail to explain to readers why on earth she suddenly withdrew from the leadership contest, despite doing reasonably well. It would make absolutely no sense without this crucial part of the story[6] --Tataral (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree Tatara. The lede needs to be balanced with both the criticism she was under and her stated reason for quitting. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The introduction is a summary - simply stating that she did this, then she did that, is all that is necessary. The explanation should be in the main text, not the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, not everyone agrees with you Ghmyrtle

I am trying to find who agrees with Ghmyrtle who is convinced that mention of the criticism she was under should be deleted from the introduction. Anyone? Peter K Burian (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am of the view that the final paragraph of the lede should include 1) the criticism she was under and 2) her stated reason for quitting. At this moment, 1) had been deleted by someone.

The Resignation section should include the comment from the BBC article about the abuse she was feeling and a longer quote from Leadsom's resignation statement, in my view. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a summary of her point of view or a one-sided account of just what she did. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section explains, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." --Tataral (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tataral for that info ("including any prominent controversies") and for revising the intro to include the brief mention of the criticism Leadsom was under.

I see this situation heading for Mediation since an edit war seems to have started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation

The three-revert rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

Policy shortcut: •WP:3RR

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of edit warring - there is an ongoing discussion. But, I don't agree with Tataral that the reference to her CV should be included in the lead without also mentioning her comments on motherhood - which have proved more significant. There is also no need for citations (any citations, let alone four on a single point) in the lead, so long as they are referenced in the main text. We should also be aware of WP:RECENTISM - the leadership challenge should certainly be mentioned in the lead, but just because it is prominent at the moment does not mean that it should dominate the lead of this article in perpetuity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleting content added by other editors (re the criticism she was under) and forcing others to revert it is how edit wars start. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD - what's the problem? Where do you think I have "forced" anyone to do anything? WP:AGF please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Just another !vote for including the CV controversy stuff. This is well sourceable, particularly the interview with her past employer. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees it should be included in the article. The disagreement seems to me to be over what is included in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Dingley...at this moment, I can find only a single person on this Talk page who believes that the criticism sentence should be deleted from the intro section. I believe in balanced coverage and that means including the criticism she was under in the intro (reported by numerous well-respected media) as well as her stated reason for resigning. (AND including the BBC quote - in the Resignation section - that she felt she was under abuse because of all the criticism.) At this moment, the article seems well-balanced in my estimation. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The point I will try to make, yet again, is that if a statement is made like - "She had come under criticism for exaggerating her professional experience" - it should go on to mention (briefly, without any citations as they are unnecessary in the lead) that she was criticised for her comments about motherhood. Although in my view it is unnecessary to include either statement in the lead, it would be much better balanced if both criticisms were included. It was the "motherhood" comments that torpedoed her campaign, not the issue of her CV - so, in that sense, the current lead is unbalanced and misleading. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section ... "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Peter K Burian (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The controversy caused by her apparent exaggeration of her experience is significant to the Leadsom article. (Whether it was a reason for her resignation or not.) Dozens of major newspapers around the world were reporting that issue. How could the article's intro ignore it? This was definitely an important controversy. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I scan ten major daily newspapers each day: in the UK, in Canada and in the USA. The motherhood issue was lightly reported. It was just the last straw in the "abuse" that Leadsom was feeling. The primary controversy - very heavily reported worldwide - was about her work experience. But if you added a phrase about the motherhood controversy in the intro - and more specifics in the Resignation section - I would support that addition. Balanced coverage = including both positive and negative aspects that have been extensively covered by the highly-respected news media. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The CV issue doesn't belong in the lede section, certainly not as a standalone comment. We don't normally include in-depth speculation over reasons for resigning in the lede: that's what the article proper is for. The intrigue over her CV and job responsibilities was one of many reasons why she was criticised as a candidate, and arguably the least significant and proximate to her resignation. We don't establish significance by number of daily newspapers mentioned, and the motherhood comments certainly weren't "lightly reported". Like the misleading claims on Iain Duncan Smith's CV, or minor expenses claim issues with many other UK politicians, it doesn't belong in a BLP lede on its own merit either Dtellett (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine; I added the motherhood controversy to the lede. Repeat I scan ten major daily newspapers each day: in the UK, in Canada and in the USA. The motherhood issue was lightly reported. Brief articles vs. long, very detailed analyses about her actual work experience vs. her claimed experience. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Re this version, I'm OK with it not being mentioned directly in the lead. I would like to see more specific content in the main section, and better sourcing. We should write a complete article, not require the reader to look elsewhere too. The accusation is specific that she was part of a team, but nut managing funds and not managing staff. We should go that far, in the article.

I also feel that if we don't use more of the sources easily available to us today, this section will be removed in a year or two as "poorly sourced".

