Talk:Penny Mordaunt/Archive 1

Changing article status

Can we remove the warning template yet? YellowFratello (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her reservist rank is stated as "Lieutenant" by the rank slide in the picture next to it is that of a Sub-Lieutenant, one rank lower.

Not a big deal, but should be corrected at some point (once someone ascertains which is correct).

I suspect she is a full-Lieutenant, since this progression is normal based on a fairly automatic advancement, and she has been a reservist officer for a number of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.37.74 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't update based on suspicion. The only references I could see which mentioned her rank referred to her as an Acting Sub-Lieutenant. If we are lucky there may be more detailed biographies published in the wake of her promotion. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Sub-lieutenant#Acting sub-lieutenant says that the rank was abolished in the RNR in 2013, but (as I said above) we'd need a source to say anything else. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Female Armed Forces Veteran in House of Commons

Under House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, serving members of the regular or reserve armed forces are disqualified from holding office as a Member of Parliament. The statement in the introductory paragraph that she is first and currently the only female armed forces veteran in the House of Commons is only partly true. Mervyn Pike, Baroness Pike, who was MP for Melton Mowbray 1956-74, served in WWII in the WAAF. I propose to delete the 'first' and retain the 'currently only', but I do not know if there were other female armed forces veterans who also served in the Commons.Cloptonson (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add, as probably the earliest to serve, Betty Harvie Anderson, Baroness Skirmshire of Quarter, MP for Renfrewshire West 1959-79, who served in the ATS from 1938 to 1946, rising to rank of Chief Commander (equivalent Lt Col).Cloptonson (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered the earliest female armed forces veteran to serve as an MP was Violet Bathurst, Lady Apsley who was an officer in the ATS in WWII until she resigned her commission in 1943 after being elected MP for Bristol Central (succeeding her husband who had died on active service), remaining until defeat in 1945 General Election.Cloptonson (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penny Mordaunt. 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) 14:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date

This article shows how impressively up to date Wikipedia is. It was mentioned on the news tonight (May 1 2019) that while the news had been on air, the reporters heard how Penny Mordaunt had replaced Gavin Williamson as Defense secretary, and already that she is now Defense secretary is mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but you should then have deleted the CurrentPerson tag. Next visitor please delete this.

Mordaunt Baronets?

There is a link to the Mordaunt Baronets, but no mention of how Penny's father, John Mordaunt, was connected to these. Valetude (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University distinction

She was the first member of her family to attend university.

This is a popular but quite meaningless claim in the age of mass higher education. (It's as bad as 'descended from Charles II'). Valetude (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is very clear; perhaps you mean "insignificant". Based on the information here, she started university in the early 1990s; is that "in the age of mass higher education"? Maybe, but anyway, given that 'social mobility' is often discussed in relation to UK politics, it seems relevant to include it in the biography of a UK politician. EddieHugh (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think it's noteworthy. Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Jones, journalist?

It seems misleading to refer to Owen Jones simply as a "journalist" in this article. In his own article "journalist" is one of the jobs listed but not the first and the fact that he's a left-wing activist and has worked for the Labour party seems relevant here. 82.0.126.175 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could be trimmed to drop the word "journalist", or indeed any other word(s), and just let the wiki-link do the talking for anybody who wants to see who / what he is? Crep1711 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And / or I suppose that you could describe him as a "Guardian journalist" or even a “political journalist-commentator” if that's what he regularly is. From his wiki entry, it looks like that’s what he’d known for. But it's a tricky precedent. Imagine if we had to refer to the other lot as "Murdoch journalists" or even "Daily Mail opinion journalists". Still, if you feel strongly about it there's no reason why you shouldn't make the change. Needs a plausible source, though. Otherwise someone might accuse you of making stuff up! I'd avoid excessively baggage-laden terms like "left-wing activist": that's one for the Owen Jones entry, and would need to be included, if at all, in a para which spells out what form(s) his left-wing activism take(s). But people come to this entry to read about Ms Mordaunt. Success. Charles01 (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various points about the statement: Early in the contest, journalist Owen Jones accused Mordaunt of "throwing trans people under a bus to advance her own career" after she appeared to negate her 2018 statement that "trans women are women and trans men are men" by insisting on a strictly biological basis for womanhood.

