Talk:Michael Gove/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Michael Gove. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Resemblance to a cod

I don't deny that Gove looks somewhat peculiar, but it is not good that this comment has lasted so long:

'His adoptive father was a fish merchant who adopted the child on the basis of his resemblance to a cod...'

wikipedia should be more reliable than that. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

The ancient sages say, "Do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say that it will not turn into a dragon?" NRPanikker (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Status as a banana

Shouldn't we include something about his status as a banana? He's on record as saying "If PR is more democratic than FPTP, I'm a banana." - since PR is demonstrably far more democratic than FPTP in a system where there's more than 2 parties, Mr Gove must therefore be a banana, by his own admission. Sciamachy (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources backing up your claim. WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Homosexual Acts and Omissions

Gove certainly does have a problem with homosexuality - there is a need for a new section on the omission of school curriculum content from the Equality Act <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/18/anti-gay-book-gove-row>. The education secretary is at the centre of an escalating row over how faith schools discuss homosexuality in sex education classes. The TUC has accused Gove of failing in his legal duties by insisting that equality laws, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, do not extend to the school curriculum. The TUC complains that the current situation sends mixed signals to the playground, because schools are legally obliged to condemn discrimination on sexual-orientation grounds but free to use religious materials that equality campaigners claim is homophobic. Their general secretary, wrote to Gove expressing concern that a booklet containing "homophobic material" had been distributed by a US preacher after talks to pupils at Roman Catholic schools across the Lancashire region in 2010. The booklet, "Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be", discusses a boy dealing with "homosexual attractions" which it suggested may "stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse". The booklet, which claims that "scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke", explains that "the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God's natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding."

Referring to the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against individuals, Barber said: "Schools now have a legal duty to challenge all forms of prejudice. Such literature undermines this completely." But Gove insists: "The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act."

Seems that even when the conservatives act with a mandate from God (and her holiness, Baroness Warsi), they still cock everything up! Bugger me. 80.42.230.249 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)drlofthouse pp. C. Hitchens 80.42.230.249 (talk)

Homosexuality

--Before becoming a candidate, Michael had expressed the view that the state should not generally interfere in domestic affairs, campaigned for greater personal freedom and wrote that "Section 28 is a nonsense" [1]. He had flat-shared with Conservative Ivan Massow who later defected to Labour over Section 28 and Nicholas Boles. Both Ivan Massow and Nicholas Boles were openly gay at the time.

These three sentences deliberately suggest, by selective choice and placing together of facts, that Michael Gove is homosexual without having the courage to say so explicitly. That is unacceptable and cowardly behaviour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.94.70.221 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I didn't read it like that at all - just a suggestion that he doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.

Placing together items in the way you say was done is wp:synth -original research by synthesis -which is specifically banned by wikipidia policy (wp). Details of his flatmates' alleged sexuality is irrelevant. Experienced editors would have removed it on sight -with a reason - and left advice on the user's page. JRPG (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Defended by extreme right-wing commentators

--Melanie Phillips and Stephen Pollard have vigorously rejected Dalrymple's analysis Is this relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.98.55 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dalrymple

If Mr Dalrymple can have his criticism explained in sentence form, then so can Mr Gove's reply. Personally, I wouldn't mind shearing down the whole section, and losing both bits, although saying "Dalrymple attacked Michael, Michael responded" without explaining in what way seems a bit spartan. Larklight (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Woohoo, I did it! A real photo of Michael Gove, uploaded by me! I can upload pictures, yeah! Larklight (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have mislaid his spectacles. Is that policeman playing the role of quasi guide dog? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Additions

I've added tonnes to the article. Just in case you wanted to know Larklight (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

-Yes, and by the spelling clusterfuck in that second sentence, it appears you were the one who added tonnes of spelling mistakes to the main article. It's a bloody disgrace. Clean it up. (User:Yossarian)

I'm sorry that I typed two letters in the wrong order. Larklight (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go through the article and spell-check it all. This I'll do as one edit, as it should be totally uncontroversial. I must in my defence point out that not all the points changed by User:TrulyBlue were mine, and that I've never been criticised for my spelling before: normally I take care to thank those who correct me, and improve others' errors in turn. Larklight (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