It is a pretty damning accusation if the (potential) PM has claimed experience they do not have, both because it removes their claim of experience but mostly because it speaks to their trustworthiness. This is important and it is also, for once, adequately sourceable. I would also be happy to see the motherhood comments covered. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Within the UK media (notably in TV coverage, to which I assume you lack access), her comments on being a mother received more widespread publicity, and certainly generated far more controversy, than questions over her CV. Adding a brief mention of that to the lead would be a slight improvement on what is there now - but it would be much better if the purported reasons for her withdrawal were not mentioned in that section at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(There is a full section about the motherhood issue.) However, I added a mention of the motherhood controversy in the Resignation section too, including her claim of gutter journalism. All of this has been well reported by The Guardian. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I also scan the BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/uk site daily. That site provides links of video clips from their newscasts. In addition to background info and analyses. But yes, most of the knowledge I get is from newspapers such as The Guardian and The Telegraph and the New York Times.Peter K Burian (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a very simple reason why this stuff doesn't belong in the lead, and that's that it's near impossible to adequately summarise without giving it undue weight. And no, volume of recent news coverage is not an indication that it deserves a lot of weight, per WP:NOTNEWS The current version:

She had come under criticism for exaggerating her professional experience and for claiming that "having children was one factor that gave her a personal interest in the future of the country."

consists of a POV statement framed as fact - I've adjusted that to avoid the BLP violation - and the fact she was criticised for a quote that completely misses the important context of whether it was offensive to Theresa May. The other problem is that it's highly selective: other relevant context to her resignation was the fact she was miles behind in the polls and she lacked experience, which was far more significant to her inability to win nominations than the adverse publicity which followed. Dtellett (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We now have balanced coverage, in my estimation

A lot of discussion in the previous Talk section and a lot of revisions. At this moment, I believe the article has balanced coverage, including the controversies, Leadsom's reply, her feeling that she is being "abused" by the media, and her stated (logical) reasons for resigning. Whether subsequent revisions will change this remains to be seen. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As always. Discussion is normal, and nothing especially untoward has taken place here. But, we still do not need eleven citations in the lead. In fact, we need none - all the relevant citations are in the body of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are now too many citations in the lede, but we DO need citations here, as in any section of an article. (For example, the David Cameron article has eight citations in the intro section. The Theresa May article has nine in the intro.) Peter K Burian (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Leadsom's comments on men and childcare

Tataral has contested the removal of these rather dubious allegations about Leadsom's view on men in childcare, from an interview that has been heavily criticised as being an "assassination" by several sources. Without the as yet unreleased full transcript of this interview it's difficult to know how representative and contextual this statement is. I would appreciate discussion rather than a banning threat, esp as I find my way round wiki by mobile. I think as it stands the section violates BLP and should be modified or removed. Frankly I fear Tataral may have a degree of conflict of interest having worked for EU commission till recently, no doubt feeling sore about Brexit and I am more interested in other editors' views. For clarity, I have no connection to Leadsom and am not even a member of her or any other party. PeterRobertson7

(talk) 21:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

yes we need absolute impartiality. However I am finding quite a few sources confirming the pedophile comments including ITV and The Times. As a Canadian I am also impartial. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So far I'm seeing this reported by several tabloids, as well as the Evening Standard and PoliticsHome. Right now I am tempted to wonder if it's a case of her being given enough rope, as it were, but we should include it if it gets significant coverage in quality sources. This is Paul (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

My Google search also found full coverage of this issue in The Times and the ITV site. Peter K Burian

I've searched a bit further and found The Independent and The Herald, which are also good sources. This is Paul (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the Evening Standard the comments come from an interview she gave to The Times during the leadership contest (no word on whether they were bundled in with her motherhood remarks, but I guess it's possible). I'm no fan of the woman, and once again, the comments demonstrate her lack of experience, but this does look like a continuation of what went on last weekend. This is Paul (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The comments were only published by The Times this week and after her appointment to the cabinet, so the controversy over them is new. They have received a large amount of media coverage – the main reason she has been in the news following her appointment to cabinet has in fact been these comments – and are clearly worth mentioning. --Tataral (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that I changed the heading of this discussion from "Paedophile allegations", which seems like an inappropriate and somewhat misleading heading for this discussion, to "Leadsom's comments on men and childcare". Someone just reading the heading or table of contents could easily get the impression that we were discussing such allegations against her or some other specific person, which is obviously not the case; the issue at hand is not a specific allegation of paedophilia, but rather her views on men's role in childcare. --Tataral (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See the new Talk topic Leadsom's gaffes do not warrant coverage in the Intro section for a continued discussion about handling criticism of Leadsom. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Leadsom's gaffes do not warrant coverage in the Intro section

Yes, she has made some comments that have been widely criticized: about motherhood and about men being more likely to be paedophiles. Aside from exaggerating her business experience. All of this needs to be covered in the article. But in the greater scheme of things, are these adequately important to be discussed in the lede? Yes, they made the headlines for a few days but they are not serious or permanent enough to be discussed in the intro of an encyclopedia article about Leadsom.

