Talk:Kate Forbes

First woman to present a budget?

I do not think this warrants a paragraph as a genuine feminist first milestone. The Finance secretary Derek Mackay resigned on the day of the budget speech and Kate, as a junior finance minister working for Mackay, was asked at the last minute to read out the prepared budget speech rather than the government cancelling the budget. Whilst I agree she read it out very nicely I do not think that it warrants as a true first female to present the Scottish budget as she was not the Finance secretary. I agree that this event has boosted her political career prospects hugely but, as a former trainee accountant age 29, she did not design the budget or compose the speech but was merely asked to read it out. Whilst she did present the budget by reading it, in this context the word 'present' implies the speaker is the Finance minister (similar to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England who 'presents' their budget) Update: Subsequently Kate has been appointed Finance secretary so my above comment is rather pedantic. I notice that she qualified as an accountant in Oct 2016, over a year after she became an MP so I don’t think my ‘trainee accountant’ description was inaccurate though it may now seem rather derogatory. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, 2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Somebody deleted Political Views?

Why? There seemed to be no reason. Scientelensia (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikpedia is not a commentary on selective positions taken by an individual politician. Inclusion of select views in POV. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There were no POVs… Scientelensia (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The content of the presentation of the positions taken itself may not have been POV but the choice to only include the positions listed is POV Sparkle1 (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Then add more positions instead of deleting those you disagree with! It’s really quite simple and there’s no reason to simply deprive viewers of relevant content. Scientelensia (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not how things work around Wikipedia, I suggest reading the Wikipage linked to earlier as this is not a collection of everything under the sun. It is not a case of me personally agreeing or disagreeing with them, and I ask you to strike those claims. It is about ensuring there is no selective inclusion. Inclusion of everything under the sun is not the counteraction to selective inclusion. Removal is the counteraction, as it keeps the article focused and prevents long unwieldy articles which are a repository of everything ever uttered by a politician. There are websites such as TheyWorkForYou which already do that. Wikipedia is not that. See WP:Not. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you wish to deprive the viewers of seeing relevant info? Scientelensia (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There is clear bias against her on the page. It isn't neutral or in some cases accurate at all.

The page has been edited in a manner which creates an incorrect position on some matters. The entire line on SSM and clarifying she wouldn't move to make changes "following backlash" when the clarification happened during the same interview being one example. Another being the line "Forbes has widely been described as socially and economically conservative, in contrast with the generally socially liberal policies of the SNP" quoting four articles from one day during the leadership campaign or further the line about her economic policies being unpopular amongst SNP members with no quotation. Saintee1884 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Wikipedia is not a news or current affairs tracker. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain to you – information or quotes provided by or seen on the news in this case helps us to gain a better understanding of the person involved. Here, owing to the news as you say, we know Forbes’ position in abortion, Scottish independence and transgender rights. Many people will be deciding whether to vote for this person in the future and I would think they would want to know where she stands in key issues.Scientelensia (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

All of these are selective inclusions and it is not for Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors to provide "a better understanding of the person involved". Wikipedia is to provide neutral encyclopedic articles on individual article subjects which are notable. The "a better understanding of the person involved" is straying dangerously close to advocating for Original Research, which is outright banned on Wikipedia. "Many people will be deciding whether to vote for this person in the future and I would think they would want to know where she stands in key issues" This violates the key tenants of Wikipedia as that would mean turning Wikipedia into a campaign platform which is clearly not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not in the business of helping voters decide who and how to vote. Wikipedia is for providing encyclopedia articles on subjects which are notable and meet the inclusion criteria. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed, again. Please tell me what about the edits you thought were not neutral. Putting somebody’s views on Wikipedia where relevant is clearly not campaigning, or to use one of your phrases, “POV PUSHING”. Instead, they offer more information to find out about a person. Here are some links to prove to you that political positions and views are known to be useful especially when concerning a politician. Need I really have to say more?

