Talk:Ruth Kelly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism

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)

I expanded on the point about her not taking a box, something I know about as I work in her Department! --Alibi 22:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei Membership

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:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

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)

If you have the proof of her membership...... I don't think this has ever been proven. Robertsteadman 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hewett School Controversy

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)

I added a small bit about Gibson

Last paragraph

The last paragraph, with its rhetorical question and semi-POV theme, is surely not consistent with the Wikipedia encyclopaedic format.

Religion: how about the others?

Why is there such prominence on this topic in the case of Kelly and not for Melanie Johnson,John Healey, Charles Clarke? Is there some kind of discrimination here? The topic of religion for Kelly is relevant and for the others it is not? And for Kelly it is the number one subsection? Is there an anti-Catholic strain in Wikipedia? Ndss 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right, there is no good reason for the topic being placed so prominently. In fact the only reason for it being in the article at all is that some commentators in the media have made it their business to insinuate all sorts of things about Kelly's faith supposedly making her unfit, or at least suspect, as a Cabinet minister, and I suppose it needs to be mentioned in the article that those insinuations have been/are being made. As a small step in the right direction, I shall move the Religion section towards the end of the article. Vilcxjo 00:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an uncensored NPOV encyclopedia. It is a political fact that this question has dogged Ruth Kelly. Her position is very similar to that of Rocco Buttiglione, whose Wiki article reflects the controversy in relation to him in the same way. Chelseaboy 09:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly's Roman Catholic faith and Opus Dei membership are important political chracteristics of her and her life, and I think these details should be included in the opening page. Matthewfelgate 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think her OD membership is proven. If you have a citation where she admits to it..... Robertsteadman 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Membership of OD is different from most other religious groups. Members have to commit to an oath, compelling them to "spread the word" and apply their beliefs to everything they do in their personal and professional lives. This has serious implications for a minister responsibe for the education of children, or equality issues. It's no good claiming she can separate her religion from her work when her religion forbids such a separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.246.75 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 July 2006

The voice

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is nonsense. Totallt irrelevant and just an excuse to try to insinuate something. It should be removed. Robsteadman 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well you are adding it to insinuate she's either a dyke or man, no? Secretlondon 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Care to explain why this is of such great importance to you? Secretlondon 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Champion of parents?

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)

Trivia section

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)

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)

Can I add the this is not only mentioned on Wikipedia. A quick Google[5] will give a number of interesting references including a good Guardian article[6] sowe are not just making it up. Frelke 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How about adding the Guardian article to the External Links section? SP-KP 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Given a total failure by the opposition to engage in any discussion here, I have reworked the section, adding context and references. Its back. If you want to change it then pls feel free to do so. But don't remove it without discussion. Its very rude. Thanks. Frelke 06:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

White Paper

Have changed "radically improve the system" to "radically remodel the system". Even though the original quote was in italics it still carried a sense of bias in favor of the bill. User:Zleitzen 11:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

By doing so, IMHO, you are adding a real POV by doing so. In effect you are saying that the general consensus is that the WP will radically remodel the system. I certainly do not think it will do that, and if you look at any of the educational comment boards or media you will find that the general consensus is rather different. I was certainly not making a pov by writing that. The italics were a clear indication that it was a quote. I am willing to offer the addition of quotemarks to the original or a less contentious and more accurate POV on the WP itself, but I am not happy to leave it as you have changed it.

Which would you prefer

'It set out plans to "radically improve the system".'

or

'It set out plans to change the system.'