1) I agree that simply referring to Owen Jones as a journalist is somewhat inaccurate.

2) I am not convinced that Mr Jones’s opinion is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in this article.

3) I don’t agree that Ms Mordaunt’s comments in the Independent article actually support our statement that she insists ‘on a strictly biological basis for womanhood’. According to the Independent she says:’ “I am biologically a woman” “If I have a hysterectomy or mastectomy, I am still a woman. And I am legally a woman. Some people born male and who have been through the gender recognition process are also legally female. That DOES NOT mean they are biological women, like me.”

This is not a statement that the basis for womanhood is ‘strictly biological’. She is saying that some people (like her) are biologically and legally female, whereas others are legally female, but not biologically female.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to report what she actually said than to give a journalist's interpretation or opinion of what she said. EddieHugh (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I propose that the sentence starting Early in the contest, Owen Jones…. be replaced by In July 2022, shortly before launching her bid for the leadership of the Conservative party, she responded to the question ‘Do I know what a woman is?’ by saying on Twitter: “I am biologically a woman” “If I have a hysterectomy or mastectomy, I am still a woman. And I am legally a woman. Some people born male and who have been through the gender recognition process are also legally female. That DOES NOT mean they are biological women, like me.” Sweet6970 (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the amendment which I proposed. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Naval Reserve

Is she in the RNR? The infobox states she left in 2019. The body states "Mordaunt is a Royal Naval Reservist". And "As of 2022, she was the only female MP in the Royal Naval Reserve" is sourced to something published in 2019. EddieHugh (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does she meet the VR postnominal requirements? The postnominal VR requires ten years continuous service after completion of Phase 1 training, (JSP 761 Pt 1, 5.15), not 10 years service in the RNR. An RNR Direct Entry Acting Sub-Lieutenant was in 2010 pre Phase 1 completion. Can a reference be found to her commissioning as a Sub-Lieutenant in the RNR? The ten years should start from that date. Technically (unpaid) time in List 6 should count as the VR criteria does not require certificates of efficiency.

I've added a citation needed tag for that too, as it's not sourced anywhere. Thanks for raising it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed VR. It was added in this edit three days ago, with the WP:OR edit summary "the register of member's interests shows that Ms Mordaunt has been in service since 2010—this length of reserve service entitles her to the Post-Nominals VR". We need WP:RS if VR is to be restored. EddieHugh (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that Mordaunt "is a Royal Navy Reservist", and makes a claim that she is the only female RN Reservist in Parliament. However her entry in the List of Members' Interests says she left the reserve in 2019. As the article is locked, could these be updated?208.127.199.100 (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 208.127.199.100, You have said "...entry in the List of Members' Interests says..." give us a direct Link for this claim and the article will be amended; I've spent the past several minutes looking for it and then realized you would need to have seen this to say it, so please just link it, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Bibby (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced, and edited (I was 208.127.199.100, wasn't logged on sorry)Catiline63 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her entry in Who's Who lists "RNR" under Recreations - last updated 01 December 2021. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who is classed as 'generally unreliable'. See the table at WP:RSP. EddieHugh (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Rank, Protocol of Use

Is it usual naval/military protocol that a person is referred to by their honorary rank, rather than their substantive rank? I notice that Captain Sir Tom Moore (a substantive captain, but honorary colonel), is referred to by his substantive rank in his Infobox header. Yet Mordaunt's has "Honorary Captain". For what it's worth, I also notice in the London Gazette edition cited on the page that Mordaunt was made Honorary Captain at the same time that broadcaster Dan Snow was accorded the same honour and adventurer Bear Grylls became an Honorary Colonel in the Royal Marine Reserve. Yet neither of these have their honorary ranks heading their Infoboxes. Catiline63 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquind interconnector subsection[[1]]

Alexander Temerko objects to Mordaunt’s opposition to the AQUIND Interconnector going through her constituency. He has a business interest in Aquind, so this is hardly surprising. I feel inclined to delete this subsection. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) Sweet6970 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I support deletion.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 10:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now deleted this section. I support the deletion. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Gender matters