All spelling mistakes picked up by MS word spell-checker have been fixed. Larklight (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now reinserted the history heading, becuas what came beneath it is not political philosophy.Larklight (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some mention needs to me mentioned to his being very much an interlectual- as shown by his attacks on lads' mags, frequent modest proclamations of nerdyness in the times, etc., (I can find a reference for it if needs must). There aren't many writers who recommend whole lists of books every couple of weeks to their readers. Larklight (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Any Times columnist, former President of the Oxford Union and Tory MP is likely to read books and sometimes recommend them. It's hardly notable. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you read his articles? It's not that he sometimes recommends books, but that he does so so often and in such large quantities. I suspect the Tory's "summer reading list" was largely his work. Larklight (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The First World War

I think the brief line on WW1 is important, for two reasons, neither of which is immediately obvious. Firstly, I think it helps to prevent the false impression that might otherwise be given, than he is morbidly pro-war. Secondly, it helps to prevent the false impression that equally might be otherwise inferred, that that his interest in history stretches no further than hatred of Marxism. Larklight (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Early life

The wording of the third sentence in this section is ambiguous. "...he still works part-time in the fish-processing business". Who is "he" and who works part-time in fish-processing? It is pretty obvious (I think) that this intended to mean Gove's adoptive father, but the sense could be that Gove is in the fish trade. Could someone who knows make the sentence clear please? Gordoncph (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"He has criticised anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, chocolate starfish and several United Nations peace processes"

Enjoying this classic piece of ambiguous nonsense. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: don't read wiki comments whlist drinking coffee LeapUK (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not DCSF

Not the DCSF any more, so not SoS CSF. He's just the SOS for Education now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13th Law Lord (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nickname?

Does Mr Gove have a nickname? I'd be most interested to know. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

- not one our mothers would like us to utter. Didn't his father call him 'cod-face'?80.42.233.82 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.233.82 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

”Pob” or “Slithy”, usually. Mr Larrington (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

File:PEOPLE pob SQUARE.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PEOPLE pob SQUARE.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PEOPLE pob SQUARE.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Jurisdiction as Secretary of State for Education

According to the current entry on the wikipage Secretary of State for Education: "The position [of Secretary of State for Education ] was re-established on 12 May 2010, held by Michael Gove. Under the provisions for devolved government in the UK currently, his remit only applies to education up to 16 in England." In that case, all references to Gove's jurisdiction over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) are erroneous and should be corrected accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.6.89 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal yacht section

This was removed today, partially with the justification that there was only one source for it. There are, unfortunately, plenty - the first page of ghits for Gove "royal yacht" gives newspaper refs from the Telegraph, Guardian, Mail and Spectator, as well as web hits from the BBC and Sky. Plenty of other hits appear from similar places over the first two or three pages of hits - the Mirror, Indy and FT for example.

Now - is it notable enough to retain in the article? I'm not sure, which is why I've reverted and brought the discussion here. On the inclusionist side of the argument there are plenty of sources and it indicates Gove's unionist and royalist credentials. It played heavily as quite an important story for a few days iirc and it could be argued by Gove's detractors that it is, perhaps, indicative of a wider failure to prioritise effectively on his part. On the exclusionist side of the argument I'd say that it's fairly trivial in the wider scale of things, given, for example, Gove's views about allowing for-profit free schools which gets barely a sentence - although that could be a case for improving that section rather than cutting this one.

So - I'm not sure and would welcome other opinions on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well for one thing the name of the section is terrible. I would support either removing it completely because it is just a single event with no real lasting significance, or expanding and renaming to "Royalism" (or something better). -- Mrmatiko (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It really isn't a big deal BUT it did create surprise and get a lot of publicity as did the King James bible so I think it needs to appear. I would support a one-liner with the references and the title changed to Support for monarchy or similiar.JRPG (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I was the one who initially removed this section. I removed it because I wasn't sure how notable it was (there was only one Huffington Post reference at the time). Blue Square Thing assures me that there are other sources available, which might make it worth including. However, I would suggest that, if the sources were all published around the time of the event, it probably had no lasting significance and the sources are just routine news coverage (and thus the event not worth including). Are there any sources that were published sometime after the event?