Frelke 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll settle for the quote marks you've inserted. It just needs to be clear that this is the view of the creators of the WP itself, rather than a consensus agreement that it will "improve the system". User:Zleitzen 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Future Party Leader

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) And after 5th May events no chance217.37.160.149 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion and equality issues

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 [7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Irish descent

Is this really relevant - she is British, she was born in the UK and we have her place of birth mentioned further down - what relevance is there to the statement that she is of Irish descent in the first sentence? Robertsteadman 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess because many people of her background do not regard themselves as British. Not sure what passport she holds - Irish or British - and I guess no one has ever asked her. But I'm not convinced about the prominence of the remark. And I guess if it was situated elsewhere perhaps it would be out-of-place. If you look at Gisela Stuart then it doesn't say "... of Bavarian/German stock ...". Nothing in Keith Vaz either. Not sure. Have you a suggestion other then "Delete"? Frelke 10:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is irrelevent and so should be deleted. She is not Irish, she wasn't born in the Republic, she is a UK citizen. All we need is her p.o.b. and that says it all. Look at Blair's article, even Brown's - neither mentions of "x" descent. Robertsteadman 10:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian Paisley's article doesn't say he is of "Irish descent" and he is just as Irish as Ruth Kelly - or, to put it another way, he is jujst as British as she is. Robertsteadman 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if she was the holder of an Irish passport it would not be the same. When you say that "She is not Irish" what do you actually mean ? Do you mean she wasn't born in Ireland (untrue, she was) or that if she is British, she cannot by definition be Irish or that she does not claim Irish nationality (I don't know, but I can give you a couple of citations where she references her Irish heritage). What would be very interesting would be if someone who was at school with her could clarify whether she considered herself Irish in those days or whether she was rather a-nationalist(?) which is what I suspect to be the case. If we can confirm that she doesn't hold an Irish passport I am happy for it to be removed. Frelke 12:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As the article makes clear - she was NOT born in Ireland but in Northern Ireland which, since well before her birth, is part of the UK - she is British. It ios not whether you consider yourself to be one nationality or another - nationality is simply a factual position. She was born in, educated in and has worked in the UK - she is British. What is the fuss? Are you saying that Ian Paisley was born in Irelandf too? Or that if I choose to claim I am Jamaican then that makes me so? Unless there is a FACTUAL citation showing her to be non-Brtitisah I will make the alteration later today. Robertsteadman 12:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But many people in NI do not consider themselves British. They are entitled by law to claim Irish nationality. So if they claim it, are you saying their claim is illegitimate. Nationality is not a factual position. Prince Philip was Greek then, definitely not Danish or British. If you polled all British-born muslims, I'm sure you would get a large majority who would not claim, and would actually re4fute if offered, British coitizenship. Gerry Adams will argue to the dawn of the day that he is not British and he is right. Are you seriously suggesting all persons born in India prior to independence are British ? Because that seems to be the ultimate logic of your arguement. And for your interest and as a matter of fact click through theis Ireland link and read what you see when you get there. She was born in Ireland, a part of which is called Northern Ireland. You see Ireland is the entire island. Ask any rugby fan. Not your sport is it ? So your statement ... she was NOT born in Ireland ... is factually incorrect. How do you know she is British? I was educated in this country and have worked and lived here for most of my natural life. I'm entitled to hold 2 passports. As are my kids. Some of them feel Irish, others feel English but none of them feel British. I wouldn't be sirprised in RK felt similarly. But I don't know. Neither do you. So is your gut feeling worth more than mine? Or are we going to have a vote. Do you know which passport she holds? Or are you just flying by the seat of your pants on this one. Frelke 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And Nationality is a factual position. To simply claim that you are other than is factual is a lie. Robertsteadman 18:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob, you are not claiming that I am lying are you? So if Ruth Kelly held an Irish passport she would be lying? Is that what you are saying? So Gisela Stuart is German, Prince Philip is Greek, Greg Rusedski is Canadian, Keith Vaz is Yemeni, Anthony Hopkins is British, otherwise they are lying. Is that what you are saying? People cannot legitimately choose their nationality? That sounds like a very prejeudiced position for someone so far on the left of the Political Compass. Surely anyone can choose their nationality if they are eligible to receive a particular passport? And its not a position I could associate myself with. So if you are trying to achieve consensus or persuade me the correctness of your position, you are failing miserably. Try something constructive like finding the originator of the comment.Frelke 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem? Don't bother I know! Nationality is factual - it can be chganged but it is factual. The "Irish descent" comment was not relevent and unsupported - it needed to be removed on those grounds let alone the grounds that it was not true. Robertsteadman 07:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What is my problem? As you think you know, can you let the rest of us in on the secret ? Nationality is not factual. Just because you harp on about it does not make it a fact either. Its just an opinion, your opinion. You are entitled to hold it but it doesn't make it correct. It is a matter of choice for many people, including most of the population of the island of Ireland, what their nationality is. Let me give you a couple of facts - not opinions - real facts.

