Talk:Amber Rudd

BLP sources template

Are these ok now? Time to remove the template? --217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Rudd’s apparent conflict of interest

I see that the information I added on 9 July last year when I created the subsection 'Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change’ (and subsequently expanded) has been repeatedly deleted. I'll try and find some better sources (though Private Eye is pretty reliable when it reports on issues like this). In the meantime I see that it was good enough for Newsweek, who have used the WP article almost verbatim in places! JezGrove (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have a read of WP:BLPSOURCES you will see that tabloids such as Private Eye are not appropriate for biographies of living persons. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I followed your link but couldn't see any reference to Private Eye – and it certainly isn't a tabloid. I see that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations actually cites Private Eye (note 3) to back up its arguments! Anyway, perhaps we could use this source if you find it more acceptable? JezGrove (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tabloid in the sense of their journalism, not their format. The Independent source is acceptable and feel free to add it. However note that the Independent doesn't claim that Rudd is making the decision, unlike Private Eye (perhaps proving the point). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The Eye is many things, but on the investigative journalism side it certainly isn't tabloid in style. Incidentally, its report (July 2015) was about the separate potential COI concerning Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset, while The Independent's article is from May 2015 and concerns the Halite Energy Group's proposed gas storage facility in Lancashire. In both cases, Rudd's department was faced with major decisions directly affecting companies represented by the PR firm her brother was the founder and chairman of. JezGrove (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

small note

Just a note here to mention an old media mention. The London Evening Standard worked out how to view a revision history in 2015, for which I congratulate them of course, and also said "Unlike Shapps, the changes have been made by several users, some new. Who are these Wikipedia goblins changing history?" I think there might be a talk page template for this, but I could not find anything with documentation. MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The template is but we need the url of the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems to work fine -- this is press coverage, just as the name of the template suggests, not social media or Web 2.0 or any such new-fangled thing. MPS1992 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Early life and education

Anonymous editor refers to father as a "descendant of King James 1st" and cites an Angelfire page for evidence. I have reverted these edits as this does not seem notable enough. The IP address appears to be from inside the Houses of Parliament, or at least in the IP range used by the twitter account Parliament WikiEdits SciHalo (talk 14:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Further the family tree seems to have Ethne Fitzgerald as being a descendant of James 1, not her father. It seems like her mother might be in the FitzGerald dynasty.

We really need better sources for this. I can believe her father full name might be Anthony. --Salix alba (talk): 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Greetings APM, re revision 743978989, the unnamed FT chief I wanted to avoid suggestions of wp:weasel. re revision 741003076, although you normally give excellent edit reasons, I can't see much wrong with this as Molly Scott Cato was operating -as many politicians do -under editorial control. The Telegraph owners live in a rage of tax havens. I will make sure the article is more clearly attributed & reinsert it. Regards JRPG (talk)

Thanks for replying here, the reason I removed the Molly Scott Cato comment was because her comment was not surprising given she is from an opposing party and didn't seem to add anything new. Similarly if Corbyn does something and a Tory MP complained about it, we wouldn't include it (unless it was notable in its own right). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Business career reverts

I'm disappointed to see that edits sourced to Private Eye have yet again been reverted on the basis of 'tabloid' journalism. As I have previously pointed out on this page (in the section 'Rudd’s apparent conflict of interest' above) Wikipedia's very own article Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations cites Private Eye to back up its arguments. Yes, the 'Eye' can be scurrilous when it is being satirical, but it also conducts and publishes serious investigative journalism, too; although since the best results are usually piggy-backed without acknowledgment by other less courageous media organisations when the facts have safely been established it perhaps doesn't get the credit it deserves. For what it's worth, I certainly haven't noticed Rudd or any of her family challenging its recent very detailed In the City revelations about their business transactions as being factually correct. JezGrove (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether Private Eye is or isn't a tabloid, it's really quite bizarre that some editors apparently seem to believe that a detailed audit of the annual P&L of each company she was a director of is essential to include an encyclopedia entry about a Cabinet Minister. Dtellett (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't do this sort of thing for other Cabinet ministers. Let's not set a precedent here. This is Paul (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The Business Career section is now a redacted mess and it makes very little sense, is incorrect chronologically and is very lacking in actual detail. This article is a well-researched source from a major UK national newspaper. It isn't necessary to use this much detail, or to copy it directly, but it does show that Rudd's business career was far from that described in the current Wiki entry. The article and many other press column inches shows that her career was fairly controversial and not just as simple as an investment banker then a venture capitalist as her own website states Andrew ranfurly (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated links below

Unrelated links below — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.9.23 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

86.140.9.23 please stop edit warring and discuss here on the talk page. Have a look at WP:OR before you add this content again. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutelypuremilk, for someone who claims to be a "PhD student" you appear to be a complete f*cktard when it comes to reading the cited references.

- The BBC - The Guardian - Companies House.