Boris Johnson#Political positions and ideology

Jeremy Corbyn#Policies and views

Piers Corbyn#Promotion of conspiracy theories

Ed Miliband#Policies and views

Gamal Abdel Nasser#Pan-Arabism and socialism

If you would like, I will take this dispute to the relevant committee and ask a third person to judge. Scientelensia (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It is time to disengage here. It is futile to continue this as it is clear that this not going to be resolved. If you wish to take this further please use the dispute resolution process. The selective number of articles presented do not mean that they are precedential or even in compliance. There may be overriding reasons for the inclusion of these issues in the articles of Prime Ministers and Party leaders. I am not engaging in a general debate on other articles here. Plesse escalate this if you wish to take this further using the dispute resolution process. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I will take this further using the dispute resolution process. Scientelensia (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello Scientelensia and Sparkle1. I am responding to the third opinion request in this matter. Having reviewed the edits in question and your discussion, my third opinion is that the disputed material regarding political views should be included in the article. The material is highly relevant to the subject of the article. Citations are from appropriate secondary sources not primary sources. The material is relatively short and the discussion constrained - it does not make the article overly long, nor is it indiscriminate. The material does not violate the policy in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The material is written in an encyclopedic tone and does not push a point of view or seem to campaign for the politician; rather the politician's actions and positions speak for themselves. If there is a concern that only certain encyclopedically-relevant views of the politician have been picked, the correct remedy in this instance is to add further material. For these reasons, my view is that you should include the material. I hope these perspectives assist you in a collegial resolution of the issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! We will act on your decision and advice. Thanks for getting back to us so quickly :) Scientelensia (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the view expressed by JArthur984 and support the reinstatement of the material. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with reinstating the section, but her saying at a prayer that treatment of the unborn necessitates an 'anti-abortion' statement (or categorised as her political view) is an overreach. --SgtLion (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not clear what your objection is. As far as I can see, the wording of the section is in accordance with the source. Do you want an amendment to the wording? If so, what change do you want? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No sex before marriage a "political view"?

From the source:

"In an interview with Sky News she said she personally believes that "sex is for marriage" and that having children outside of marriage "would be wrong according to my faith".

However, she said it is entirely up to other people what they do, adding: "In a free society you can do what you want"."

I assume good faith, but this is not a political view. She's expressing her own faith and views. To put it another way, Muslim, Sikh, some Christian and some health-conscious politicians in the UK refuse to drink alcohol and believe it to be gravely harmful. It would be at best a conspiracy theory, and at worst bigotry, to conclude that their policy is to take alcohol from others. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything this should be under "personal life" as an extension to her religious views. Horarum (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Gaelic name translation?

Currently the article includes a translation of Kate's name into gaelic. I don't believe this is warranted unless I'm missing some reasoning behind it. She's not from one of the gaelic speaking parts of scotland and I've not been able to find any source except this article where she is referred to by her full name translated into gaelic. I have found one instance where she was called "Ceitidh Fhoirbeis" by one of her parliamentary colleagues in a debate. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this. Brocksbane (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As an additional note on this, even on her own website when she has paragraphs translated into gaelic she does not translate her own name, it stays as kate forbes. Brocksbane (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The translation is unwarranted given that she refers to herself as Kate Forbes when speaking in Gaelic, however Dingwall (where she was born) has a sizable Gaelic speaking population and her constituency has more Gaelic speakers than most. Horarum (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Oxfam

Did she work at Oxfam? The statement that she did was added by a single-edit IP here, on 20 Feb. It's based on something published on 15 Feb by ghgossip.com, seemingly based in Ghana, which states that its source is... ghgossip.com. In a familiar cycle, a journalist at The Irish Times appears to have re-worded this Wikipedia article, thereby creating a 'reliable source' on 25 Feb for the information that was previously based on what looks to me like an unreliable source. I haven't seen Forbes herself stating that she worked at Oxfam; is there good evidence that she did? EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed these claims per WP:BLP. All claims relating to living persons MUST be supported by reliable sources. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I also removed the claim that she is an accountant, and the related category, because no sources were cited for that either. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The claim that she worked at Oxfam has been denied by the very same Kate Forbes in her article on disinformation published in The National newspaper on June 07, 2023, in which she wrote: "I can't remember who started it, but somebody claimed I'd once worked for Oxfam. I haven't. But before I knew it, several articles printed that as fact in defence of an argument". Removed the claim from the Early Career section (already removed from top section in March). Domhnallbeag (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)