Fact 1 - Anyone born anywhere on the island of Ireland is entitled to claim an Irish passport by virtue of their place of birth.

Fact 2 - Anyone born anywhere within the six counties of Northern Ireland is entitled to claim a British passport by virtue of their place of birth.

Fact 3 - Anyone whose parent or grandparent was born anywhere on the island of Ireland before (I believe) 1921 is entitled to claim a British passport by virtue of their lineage (the whole island was part of the UK before that date)

Some of those choose Britsh passports/nationality, some do not. Its a matter of choice, not fact.

Now I don't know what choice any of the Kelly family made, but I do know that they had a choice (whether they were aware of that choice or not is a different question). And being RC in NI means that there is quite a high likelihood that they might have chosen to be Irish. But it doesn't really matter now anyhow as we have a citation and improvement in the article which now recognises more fully her Irish heritage. Thanks for that. Frelke 08:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yawn - if you want to claim she's Irish provide the facts as is expected by WP. Otherwise all currently available evidence suggests, and it is reasonable to assume, that she is British. A shame you are so keen to instigate an arguement on this - but, not unexpected. Robertsteadman 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevent what they consider themselves - it is the fact of what they are that is important. Kelly was born in the UK, to UK parents - if she considers herself to be Irish that doesn't matter she is British - fact. Did you read the link I provided below from the Times? Robertsteadman 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also agree that including "of Irish descent" makes no sense in this context, as being born in NI is already covered by being described as British with the place of birth listed. I wouldn't expect Tony Blair to be described as "British, of Scottish descent", for comparasion. Also, implictily including "descent" implys parent's nationality is different, which is not appear to be the case here. Regards, MartinRe 12:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding parental nationality, have you got a reference for this negative. The thing about Northern Ireland that is different to Scotland is that until the Good Friday Agreement (or shortly thereafter) there was another state that claimed sovereignity over Northern Ireland. There is a large proportion of the population of NI that claims and uses Irish nationality. Most of them are Roman Catholics. This is an acknowledged fact (if you want citations I can provide). Ruth Kelly fits very neatly into that group. Whilst I don't personally know what passport she carries (and frankly am not bothered whatever it is), I would respectfully ask that we use fact and not supposition when editing WP. If you have a reference that proves her British nationality then by all means quote it. If its just a gut instinct like Rob, can you make that clear also. Frelke 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not gut instinct - it is based on fact - born in the UK to UK parents. If she considers heraself to be Irish that is irrelvent, she is British. Robertsteadman 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia verifibility policy does not require a claim to be proven false, the onus is on the person inserting the claim (in this case being "of Irish descent") to prove that it is the case. I have made no claim about her nationality/passport or whatever, the only thing in the article that is close is a description of her being a "British politician, and considering that she is an MP in the British political system, that seems to be quite factual to me. Regards, MartinRe 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - think I'll make the alteration now then. Robertsteadman 12:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Done - [8] - this makes it clear - fond of Irish roots but she and her family going back are Northern Irish and, consequently, British. Robertsteadman 12:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just italicise that quote and the embolden the piece that is actually from The Times. Done - [9] - this makes it clear - fond of Irish roots but she and her family going back are Northern Irish and, consequently, British. Robertsteadman 12:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC). There seems to be a lot of extrapolation going on here. Surely this quote from the same article Despite that distance from her beginnings, Ms Kelly has retained a deep fondness for her Irish roots is sufficient to allow us to retain the reference to her roots, in respect of her fondness. Frelke 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Stick with the facts eh? She is not and has never been Irish. She, and her parents were British. Robertsteadman 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify that or are you just basing your assertion on her place of birth? Frelke 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Robertsteadman, this is not a either/or situation and is definitely not as clear cut as you suggest. British_Isles (terminology) outlines some of the complexities, one of which is that it is possible