This is Paul Similarly re: cited refs.

Both of you, cease & desist from reverting Rudd's business dealings. 86.140.9.23 19:17, 12 December 2016

86.140.9.23, can you show us your BBC/Guardian source for the content you are adding? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry and connections

I removed the claim that Rudd is a descendant of King Charles II of England and a distant relation of Samantha Cameron. It was sourced to a Daily Mail article, a publication which, of course, Wikipedia does not consider reliable. Even if there are any usable source, it is hardly important enough for the summary, in which it was until a few minutes ago. A Telegraph article adds the Queen to Charles II (but does not mention Mrs Cameron), but draws only on the Mail article as a source. So that is probably best not used too. Philip Cross (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Googling, I have found no really good sources to make these details about Rudd's supposed distant living relations or ancestor at all worth including. Philip Cross (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

When you consider just how many of us are probably descended from Charles II about ten times over, it really cannot be classed as notable or even interesting. Valetude (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

First Secretary of State

What is the source that Rudd has been appointed FSoS? She is not listed as such in the announcement from No. 10, on the official list of the Cabinet or on the Home Office web page of her. Did someone make up an alternate fact somewhere along the way? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Have amended both pages to reflect this. Same user keeps changing it. Have mentioned need for source to confirm, can't find anything myself. Loobeloo (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's settled - Damian Green has been appointed First Secretary of State now. JezGrove (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amber Rudd. 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/20150518072720/http://www.hastings.gov.uk/decisions_democracy/voting_petitioning_having_your_say/elections_voting/electionresults/?elecdate=07052015&electype=general to http://www.hastings.gov.uk/decisions_democracy/voting_petitioning_having_your_say/elections_voting/electionresults/?elecdate=07052015&electype=general
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103080238/http://amberrudd.co.uk/news/better-transport-a-fairer-deal-for-fishermen-in-maiden-speech/ to http://amberrudd.co.uk/news/better-transport-a-fairer-deal-for-fishermen-in-maiden-speech/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://amberrudd.co.uk/news/complete-the-link/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170324174008/http://failover-www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/newsreview/features/article1406580.html to http://failover-www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/newsreview/features/article1406580.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207153551/http://www.thestleonardsacademy.org/governors.php to http://www.thestleonardsacademy.org/governors.php

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) 11:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Email

@Absolutelypuremilk: Firstly greetings, and apologies for the delay in responding -I'm trying to get an acceptable meaningful compromise here. It is essential to show enough information to allow the reader to judge the naivety displayed by Rudd. Anyone of the millions who has worked for HMG will have had a security briefing, will have been told of the risk of imposters and the consequences to their career of a security breach. FWIW even the medical charity I now work with doesn't allow Microsoft Outlook if patient details are involved. You may find it of general interest to look at ECHELON. Regards JRPG (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Windrush scandal

Another significant 'controversy' with which Rudd is key protagonist: felt a note should be made here, at the least, if changes to page are withheld til dust settles (though at time of writing, this issue is that a statement has been released: it's just contradicted by earlier evidence). For a user better practiced in toeing the line with living political figures. Tosk Albanian (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Breaking: Amber Rudd resigns

I think 10 Downing Street confirms this minute that Amber Rudd has resigned as Home Secretary. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is she still Minister for Women & Equalities?

Has she resigned from that position simultaneously? I'd assume so. LordYarnspinner (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC) LordYarnspinner (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@LordYarnspinner: Her letter to the PM did not specify a resignation from that post, however on the 30th April, the role was given to Penny Mordaunt, so she effectively ceased to be minister for women and equalities on April 30th while she ceased to be home secretary on April 29th per the resignation letter. Hope that clears it up for you (sorry for the late reply, didn't notice your comment until now). Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright on signature ?

I wondered about the law related to the copyright of signatures. Here's what WP says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature#Copyright

So I wonder a bit about the statement connected to the signature image on this page as the author decided that there cannot be any copyright as the whole information in the image is public knowledge. Personally I understand how this statement may be true but I also have my reservations. Maybe somebody knows for sure ... JB. --92.195.51.183 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• @92.195.51.183: What exactly are you asking? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking if the statement/claim is correct that the image showing the signature does indeed not need a copyright or however I shall put it correctly. The link I gave shows that there might be a copyright under British law and I would intuitively resent a 3rd person to publish an image of my signature online without asking me for consent, expecting my signature to belong to me and any unauthorized reproduction to constitute abuse of some kind. At least that would make it easier for 3rd parties to falsify my signature. So if I assume that Amber Rudd did not authorize this image and its publication I wonder it this is acceptable/lawful. Actually by making that image the author of the image would become its creator and could claim his/her own copyright to the image ... of a 3rd parties signature. I just don't think this can be correct, but lawyer stuff is sometimes so far developed that one might miss something obvious. JB. --92.195.32.141 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)