Also, the heading for that section is certainly a problem: it both presents a point of view and is editorialised. I hope no one will object to me changing the heading immediately (just so that the current version of the article does not have such a bad NPOV violation for any length of time); I am happy to further discuss the name of the section here too. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's responded. You're right about the title, and that's grand. In terms of dates and so on, most of the coverage spanned a six day or so period in January for sure - it's certainly less of a long running issue than the bible one. There is some coverage outside of it and, rather bizarrely, it seems to have spawned three actual fundraising campaign to buy one - an article dated in April fwiw and mentioning the Gove as well, although the source isn't great. edit: also found this one in what appears to be a better source?

My gut feeling is that a line or two (perhaps that the government rejected it as the second line) is absolutely appropriate. Quite whether it needs it's own section or can be combined into a "general views" or "monarchist" section I'm not sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I think a few sentences would be appropriate, but not as its own section. If no one objects, I'm thinking I might have a look at giving the whole section on his political views a copyedit (a lot of the language could by tightened up, and the sectioning could be improved) - I won't add or remove any sourced content. Feel free to comment on what I do with it, or fix things yourself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've given that whole section a copyedit - please have a look and tell me what you think. As I said, I tried not to remove any sourced content; I did remove the first paragraph on foregn policy which was mostly unsourced (the only source there labelled him a neocon, and did not mention Blair or early intervention in Iraq, which was what the paragraph discussed). I also removed the section about Gove sharing a flat with someone (mentioned with the stuff on Section 28), as that didn't seem to to be relevant to Gove's view (and seemed too suggestive). I merged political philosophy and liberalism, as they are essentially the same thing. The only thing I am less happy with is the section at the bottom, which I've labelled other views. I'm sure we can find and write more on his unionism and monarchism to allow sections on those positions. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution

I've improved the paragraph in this section about Gove's Cultural Revolution piece in the Telegraph to make it much more neutral. However, I'm not certain that we need this paragraph at all - it seems to give undue weight to a trivial event, the only source we have for which was a follow-up in the same newspaper. I'm hesitant to remove it though, and would like to hear what others think. Would anyone object to the removal of this paragraph? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP

We would need a real reference that works for personal info about his kids, the fact we dont have one may indicate he doesnt want this info in public and the fact that we ALSO cant find a public reference to confirm the veracity of this means not having it. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think its a very poor idea to put any kids names into the public domain. If you have any doubts remove it, quoting WP:BLPNAME and this discussion. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news

I reverted this once, but it was put back and Lemonmelonsuperstar accepted it. Can someone explain what biographical significance this has? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2014

This edit request to Michael Gove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to change, in the lead:

"At its May 2013 conference, Gove was criticised by the National Association of Head Teachers, whose members condemned the alleged climate of bullying, fear and intimidation he has created during his time as Education Secretary"

to

"At its May 2013 conference, Gove was criticised by the National Association of Head Teachers, whose members condemned the climate of bullying, fear and intimidation they claimed he had created during his time as Education Secretary"

The latter is more natural English and reads better. Bwalleton (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Done - although both "alleged" and "claimed" appear in Wikipedia words to watch - I can't think of an alternative wording? Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've read the link, and it says that in general 'claimed' shouldn't be used when 'said' would work just as well. Wouldn't that be the case here? "Whose members condemned the [X] they said he had created..." Does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalleton (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested addition to the Political views --> Foreign policy section

Just a copy-paste required:

In 2014, fellow Conservative MP [[Crispin Blunt]] accused Gove of using the [[National Security Council (United Kingdom)|National Security Council]] to push neoconservative ideas.<ref>{{Cite news |last1 = Watt |first1 = Nicholas |last2 = Adams |first2 = Richard |date = 4 June 2014 |title = Gove accused of using national security council to promote 'neocon' ideas |url = http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/04/michael-gove-national-security-council-neocon-ideas-theresa-may |publisher = [[theguardian.com]] |accessdate = 4 June 2014 }}</ref>

