Talk:Ruth Kelly

I'm fairly new to these things, but isn't Ms Kelly's voting record pertinent?

I included Ms Kelly's voting record on key issues since 2001 ("key" as defined, quite reasonably to my mind by "The Public Whip/They Work for You"). This was undone by Crispness a few hours afterwards and the reason for the revision seemed to me spurious. Before I get too involved in keeping the page up-to-date is there a general rule about listing externally verifiable details about votes cast by politicians?

I believe that as the page lists facts about her parliamentary career (and her votes in key decisions is pertinent to her parliamentary career) then there is nothing extraneous or wasteful in listing these notable votes. If it's a question of better linking or layout, I am happy to oblige.

Any tips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zammo1234 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just added links to the actual votes cast to prevent any distractions about the veracity of these votes. They are verifiable and I believe pertinent: an editor would not write about a sports-person without listing their key goals, sporting moments, medals, batting average, and so on. A politician's votes, in theory cast for their electorate, should be relevant to a Biography that includes their work. The votes:

• Are neutral (there is no comment to the voting, merely the position taken)
• Are factual and verifiable
• Are not private or personal information (for a politician)
• Add to the roundness of the article as they describe the work that the person does
• Are accurate
• Are notable and important in that they reflect the work the politician has done

Once again, I'm eager to receive advice on layout/formatting or how I can help make the section more in keeping with general principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zammo1234 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If they should be included for RK then they should be included for all MP's. They are not. The link to TheyWorkForYou is provided instead. Any user who is interested in how any UK politician voted can check the record on TWFY. Politicians vote regularly on various matters, so any such record needs to be updated regularly. TWFY does that automatically. WP doesn't. Including voting records manually for every UK politician would require a small army of volunteers dedicated to that task alone. And with regards to the TWFY record being factual, it is not. Ask the guys over there. It is their interpretation of the facts. They decide on their own measurement scheme and implement it, and also change it occasionally, in order to override the effects of some MP's trying to rig the record. Its opinion - although a well thought and informed one - not fact. Crispness (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure you are wholly correct with two of your points:

• The voting record of prominent, notable, "rising-star" or controversial politicians may be more pertinent than that of other MPs.
• Having a category of information on in one MPs entry does not imply that it somehow has to be in all MPs' entries. There are many categories such as "Education", "Controversies", "Religion", "Disputes", "Public Life" that are in some politicians' bios but not others. As long as the information is not an attack, is not simply a POV and is verifiable, accurate, and of utmost relevance to the reason the public figure is in Wikipedia in the first place, then it seems it should go in.

Point taken about the opinion (although a well thought and informed one) of TWFY. There should be a way of describing the votes cast so that there is no POV or bias. For example it is a matter of public record that RK has been absent for all votes concerning a more transparent government ([The Public Whip]) or that she did vote for the Iraq war. Neither of these two is disputed.

I am assuming that you are not against the principle of including a description of the voting patterns of a politician (as this would be farcical: it is what they were elected for after all). I understand that you might have problems with how this is presented. May I suggest a compromise to address your concerns. I will re-write the voting record to reduce the (admittedly thoughtful and informed) POV of TWFY. I will also re-write it so that it is not implying that it will be updated regularly or is timely and regularly--updated information (as the current list might imply).

Zammo1234

Why not include as properly referenced and verified phrases and sentences in appropriate places, just like the rest of the article? It doesn't need a section on its own. Include her voting record on education matters under education, etc. Much of it is already there. Crispness (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to do that, but it made the whole article wordier and less 'tight'. Afte some thinking I have included a succint and (I think) tidy summary of notable or controversial votes under "Carrer as an MP". This can be easily kept up-to-date (as indeed any of the article can) and I hope does not suffer from bias or POV.

If you think it can be added to or tidied further then go ahead. (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the title change Crispness. The new one makes more sense, and makes it more pertinent to RK herself and also thanks for the re-wording: it reads much better now and is much clearer. I appreciate the changes. Zammo1234 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Many MPS are absent for many votes, remember that Labour has had a huge majority, and a minister has many other claims on her time. I'm not saying that she was against reform, but I think we can only draw clear conclusions from her voting record when the vote was close due to a rebellion. So it's valid to say she was amongst the most on-message of Labour MPs, but in my opinion the sad history of reform in Westminster is characterised by apathy and self importance not conspiracy.

However, the POV on voting is respectably neutral in the current form and above the average for contemporary political figures, especially ones who have been in controversies.

My vote is that the 'controversy' label is now redundant.

Unsourced section

I've removed the following content from the article because it was unverified. If you can find reliable sources to back any of this up, please feel free to re-add it to the article.

It is not widely known that Ruth Kelly is an accomplished double-bass player. She was taught the instrument while at Sutton High School, and honed her skills at Westminster School where she played regularly in the school's first orchestra. However, her first love has always been modern jazz, and she formed a 5-piece combo with other pupils, playing in school concerts and occasionally at the Lamb and Flag pub in Covent Garden, where she could be seen sipping Irish whiskey between numbers. She had always been an admirer of Charlie Mingus and is said to have modelled her hard bop style on his music. The late Miles Kington, himself a competent bass player, related in his column in The Independent newspaper that he once heard her play at a gig in a pub in Oxford in the late 1980s and was impressed. He wrote: "I thought at the time that this tiny girl, dwarfed by her instrument, would probably go far."

— Other Interests section

the skomorokh 15:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image replacement

I propose to replace the current image of Kelly, which is technically less than perfect (visible photographer's head), by the recently uploaded image File:Ruth Kelly.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Subtle

Possibly some subtle vandalism is being put in the article by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.222.7 (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Get more specific. --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You have corrected the vandalism at my suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.222.7 (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruth Kelly. 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/20060823064518/http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9232 to http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9232

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Appointed by Pope Francis

It was said on Sunday on Sunday 9 August that Ruth Kelly was one of six women appointed by Pope Francis to sit among cardinals to oversee how the Vatican was run. This could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)