Kind Tennis Fan has deleted the section Policy Position on Gender Self-Identification, on the grounds that this is covered under Conservative party leadership contest 2022.[2] I think that the comments under both sections should be in the same place, but I definitely think that all the comments on this should be included in the article, as it looks like it may be an important issue in the leadership election. So I propose reinstating the Policy Position on Gender Self-Identification section, and moving the other comment to that section. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Mordaunt's views on gender identity merit a place in her article since they have received a lot of mainstream attention from sources. With that being said, the section must be written from a neutral point of view. I have many issues with the "Views and activities" section of this article as it depicts the situations listed almost entirely from a negative point of view and puts undue weight on her critics. There is absolutely no need for a "Criticism in prior roles" subsection to begin with, this subsection is entirely just political opponents saying bad things about her during a leadership election and does not belong on Wikipedia. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you support the inclusion in this article of material on Ms Mordaunt’s views on gender matters, but that you want it written from a neutral point of view. It should be borne in mind that it is in the nature of things that political figures generally get more criticism than praise. In the case of Ms Mordaunt, it appears that she has changed her views on gender/transgender matters, or at least has changed her expression of her views, and so it is to be expected that she is now getting hostility from both ‘sides’. Taking this into account, what wording do you propose for the Gender section in this article?

As regards ”Criticism in prior roles” see the section below (any moment now).

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sources outlining what Mordaunt has specifically said on the issue of gender identity is appropriate, as are reliable sources containing neutral analysis of her positions. I'm not certain that reactions from others regarding what she's said is necessarily relevant. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want the wording of the intended reinstated section on Views on Gender matters to be different from what was deleted? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism in prior roles

Endwise has deleted the section Criticism in prior roles, with the edit summary: (Such WP:CSECTIONS are generally advised against. If there is anything salvageable here, it should be worked through the rest of the article at the appropriate locations, not in a section like this. It is just a dump of quotes though, so I'm not sure much of it is salvageable anyway.) [3] The deleted section had material on Ms Mordaunt’s role as deputy to Lord Frost, Director of Communications at Kensington and Chelsea Council, and her support for the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Jjj1238 has also expressed opposition to a Criticism section. Please would you both, and anyone else who has a view, say whether you object to the deleted material as such, and if you support the inclusion of any of the deleted material, say where you would like it to go. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything in that section warrants inclusion in this article. It's entirely just political opponents criticizing her because they don't want her to win an election. If that warranted inclusion, then every politician in every country would have sections with endless quotes from political opponents about how bad and unfit for office they are. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity: diff of my edit and permalink to the content it removed. In general, I firmly believe that no Wikipedia biography should have a section dedicated exclusively to negative quotes about its subject. In this case, the Lord Moylan and Major Robert Campbell quotes aren't much more explanatory than "she sucks and you shouldn't vote for her". The length (and context) of Lord Frost's quotes make it similar, although if there was discussion about her time as Frost's deputy elsewhere in the article it could make sense to include the part about why he sacked her. But the parts roughly akin to "she sucks and shouldn't be prime minister"? No, that shouldn't stay. As Jjj1238 said, there's an infinity of such quotes about every single politician ever. Endwise (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. So – if all the viewpoints reported on Ms Mordaunt are negative, our article should reflect this.

@DrJoHeiter: Please join this discussion.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

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

Change "running" to "standing" for election. In the UK candidates stand for election, they don't run. 87.114.65.166 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Thank you for pointing this out. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In July 2022, Mordaunt is standing in the leadership race to become the leader of the Conservative Party and the next prime minister."

This makes no sense. It should be changed to "In July 2022, Mordaunt announced her candidacy to replace Johnson in the Conservative party leadership election." 89.243.125.209 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed 'race' to 'contest', so she is no longer standing in a race. I don't see the necessity for your exact wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it absolutely necessary that it should be changed to that wording, it was just a suggestion as that's the wording used on the lead on Rishi Sunak's article. Thank you for changing 'race' to 'contest'! --89.243.125.209 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Sweet6970 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]