to be described as both Irish and British. It also points out the difficulties that insistance on some terms may cause offence. In any case, as the article has been updated to remove the Irish descent phrase, and inserted the reference to being fond of Irish roots, and assumming people are happy with the current situation, I would suggest that further debate runs the risk of veering off and descending into an arguement, so I would suggest to all parties to leave it as is, and if discusssion is needed on another issue, it would be better to move it to a new section with a clean slate. Regards, MartinRe 08:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it seems that someone is keen to instiogate an arguement when, using simple WP policies of citations and verifications, it is not needed. But then I wouldn't expect anything else. Robertsteadman 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done so, and added a sentence into the early life, with the reference given from the times. Regards, MartinRe 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do read this: [10] - key bits: "Her accent is classless, hard to place, but when I ask where it comes from she looks surprised. "Well, it's Northern Irish."" and "You wouldn't guess it to hear her speak, but for the first 20 years of Kelly's life she did not consider herself British at all." - but considering yourself one thing and the fact is entirely different. I cannot believe that someone is making such a fuss about such a minor point... but then again..... Robertsteadman 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who seems to consider it important enough to be removed from the article. I just want to be sure we are not deleting something that is important and accurate. have you managed to find who originally put the reference in the text. They might have a valid opinion on the matter. Frelke 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence for the claim and what evidence there is suggests that it is, in fact, false. Robertsteadman 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that she is "still retains a fondness for her Irish roots" is farcical true or not. (And frankly who cares?) We might as well say she has a fondness of cream-cheese!! -- Caveat lector 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it is Sunday Supplement writing not encyclopedia writing. And the same can be said of the stuff about her voice. Shall we get rid of ALL the nonsense? Robertsteadman 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded/reordered it a bit. Do you think its more in context now ? Frelke 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we know that as fact? Yes they are her children's name but do we have a citation that states that they are called that to reflect her NORTHERN Irish roots? That article makes that leap but do we have her or her husband giving the reason behind the names? And, even if we do, isn't it still SUnday Supplement/Tabloidesque nonsense? Robertsteadman 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well its as good a citation as any. We don't even know they are her children's names except that they were published in The Times. So if the names are correct, I expect the rwest of the article is correct. Frelke 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We cannot simply assume something in that manner - I suggest that it is removed. At best it is trivia and at worst it is uncited nonsense. Robertsteadman 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we can simply assume something in that manner - I suggest that it is NOT removed. Frelke 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Irish Roots to Irish background

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)

Trivia sections

As some editors don't like the idea of a trivia section in this article, I thought I ought to kick off a discussion here about it, so that we can form a consensus view rather than entering into an edit war.

I'm not sure whether the objection is to trivia sections in general, or the specific information in the trivia section of this article.

If an objection to the general idea, well, that's something that really ought to be argued out as a general case, not by adding/deleting sections of this specific article. We ought to be able to agree on an appropriate place for that discussion, but it's not here. Lots of articles have trivia sections. User:Caveat lector justifies deletion by citing Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't understand the line of thinking here. What that policy section actually says is that there are nine types of entry which community consensus has established belong elsewhere than in Wikipedia, because, as an entry, each type would be unencyclopaedic. It doesn't make any general statements about an "encyclopaedicness test" and doesn't go beyond the list of nine article types. Trivia sections are not one of these nine, so according to that policy, "Trivial information about Ruth Kelly" could even be a valid article if we collected enough of it to hive off. Let's not though :-)

If the objection is about the information in this specific trivia section, that's different. If so, I'll let advocates of deletion explain why the information shouldn't be here, rather than jumping to conclusions.