I will revise the article to move those topics to the section about her leadership bid. That was the time in her career that they made the news. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made the edit. Removed the controversy discussion from the Intro and moved it to the Leadership Race section; in truth, that section already covered them but I beefed up that coverage with extra citations. I also moved the paedophile discussion from the Cabinet minister section to the leadership race section since those comments had been made at that time, on 6 July. (They just got publicity after Leadsom was appointed to the Cabinet, but were made much earlier. And they were dismissed by Theresa May as irrelevant on 15 July.)

The vague comment in the previous text about someone calling for Leadsom's resignation (after the paedophile comments were published) also had to be clarified. Who was calling for it? A handful of MPs from opposition parties. Such MPs often call for Cabinet ministers to be sacked, but Prime Ministers almost never do so. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am waiting to see the reaction of This is Paul about my edits. He has been a proponent of impartial reporting about Leadsom. I hope he agrees that the criticism of her comments made during the leadership race must be covered in this article, but not in the lede section.

Besides, the lede had covered only the exaggeration of her CV and the motherhood comments; it did not mention the paedophile comments and resultant criticism - why not? IF we decide that criticism about Leadsom's comments do belong in the lede, then every aspect of the criticism should be there. (Of course, I strongly believe that such content belongs in the Leadership race section instead, where it is the most relevant. I have moved it to that section already.) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with you, Peter. All this stuff shouldn't be in the lede, unless she makes a habit of making controversial remarks, in which case we could briefly mention it. My feeling though is she'll probably be more careful about what she says in future, so covering it in the main text should be enough. This is Paul (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone added this to the Black Ops section: Other commentators have described her treatment by the media as 'bullying' and 'feral'.[79] Conservative Home. 2016-07-08. ........ But the source is Conservative Home. Is that considered to be a reliable media source?? I do feel that the media was too harsh with Leadsom but I would prefer to see such comments verified by a major news agency, not by Conservative Home. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally use it as a source, as it's a blog, and I tend to think they'd be more likely to speak up in her defence. It would be ideal if we could quote a different source, but at a quick glance I can find no media outlets using those particular words to describe her treatment. If Goodman had written the article for The Telegraph or The Times, or one of them summarises it at some point, then it could go in without question. Since we have got it though, I'm not sure whether to leave it in or take it out. This is Paul (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I do feel she was badly treated by some of the media, including The Times which seemed determined to get her. BUT I simply cannot find a single article from any of the major, highly respected media that says so. If you agree that Conservative Home is not a suitable source, and if you also cannot find a suitable source that says she was bullied, then I would support removing that sentence. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The only articles I can find that discuss that topic quote a friend of Leadsom. Example:

Theresa May set to be UK PM after Andrea Leadsom quits www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36763208

6 days ago - Andrea Leadsom pulls out of the Conservative Party leadership contest ... Laura Kuenssberg "the abuse has been too great" for Mrs Leadsom during the contest. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to remove it if there's nothing else than Conservative Home, so go for it. This is Paul (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I removed it. The article already contains these two comments, with citations from highly-regarded news organisations:

• MP Tim Loughton spoke about an "onslaught of often very personal attacks from colleagues and journalists" as well as "underhand tactics against decent people".
• Pearson in the Sunday Telegraph said, "I have no doubt whatsoever that Leadsom became the target of a brutal and sustained character assassination."[71] The next day she wrote, "Andrea Leadsom has nothing to be ashamed of: her conscience is clear. Those who sought to destroy her should examine theirs, if they can find it [sic]. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think those two statements are enough to demonstrate people were unhappy with what happened. This is Paul (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Section about her 2016 campaign for leadership

This section may have a lot of unnecessary information. Leadsom is now appointed one of ministry members under Theresa May. "Interviews" section is too fluffy or stuffy there. Other subsections before the Withdrawal subsection should be merged and condensed. I don't think readers care about the campaign as much as her appointment. The "mothership" section is overly exaggerated and sensationalized. I'm unsure how necessary the "allegations of job titles and responsibilities" is. I sure need explanations. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Cabinet rank

According to BBC coverage of today's reshuffle, Andrea Leadsom is a minister attending cabinet but does not have full cabinet minister rank. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

(Copied from my talk page) — JFG ^talk 11:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this where I discuss Leadsom's page edits? Who knows?