31.49.136.155 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo (2014)

As I am not keen to get into an edit war I am bringing the issue of the photo here for hopefully some consensus. The older photo has him making a fish face but is nice and close up. It was replaced in September with a more recent photo. This was already in the article but moved to the infobox. It is more current and does not make him look like a fool. But it is from further away.

user at 95.146.113.82 changed the photo back to the older one and I reverted that change. He has reverted my change.

As I only noticed the change because of vandalism by that user elsewhere I am not invested one way or the other but do hope those of you who do edit this page and know the subject come to a consensus. Jemmaca (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I updated the image with a cropped and more neutral-expression one from the policy exchange set. The same IP has reverted without engaging on the talk page. At least 2 editors (User:Jemmaca and I) think the image should be updated. The image being reverted to is older and a photo with neutral-expression would be preferable. I'm going to revert. If anyone has any opinions or arguments one way or the other please share so we can get a definite consensus... Sjgknight (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, he has aged in five years! I agree that the newer photo is better, though I'm not sure either is great (Policy Exchange crop is a bit of an odd puffy-cheeked expression, but the Big Society one has a strange reddish tint to it compared to the original). Not so keen on the smiley Policy Exchange one, but alternatives welcome. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

From the same set, how about this one? Facing into the article, neutral expression. Lighting isn't perfect but we can't have everything. Not much else on flickr that's good as a portrait. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That one looks fine to me (not sure if it's an improvement on the current one, but between those two I'm basically indifferent) Sjgknight (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Exam and curriculum reforms section.

The December 2014 release of archive papers from 1986 throws light on objections to GCSE's and Gove's attitude to them. Whilst we could put them at the end of this section, logically they belong at the start. Feel free to discuss. JRPG (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support for Death Sentence should be included

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11595776/Michael-Gove-new-Justice-Secretary-wanted-to-bring-back-hanging.html …

79.74.106.182 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)twl79.74.106.182 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Will add shortly Wikiditm (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wife's views

Can somebody explain why Vine's views are covered here instead of in her own article? I'm not British, BTW, and so don't have any axes to grind. I just don't see any necessity to keep that info in his article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have now deleted them, a move with which I agree. But maybe Vine should have her own article. -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree: it seems unfair to remove Vine's views from this article, yet not have an article for Vine herself. Either they should be included in this article, or commented on in her own article. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So start an article for her. It appears that she's controversial enough to have some press coverage so I think that she meets the notability guidelines. The material certainly doesn't belong here as no one's yet demonstrated any relevancy to her husband, as far as I can see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; I have created Sarah Vine's article. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Gove/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article on Michael Gove has three sentences which, placed as they are together, strongly and in my view deliberately imply that he is homosexual. This is done under the cowardly cover of apparently neutral and fact based comment; but as anyone knows, place the right facts close together and you are in fact doing more than stating facts. Wikipedia should either have the courage explicitly to allege that there are grounds for thinking he is homosexual, or else should stop deliberately it in such a cowardly way.

Last edited at 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Gove. 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/20060924/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article645300.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article645300.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Twitter smear attacks on opponents controversy

It has been suggested that the person who wrote the section Twitter smear attacks on opponents controversy may just have a suggestion of bias, because an article suggested something does not make said suggestion noteworthy, moreover when nothing came of the investigation of said suggestions. This may need to be re-worded ..... just a suggestion. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A good point. Actually I'll go further and remove the section, since the connection with Gove is tenuous beyond belief. Dtellett (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

'Gove' pronunciation

Does his surname rhyme with 'shove,' 'prove,' or 'grove'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventifax (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If you believe what these politicians say - and I agree ... well, anyway - it's "grove". Happy days. Charles01 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So could we find a ref and add it to the intro? It's not obvious at all. Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As many WP readers will not know how "Gove" is pronounced it is useful; when I inserted it another editor removed it. It is good practice to include advice on pronunciation since different varieties of English have different usages. It might be obvious in Scotland but not to readers in another country.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing/confusing sentence in NHS section