SP-KP 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My objection is a bit of both - if the information is worthy and encyclopedic enough to be included then it should be included in the main article. These "facts", one totally unproven the other iffy at best, are not worthy of this article. So I object to Trivia sections and I object to these specific facts. Robertsteadman 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any PROOF that she named the children to represent her Irish background or is it an assumption? Both "facts" Are only suggestions.... is this an encyclopedia or Hello magazine? Robertsteadman 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

SP-KP makes a fair point but as far as I see it the nine section of that page are just examples of indiscriminate collections of information.Trivia is just another example. The vary fact that the section is called "trivia" indicates that it is indiscriminate as otherwise the title would reflect what the connection between the different (unverified) facts actually was. The section is called trivia because the information has no obvious connection.

On the point on an "encyclopaedicness test" just ask yourself, "would this kind of information normally be found in an encyclopaedia?"

-- Caveat lector 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what suggests to you that the nine are examples? I feel it actually states clearly at the policy page that they are not examples, but a complete list of those types of article for which a consensus position has been reached to date.

I don't think the "encylopaedicness test" is as straightforward as you suggest, as we don't have another encyclopaedia like Wikipedia against which to make comparisons. We have lots of different paper encyclopaedias which typically tend not to include trivia, but there are also lots of other subject areas they exclude, not because they're not "encyclopaedic" but because there is a limitation on space. I still feel that to justify selectively deleting truthful, potentially useful, information from Wikipedia requires us to have a policy-based reason, and can't see one.

SP-KP 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The section first says, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" and then goes on to give nine instances of what there is consensus over, leaving open that there might one day be consensus over other areas. Defending trivia by saying that its it true and ... blah ... blah ...

Ok, I'm boring myself. I think I'll leave the anti-trivia rant for another day. Forget my original reason for deletion and please explain how saying that Ruth Kelly gave all her children Irish names because of her Irish roots can be described as useful, and how saying that her deep voice gives her an oratorical advantage over other female politicians cannot be described as POV? Both of these statements use weasel words. If either of these are allowable it would open the flood gates for any kind of innuendo and suggestion.