RE: the following undone edits:

"03:01, 7 November 2018‎ 240f:76:59d:1:c459:db33:dc51:dd07 (talk)‎ . . (87,235 bytes) (+671)‎ . . (Leadsom did not respond to requests for comment on suspected COI edit of wikipedia page.) (undo)"

This is not an "I don't like" edit. In the "Black Ops" section of Leadsom's page there are quotes from IDS and Tebbit alleging a smear campaign against Leadsom. But in fact neither IDS nor Tebbit prevented evidence - the news reports about Leadsom were facts and the increased press scrutiny would be expected for somebody in the running for PM. It is a fact however that an edit of Leadsom's wikipedia profile which deleted lots of embarrassing facts about Leadsom was reverted for COI IP (the IP address was in Towcester, a small town where Leadsom's constituency office is located) and when asked about this by the Guardian, Leadsom refused to respond. "No" would have closed the issue, but for some reason she didn't deny the allegations. So, in fact, the only "Black Ops" with any supporting evidence is Leadsom's possible edit of her own wikipedia page.

"(cur | prev) 02:12, 7 November 2018‎ 240f:76:59d:1:b9e4:601d:7e83:a41 (talk)‎ . . (86,564 bytes) (-895)‎ . . (Have removed comments by Allison Pearson as she is a bankrupt who didn't pay her taxes (see Allison Pearson) . The opinions on matters of conscience by bankrupts who haven't paid their taxes are not relevant.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)"

Allison Pearson wrote a sympathetic opinion piece not a factual news piece about Leadsom. Pearson is a bankrupt who according to public records was made bankrupt after a request by HMRC, which suggests Pearson was made bankrupt because of non-payment of taxes. In fact, Pearson has confirmed to me by email (shall I submit it as evidence?) that she was indeed made bankrupt for non-payment of taxes. So the tax dodger Pearson is sympathetic to Leadsom whose husband ran and brother-in-law owned a company that used a potential tax avoidance mechanism once described by George Osborne as “morally repugnant”. I don't think the opinion of a tax dodging bankrupt on matters of "conscience" concerning another tax dodger are relevant. Pearson is tainted.

"(cur | prev) 01:59, 7 November 2018‎ 240f:76:59d:1:b9e4:601d:7e83:a41 (talk)‎ . . (87,459 bytes) (-872)‎ . . (Backed out possible COI edit: IP address appeared to be SW1; the edit is claiming Leadsom was Institutional Banking Director, but she released an "updated" CV to the FT which stated she was a deputy director; the link to the PDF is a link to some PDF on Leadsom's own website once you unscramble the static squarespace url; the edit comment contains a smear of the former colleague.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)"

As written in the edit summary, there are reasons to believe that the backed out edit was a COI by Leadsom or someone related: the IP address of the edit appears to be SW1 where Leadsom's workplace is located; the supporting PDF linked to is on her own website - we have no idea where it comes from originally; the edit comment contains a smear of the colleague who criticised Leasdom - seems personal; it seems that Leadsom or her team has edited this page before to cover up her and her family's naughty behaviour.

Some of what I have written won't be wikipedia-talk-page-compliant but I think there are some points made which are relevant according to wikipedia rules (in particular, linking to random PDFs on one's own website seems dodgy). I apologise for any time wasted.

Steven Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:76:59D:1:3DF4:44E8:1ADA:1CC5 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Suspicions about WP:COI edits should be reported to the offending editors, and to WP:ANI if further disruption is ongoing. They are by themselves no grounds to remove appropriately-sourced content. Also, your personal opinion of Ms. Pearson's credibility and tax status is irrelevant to assessing the content. We go by what WP:RS have documented. — JFG ^talk 11:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

How can I report it to the offending editors? It is an IP address. That's the point - this looks like another edit from Leadsom and team as the IP address is in SW1 and the supporting link is to an unsourced PDF on her own website (though the website url is obscured by the use of a squarespace static url, possibly deliberately). I can't imagine there are too many people in SW1 editing Wikipedia other than MPs and their teams! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:76:59D:1:AC5D:AB2D:EC84:E6CA (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You can contact an IP user via their talk page, as I just did on yours to issue a warning. Per WP:BRD, you should engage into constructive dialogue on the article's talk page, and try to attract WP:Consensus for your proposed changes. In the meantime, please stop trying to push your version until other editors pitch in. — JFG ^talk 15:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Needs update

The Times newspaper reported that senior Government ministers fear that it is already too late to meet the Brexit deadline of 29 March...

This para needs updating or deleting. Valetude (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: "E.F. Hutton"

On her own web-site, she says that she worked for E.F.Hutton. A step-father is mentioned. The current article gives the impression that she moved directly to another company, not E.F.Hutton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:A5D8:BFCF:7468:C36E (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

BZW is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:A5D8:BFCF:7468:C36E (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

E.F.Hutton collapsed in a dramatic fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:A5D8:BFCF:7468:C36E (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Too much fox-hunting

The sentence "Prior to the 2017 election, Leadsom advised Theresa May not to repeat her promise to allow parliamentary time to discuss repealing the hunting ban, but was overruled." occurs three times. Somebody familiar with this material please prune. Errantios (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)