The last sentence in the 'Views on the NHS' section is a bit confusing. It refers to 'she', and it isn't at all clear who she is. The only real candidate in that section is Jeremy Hunt, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, what point is the 'Governing Prisons' thing trying to make? I feel like there's at least a sentence of context gone awry. 92.238.248.19 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"She" referred to his wife, but I agree than we don't need to know which hospital she took him to or which book he was reading at the time; just too many newspaper details added in

Full name

According to Russian WP he is Michael Andrew Gove; if a reliable source could be found this form could be included here also.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated the article accordingly and linked to The London Gazette: no. 61230. p. 9125, 18 May 2015 which gives his full name. --Coce (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Gove and tertiary education

The most recent version of the article stated:

"In October 2016 Michael Gove axed archaeology, classical studies and art history from the syllabus of Tertiary Education (what are known as "A"-levels, or "Further Education") in Great Britain.

There are several problems with this, for instance:

As the article states, Gove was Secretary of State for Education from May 2010 to May 2015. From May 2015 to July 2016, he was Secretary of State for Justice. The article does not appear to go into great detail about how Gove was attempting to supplement his income as an MP in late 2016, but I understand that he was no longer a cabinet member and was not a member of the executive or council of the AQA.
Based on the cited sources, it is incorrect to state that Gove "axed" the subjects in October 2016. What do the sources say? Firstly, they are not about Gove but about a decision by the AQA to drop certain A-level exams. As the cited sources state, the A-Levels were "axed" not by Gove but by the AQA.This was done at a time when the subjects were still being offered in some state schools, and Gove was not a minister. One source did go as far as "directly caused by government interference".
Use of the expression "tertiary education" is misleading at best. Stating that Gove (or anyone else) axed archaeology from the syllabus of "Tertiary Education" would suggest that you couldn't study it at university. Tertiary education ends with one's first tertiary degree (e.g., a BA in Archaeology & Anthropology from Oxford University).

Since the sources provided do not support the statements made in the section, I will remove it. --Boson (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above - @Anglyn: this is the discussion I referred to in my edit summary. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The text has been changed and currently reads

"In October 2016 Michael Gove culled archaeology, classical studies and art history from the A-level and A/S-level national curriculum in England and Wales."

As worded this is still incorrect and not supported by the cited sources. A glance at the infobox shows that Gove was not in power in October 2016; he was secretary of state for education from 12 May 2010 to 15 July 2014. So he didn't cull anything in 2016. I assume that the text is meant to refer to announcements in 2016 concerning examinations from 2018 by the independent AQA. One of the cited sources does mention Gove, describing the AQA action as "following the curriculum changes begun by the former education secretary Michael Gove", but that does not support the current wording. We should discuss the intended meaning of the disputed text here. If there is some reason for retaining it in reworded form, it probably does not belong where it currently is, since it relates to his activity as Secretary of State for Education, which has its own section, including the sub-section Exam and curriculum reforms. --Boson (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so with the evidence we have (the three citations) as you mentioned was "following... curriculum changes... by Michael Gove". How is this in any way not a result of Gove's changes to the education system? Your edit is needless and uncalled for. Michael Gove's changes have had a very large impact (not least of which making scholars which just graduated that wanted to teach the subject emigrate). It was via the agency of Michael Gove that Britain has lost these subjects, and thanks to people like you, this is all neatly hidden away from the public knowing anything about it. talk @Boson:

If we want to state that Gove was ultimately responsible for the changes, we need to find a reliable source and cite it. But the statement "In October 2016 Michael Gove culled archaeology, classical studies and art history from the A-level and A/S-level national curriculum in England and Wales." is clearly incorrect, because Gove did not cull anything in 2016. If we want to talk about his actions as Secretary of State for Education (2010 to 2014), we need to state what actions he took and when (citing a reliable source). If we want to state noteworthy opinions about his actions during that time, we need to attribute those opinions to those who uttered them (with a reliable source). In those cases, the material probably belongs in the section that deals with his term as Secretary of State for Education. With appropriate sources (which I have not as yet found), you might be able to state what relevant changes Gove made to the curriculum specifically affecting archaeology, classical studies and art history, and you might be able to state that someone made a connection with the decisions of the examining boards in 2016. But it is not Wikipedia's place to draw conclusions. I am also concerned about what inferences can be drawn from expressions like "following... curriculum changes... by Michael Gove". The source's "following ..." may have been intended to imply something more on the lines of propter hoc rather than merely post hoc, but I don't think even the implication goes as far as "Gove culled the subjects in 2016". --Boson (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Following Labour's 13 years in power"... lots of stuff happened, some parts of which they agreed with and some which they didn't and some of which was actually decided by Michael Gove. Editors really don't help themselves with stupid ad hominems like "thanks to people like you, this is all neatly hidden away from the public knowing anything about it". It really isn't Wikipedia's purpose to come up with original arguments how Gove influenced curricula even after his departure, still less to inaccurately state that he "culled" something axed by private exam boards a couple of years after he'd been moved a long way away from education. And the golden rule of Wikipedia is that if something is sufficiently well-established fact to be included, the public won't have trouble finding out about it whether it happens to turn up in articles on this website or not Dtellett (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Michael Gove. 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:

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) 09:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Gove. 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/20131029191250/http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/160.pdf to http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/160.pdf

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) 18:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein joke

@Pontificalibus and Philip Cross: Thanks to Philip for adding this section and to Pontificalibus for a crystal clear statement of his reasons for objecting. I've reinserted it with a couple of extra references about Gove's very widely discussed comment which I hope make the my objections to its removal clearer. Even the Sun described it as sick. This joke might have been deemed acceptable two years ago but a change of attitude became visible in 2017 and I'm absolutely astonished Gove hadn't realised it by late 2017. Philip is normally very careful about structure and I can't see any problems with the positioning. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It may have been widely covered but I don't see what impact it had on his career, or that it's part of some wider narrative about him making inappropriate comments on air or something. The coverage is all routine news "he said this, people said that on Twitter, he apologised". By way of contrast, Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman" comment, which in several books is cited as a career-defining moment, doesn't even warrant a mention in his article. I think an entire section devoted to this gives it undue weight.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to label the edit as minor -that's an unintended consequence of using revert without unchecking the flag, sorry about that. Re Gordon Brown, whilst WP:OSE applies here, [["Bigotgate" is already covered in United Kingdom general election, 2010 -a higher profile article -otherwise I would have added it. However a clear difference is that GB didn't intend his comments to go public as he knew the potential consequences, MG knew he was on air but appeared totally insensitive. Re the joke, the 'entire section' is less than a line. Treatment of women is high profile in the UK and, as my edits show, his joke will not win him friends amongst MPs in any leadership campaign. He's already in May's bad books. I'll now await Philip's comments. JRPG (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes the entire section is less than a line, which makes it even more surprising it deserves its own section. That there is no other section suitable for adding it too further highlights its insignificance. Your comments about the implications of the joke are immaterial without sources - the three articles cited are just regurgitating some Twitter comments and don't say anything about the implications for Gove or anything else. Remember this is a sub-section of "Political career" and is alongside sections such as "Secretary of State for Education 2010–2014". Is it really that important in such a context? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pontificalibus and Philip Cross: Hi Pontificalibus. It may not have been your intention but you've made an excellent case for expanding the section! I was on TV quite a few times ten years ago and wouldn't have liked facing Humphries but the key to a good interview is good preparation. I note that Gove & Johnson both disappeared immediately after the referendum & suspect searching interviews aren't their forte.

However this was the celebration of the Today program, not an interrogation & preparation should have been easy. Women MPs don't like predatory males They probably see far more victims than Gove and know sex crimes frequently cause life changing trauma.

