Talk:Tobias Ellwood

Education Details??

Education abroad details are very very patchy- more detail would be interesting, do you have any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.102.241 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Passed over for Jeremy Hunt- why?

Any reasons/background for promoting Jeremy 'wink' Hunt to a ministerial post in preference, despite the allegations of sleaze? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.102.241 (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Subject of degree/Grade awarded?

Might be worth adding - certainly of interest to graduate (potential) voters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.102.241 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy reference

On his constituency website, Ellwood states he is a relative of Captain Webb (of channel swimming fame) - do you have a concrete and independently verifiable source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.102.241 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

2017 Westminster attack

Ellwood is reported to have given first aid, including mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a police officer wounded in the 2017 Westminster attack http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/hero-mp-parliament-terror-attack-tobias-ellwood-battled-save/ - the newspaper article mentions his army service (and he would presumably have had some training in first aid during his service), so it may be worth expanding the current mentions of this from the skeleton that can be gleaned from the London Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?sort-by=oldest-date&text=530560&location-distance-1=1&service=all-notices&categorycode-all=all&numberOfLocationSearches=1&results-page-size=10 template:London Gazette makes formatting these references quite easy. David Underdown (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ellwood gave mouth-to-mouth even though there were plenty of healthcare professionals around the victim

I get constant revert from IP on "On 22 March 2017, during attacks on Parliament, Ellwood gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and CPR to a stabbed police officer even though there were plenty of healthcare professionals around the victim." If someone want to revert, I think we should have a discussion. --Gagarine (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I put it back. If you think we should remove it, please explain why. --Gagarine (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gagarine. I wasn't involved in removing this, but I saw your addition to the talk page and decided I might have a look. Please, do correct me if I've misinterpreted this, but it seems as if the reference ([1]) suggests that Ellwood didn't rush to the police officer once healthcare professionals had already started to try to treat him, rather before paramedics arrived. Here's the bit that I refer to:

A source close to Mr Elwood told The Telegraph: “[He] tried to give mouth to mouth and stem blood flow from multiple stab wounds to the officer until the chopper and medics arrived”.

though, from the pictures it is obvious that he continued his efforts even when a large presence of paramedics arrived. Perhaps the bit you added that's getting reverted should clarify this? Once again, please correct me if I've misinterpreted this, thanks — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I was astonished he did this when there were people available who were probably much better trained. I don't doubt his good intentions but I really hope the professionals didn't defer to him out of courtesy. From what I know of knife wounds, I suspect the victim's injuries would have proved fatal anyway. JRPG (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course if he let them take over, the article should say this. I would expect more details will become clear later. JRPG (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's an important point to clarify. I based my judgement from the pictures and the very short time until the rescue arrive. Would be nice to have a source like the police report or paramedic. Source from newspapers are not solid, specially on subject that mix terrorism and a politician. --Gagarine (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This was just now reverted again; I think it will always be slighty too much of a breach of WP:NPOV to use "plenty of healthcare professionals" as this does imply sufficiency. Newspapers are very speculative, and as you've said, a police report, or summary/conclusion in whatever form that takes would be helpful in solidifying this. — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 14:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a slightly different account here from another eyewitness who by his account began the CPR (with others) before Ellwood arrived https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/mar/23/westminster-attack-parliament-resumes-tributes-keith-palmer-live?page=with:block-58d3de55e4b01ea2330bb525#block-58d3de55e4b01ea2330bb525 David Underdown (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the sources suggest that Ellwood acted "even though there were plenty of healthcare professionals around the victim", with the Telegraph source actively contradicting it, so I really have no idea why an editor would be surprised their opinion of the timing and of Ellwood's actions based on their interpretation of an image keeps being removed from a BLP. That's always going to happen, particularly when the editor opinion is phrased in a weaselly way to insinuate Ellwood's behaviour was inappropriate and takes the precise opposite tone from all the WP:RS coverage of his actions.Dtellett (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, for highly political event like this one I think we need to be better than the media. When I see a pictures with obviously "professionals around the victim" and a title "let's call this MP an hero" this make me suspicious. Specially when nobody know nothings about the details of the events and everything is speculation: my interpretation of the images or the BBC article. Now, I don't care that much about politics in UK (I'm from Switzerland) but for sure the UK press go 100% crazy right now and this fact should be keep in mind. Let's see what we will learn in some days. --Gagarine (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's motive, the sentence is speculation. Wikipedia is simply here to state the facts, it is not here for other people's commentary and analysis especially when it does not adhere to a neutral point of view as Dtellett stated above — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 20:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree my modifications was not neutral enough. I thought a bit about the situation, what bothers me is that Wikipedia shouldn't be part of the media echo chamber. The narrative on Wikipedia is "factual" but simply repeat the mass media narrative. It's factual because it's say "this is what the media say" but I don't think that make it true. Specially the word "hero" or the absence of precision on the situation that make the story very flexible is problematic. This is a general problem that append all the time on Wikipedia and I have no solution. At least should we add a on top of the paragraph? --Gagarine (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The french version is way better: "In the London bombing of 22 March 2017, a photograph of Tobias Ellwood in the first aid to the policeman stabbed by the terrorist in front of the Parliament4 is headline news." --Gagarine (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