Caveat lector 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So how do we settle this? There seems little support for keeping (a) the Travia section and (b) these particualr facts. Robertsteadman 07:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Or you could argue that, if we include Frelke's view, the levels of support for keeping and deleting are equal. Caveat Lector, you're overinterpreting my support for the trivia section; all I'd like to see this article contain is some mention of Kelly's deep voice, and mention of her children's names, for no other reason than that these help to build up a complete & rounded picture of Ruth Kelly - it's in that sense that I describe these facts as "potentially useful". These are the kinds of facts which we uncontroversially include in many other articles without them attracting charges of innuendo; if we can accept that at least one editor (me) wants to include those two facts in good faith (even if some editors may want to include them for other reasons), I'm not sure what the problem is? SP-KP 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So if we amend the bit about her children to "Her children are called ..." and miss out the uncited, unproven and irrelevent bit about Irish background you'd have no objections? Robertsteadman 12:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine by me. Let's treat the inclusion of her children's names and her fondness or not of her Irish roots as two separate issues. We need a citation for the names of the children, of course, and in the absence of anything else, I'd like to keep the current one. SP-KP 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with her children being named (and that being reinserted when her husband is mentioned, it was the whole "Irish" thing that is trivia and uncited. I'll move the encyclopedic part back. Now... the voice.... Robertsteadman 12:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, good stuff. So, on the voice, how about just a statement that her voice is particularly deep, backed up by a reference to the Guardian article? SP-KP 13:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But what's the point? There are many women with deep voices - is her's really that much deeper? Is it extraordinary? Or, is it simply there as many teachers and teaching unions tried suggesting whilst she was education secretary, because she's a "bit of a bloke"? If it is to stay isn't there another section it can go in? Odd to have a trivia section of one item - that, to me, suggests that the item is off little or no relevance. Robertsteadman 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question of whether her voice is particularly deep or not, I believe it is (certainly more so than your average deeper-than-normal-voiced woman e.g. Ann Widdecombe, Moira Stuart). One test we could use perhaps, is whether, on hearing the voice on a radio, without knowing who it was, it would be reasonable to assume one was listening to a man. This is my recollection of the first few times I heard Ruth Kelly's voice, and the only other person I can think of with a comparable depth of voice is a BBC reporter who covers either European or UN matters, but whose name escapes me just now. Let's assume I've heard, what shall we say, 500 female voices on the radio in the last year? That makes it, to me, at least, particularly deep (bottom 1%). Obviously, if it was just me saying this it would be Original Research, and not allowable here, but we do have a published source which says the same thing ("unusually" is the word used). I wasn't aware of the "bit of a bloke" jibe. I take your point about trivia sections with just one item. If we can find another section to put it in, that'd be fine. SP-KP 14:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - so where? (as a part time teacher the "bit of a bloke" jibes were quite common.... Robertsteadman 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could look at other articles which mention physical attributes to see how they deal with them? SP-KP 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that John Prescott's size isn't highlighted and Julius Casar's nose is pointed as as being big.... Robertsteadman 14:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the end of the intro on Prescott just says "Prescott is well known for his poor oral skills and his frequent gaffes." - no mention of obese....Robertsteadman 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair's makes no mention of his grin.... Robertsteadman 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And Charles Clarke doesn't mention ears anywhere so, with comparable articles, I'd suggest the voice is removed, so to speak!!! Robertsteadman 14:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But if we expand our search out beyond recent cabinet members...

• William I of England (size), Ken Dodd (odd appearance) - lead
• Audrey Hepburn (measurements) - trivia section
• Duncan Goodhew (lack of hair), Mick Hucknall ("ugliness"), Ann Widdecombe (general appearance) - articles have no sections
• Henry VIII of England (size) - the "death" section (!)

Let me know if you need some more examples. SP-KP 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely like for like - people in similar posityions is fair - as for the others Duncan Goodhew was a medical reason, I suggest the Mick Hucknall shoudl be removed, etc. Robertsteadman 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Though Mick Hucknall is because he won an award for ugliness, Ann Widdecombe did take part in a programme about weight loss...even Henry VIII gives erasons and explanations - the RK voice mention is purel nonsense. I still think it has no place and goes. Robertsteadman 15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I think it helps with building a rounded picture of Ruth Kelly, is sufficiently noteworthy, and potentially useful, so should stay. I guess we need input from a wider range of people, to see if we can get any different perspectives. SP-KP 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime let's put it somewhere else - if it is linked to her career put it there and let's get rid of the nonsense of the Trivia Section!!! Robertsteadman 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And then, if we find another home for this fact we can ditch the Trivia section? Robertsteadman 14:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no point having an empty section! SP-KP 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Her children's names

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)

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)

Resolving some issues with this article

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)

Good!Neuropean 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Frelke 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you can't be, Frelke. I have already sugned up and, since I AM actually you, we'd be guilty of why are 'stacking'. Anyhow............Neuropean 20:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now all we need is User:Wikinorthernireland to complete RobertSteadman's very own 'axis of evil'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuropean (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 June 2006

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)

Sorry, I was just lightening the mood and making a joke of something that others might be thinking - to bring it out into the open. By the way, there's only 2 of us WikiNorthernIreland only edited very briefly - is he still around? I promise to adopt a NPOV, both in terms of content and regards to editors.Neuropean 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC) w