All the sources are WP:RS and Today is one of the most listened-to news programs. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it either needs fleshing out into a proper section, with sufficient sources to show it is a notable part of his political career, or else deleting or being found a home elsewhere in the article (I considered "Other views" but it's not really a political position). Consider Andrea_Leadsom#Comments_about_men_and_childcare. A similar small section but I could easily find sources that say it was a career-defining moment. With this article we are giving the impression that this Weinstein joke was a similar event, but the current sources don't support that.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Pontificalibus. This seems very much undue to have an entire section covering something that while admittedly gaining press coverage, was very much a flash in the pan that disappeared soon after it arose. Note how all 3 sources cited in the article are from the 28 October. It doesn't seem like the event has been regarded as a significant moment in his career. Brustopher (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I am minded to remove it unless someone can address the last two comments above. I guess a question to ask would be "could this Weinstein joke section be summarised in the lead?" I think including it the lead would only serve to demonstrate how irrelevant it is to the subject of this article.--Pontificalibus 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above to the effect that this appears to be too fleeting and inconsequential an incident to warrant a mention here, and would support you removing it. Proteus (Talk) 17:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to it being included elsewhere or we could wait until there is another suitable section to include it. You could submit an WP:RFC but attitude to women is important, perhaps comparable with the expenses scandal and you can't just decide to remove it without consensus. Gove has the support of the Daily Fail otherwise he might have joined Mark Garnier. Please leave it for now. JRPG (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As it's a BLP and you seem to be the only person speaking in defence of retaining this section, I don't think it would be appropriate for you to revert its removal again. It would be great if more people could contribute to this discussion though, or even better if someone who wants to retain it managed to write something in the article demonstrating the significance of it to his career. I've tried, but as I argued above I can't find any suitable sources. Can you locate anything beyond the twitter hoo-ha of that day that demonstrates his attitudes to women are notable?--Pontificalibus 21:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't had time to look at this today, I had a very early morning interview and I'm shattered. FWIW I hate twitter but my firm understanding is that if its covered by a WP:RS then it's treated as an authentic & useful quote. I don't think I've ever added anything that isn't WP:RS. JRPG (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Social work

We now have a section on a speech he gave and a review he initiated, which is fine but did he actually make any changes or interventions in this area? If so it would be good to focus on those rather than just what he said. --Pontificalibus 17:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

People educated at Robert Gordon's College

I removed Category:People educated at Robert Gordon's College, and DuncanHill has restored. The editing guideline WP:DEFCAT says, "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." Reliable sources commonly and consistently define Gove as a British Conservative politician or as a Cabinet member, but I don't see any that describe him as a Robert Gordon's College alumnus. Ergo, this categorisation fails WP:DEFCAT. It should go. Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at Talk:Thelma Walker#Categorisations. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Too not much conclusion. WP:DEFCAT says what it says. Argument to the contrary seems like special pleading to me. Bondegezou (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me to be profoundly unhelpful to readers to remove these categories. The education of a politician is significant, certainly for British politicians. They are widely used, and one expects to see them. Lists are not as easy to maintain, and for that very reason are not maintained. If you disagree with the cats nominate them all for deletion. This sneaky removing from an article here and there is un-collegiate and unhelpful. Find something useful to do instead. DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: It's worth noting that the categorisation guidelines explicitly acknowledge categorising by educational institution - see Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Categorization schemes. "Currently, people tend to be categorized by the following broad categories...", so it's one statement one way and one the other. This is a widespread thing, and we've been doing it systematically on articles for as long as I can remember.

I agree that this seems at odds with a literal reading of "defining", but Wikipedia guidelines are not always very clear and consistent. Speaking personally, I would tend to give far more weight to "this is what we usually do" rather than "the guidance says we don't"; the guidelines should reflect community consensus, not trump it. Given the ubiquity of these categories, if you think they're generally inappropriate per the policy, that's probably a discussion we should have on a wider scale rather than arguing about it on one or two individual articles. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Gray, I think you raise a crucial, but subtle point. The categorisation guidelines explicitly acknowledge that it "supports categorizing People by educational institution" because in some cases that is appropriate. I am not saying "they're generally inappropriate". For example, I have no quibble with Boris Johnson being categorised as an old Etonian. I am saying it is appropriate to categorise some people by educational institution and not appropriate to categorise other people by educational institution.