'plenty of professionals' is clearly WP:NPOV -and still a problem even if put in quotes unless all parties agree there were better qualified people there. I doubt if the PC could have been saved but I am concerned that there just may have been an element of excessive deference to a minister -a problem also seen with royalty as with Prince Charles dangerous plane crash in 1995. We need to wait and see. JRPG (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

My proposition is to replace the paragraph until we know more by: "In the London bombing of 22 March 2017, a photograph of Tobias Ellwood giving first aid to to the policeman stabbed by the terrorist in front of the Parliament4 is headline news." In my opinion this is factual and more neutral that what we have now. --Gagarine (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see why what there is now should be changed, what there is now is accurate as per what was in the image, and it is thoroughly sourced. It's completely neutral too, it simply states what happened and what the public/press reaction was. It should only be added to if and when anything more surfaces relating to this. — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 22:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what we're debating here, because this seems to fall under well-established policy: With biographies of living people, we err on the side of caution. And when the potentially problematic material is related to a major news story, we err on that side even more so. So there's a pretty simple answer as to what to do with this claim, which is that we wait until a reliable source asserts it unambiguously. Meanwhile, this thread seems to be veering slightly into NOTFORUM territory. JRPG, with respect, I'm not sure if your opinions on deference to ministers and royalty are relevant/appropriate here; at the very least, they don't seem to have any bearing on the question posed in this section, which is whether a specific claim about a specific individual should be made or not. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour PinkAmpersand. The point I would like clarified is whether paramedics, probably with more up to date skills and practical experience than TE, were reluctant to take over because of Ellwood's status. The most extreme example -and almost a fatal one -was Prince Charles piloting of the BAe 146 -when he made elementary mistakes whilst surrounded by a group of experts. That is my only point & the truth should come out in due course. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely that's a matter for investigative journalists, not Wikipedia editors, unless and until someone makes a notable and vaguely credible claim he made the situation worse. Dtellett (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly -but the truth will come out. JRPG (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Now he's on the Pricy Council, shouldn't his new style of Rt Hon be added before his name in the intro, and at first mention on every other page that names him? 195.89.201.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Privy Council Appointment

I think we might have been a bit hasty in putting The Right Honourable above his name. The council has not met since 8th March (before the attack) and Mr Ellwood does not appear on the List of Members shown on their website. Though we can expect him to be appointed and sworn of the council at its next meeting (probably in mid-April) I don't think it has actually happened yet. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If I've read MOS:HONOURIFIC correctly, it can be discussed in the article when confirmed but isn't much to be excited about. JRPG (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Now [he's in]. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tobias Ellwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109153555/http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/24012/Tobias-ELLWOOD to http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/24012/Tobias-ELLWOOD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

non NPOV and poorly sourced tabloid style editorialising

I have removed the following text as it is non encyclopedic in tone and in its sourcing. The state of betting on his chances of being chosen does not have its place in this artcle especially as he is at 80/1 which is not "hotly tipped" as there are 26 other people in front of him. The second phrase is not backed up by the source given as it talks about an honour and nothing to do with the job as leader. This is WP:OR and must not be added back. "Ellwood has been hotly tipped as a potential candidate for the next leader of the Conservative party by many. [2] With both Conservative party members and the general public backing Ellwood for his excellent work and commitment. [3]". Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this should not be in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Privy counciller

he is correctly styled as "pc, vt" isn't he? Robert Prummel (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)