That decision, what's appropriate for an individual person (or article), is determined by the criterion laid out in WP:DEFCAT. That's why I'm discussing the matter here rather than going to a category-for-deletion discussion or some broader forum. I don't want to delete these categories: I want to use them where they are appropriate and only where they are appropriate. I am not saying no-one is defined by Category:People educated at Robert Gordon's College. I am saying Michael Gove isn't.

What categories apply to an individual article is only determined by WP:CATDEF and other guidelines saying the same thing in other ways, like WP:NONDEF. DuncanHill suggests that, "The education of a politician is significant". That may well be true, but the editing guidelines don't say we categorise people by what's significant. They say we categorise people by how reliable sources commonly and consistently define them.

Nor do I accept "this is what we usually do": that's WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and ruled out. If community consensus wants to change WP:DEFCAT, it can. But it currently doesn't say, "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having or where they went to school." WP:CATDEF is pretty straightforward: most articles are categorised according to it. Michael Gove is very, very, very, very obviously not commonly and consistently defined by being an alumnus of Robert Gordon's College, WP:ILIKEIT arguments notwithstanding. Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have sought input from a broader forum, at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#How_do_we_apply_CATDEF. Bondegezou (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Michael Gove

Michael Andrew Gove was born in Aberdeen NOT Edinburgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.177.58 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Have to a reference to support this? Keith D (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes; his actual birthplace of Aberdeen was divulged near the start of the book Michael Gove: A Man in a Hurry, so I have updated the page accordingly. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Reading through this article I am concerned about the neutrality, much of the article seems to attack Gove and the opening summery seems to have more than 1/3 of the information about a vote of no confidence from Unions. While I am aware that Gove is a controversial politician I feel this article is written far too much in a negative sense and should be re-written, does anyone agree? C. 22468 Talk to me 21:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Key points in WP:BLP are to

Avoid editorializing -our opinions really don't matter though quotes ascribed to academic Richard J. Evans (or a journalist) are allowed.
Avoid tabloids -use reliable sources. In general, people interested in producing an encyclopedia rather than an election leaflet will remove anything that fails these rules whatever their political beliefs.

The article seems to follow these rules. I note all education secretaries are unpopular & 3 lines of union anger is borderline but the lead is a bit short. If you have stories which you regard as more positive, particularly ones presenting facts rather than opinions, please add them. JRPG (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

David Irving/Holocaust Denial

Should we add something about the subject of this article being criticised for owning and displaying a book by a holocaust denier? See https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/michael-gove-and-sarah-vine-criticised-on-twitter-for-having-holocaust-denier-david-irvings-s-book-1-6636307 and https://www.indy100.com/article/michael-gove-sarah-vine-racist-antisemitic-books-bookshelf-twitter-9497246 80.47.148.59 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, it doesn't seem noteworthy enough and hasn't received enough coverage to make it into this article. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the threshold for "enough coverage" in this case? It seems to have been in quite a few British National Newspapers and magazines. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Since we've not identified a threshold for "enough coverage" and noteworthyness I'll readd it on the basis that similar parts of the page such as the cocaine controversy had a similar level of coverage and were similarly noteworthy. If anyone disagrees I'm happy to discuss why the threshold for number and quality of sources for this should be higher than for similar parts of the same page 80.47.148.59 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I say we should. It's been covered by reliable sources and it's definitely important. Holocaust denial is a serious matter, and shouldn't simply be brushed under the carpet. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's been coverage in the Telegraph, New European, Independent, Spectator, Evening Standard, so I think we have enough reliable sources. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The current version feels lackluster. The section should be called bookcase controversy, and the sort of criticism he received should be presented with greater detail. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

okay don't be clicking on adds 2603:900A:2300:CA3D:1937:D44C:BA44:C87B (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Gove in 2021.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)