Talk:Dominic Raab

}}

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Dominic Raab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927235257/http://www.civitas.org.uk/wordpress/2011/04/21/strasbourg-court-flouting-democratic-self-government/ to http://www.civitas.org.uk/wordpress/2011/04/21/strasbourg-court-flouting-democratic-self-government
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927235257/http://www.civitas.org.uk/wordpress/2011/04/21/strasbourg-court-flouting-democratic-self-government/ to http://www.civitas.org.uk/wordpress/2011/04/21/strasbourg-court-flouting-democratic-self-government/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110128172903/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23916856-tory-mp-blasts-obnoxious-feminist-bigots-and-says-men-get-a-raw-deal.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23916856-tory-mp-blasts-obnoxious-feminist-bigots-and-says-men-get-a-raw-deal.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner:Offline 01:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018
Please update the expired PoliticsHome link which currently points to an archive article to this active link https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/opinion/house-commons/96662/dominic-raab-we-must-end Mattlpfoster (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Danski454 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Resignation
It can now go in the article that Dominic Raab has resigned as Brexit secretary. Vorbee (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC) I see that that is in the article now, so many thanks to the Wikipedian who helped to update the article.Vorbee (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Television debate appearance
Re this revert, I don't quite see how this can be judged as "recentism". As far as I know, Raab has never before taken part in a televised debate of any kind apart from Question Time in March 2019. But there seem to be no instances of his appearing on television mentioned in the entire article. I suspect he will not appear in the second Conservative Leader debate scheduled for tomorrow evening on BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

At Ramallah
Mention of Raab's stay at Ramallah was followed by a parenthesis about Hamas in Gaza. This was irrelevant to Raab, and Ramallah was properly identified in the sentence already, so I took out the parenthesis. (I could have said that in the summary, but I forgot to insert a summary.) Andrew Dalby 14:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection
Requesting such steps as this man is in a high office, the PM's de facto deputy as First Secretary of State and holds one of the great offices of states. The Chancellor's Wikepedia [age is semi-protetced. This page poses a major risk to vandalism.


 * Pages are not preemptively protected. No vandalism has taken place, so no need to protect. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Acting Prime Minister
Stop the edit wars. He is in fact acting as prime minister. --Bohbye (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know Raab is deputised to Johnson's roles but do you have a reliable source that explictly states Raab is now the acting Prime Minister? Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52192604 Thanks, EditQwerty (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty


 * That source says 'deputise where necessary' -- that's very different from assuming the role of PM or holding the title. No media source is using "acting PM" or that Raab has taken on all PM duties. — MouldyFox (talk)  20:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Until we find RSs which explictly state Raab is acting prime minister we should not include it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Precisely. We shouldn't be making up positions that don't exist, it's deeply irresponsible on our end, and until he is officially defined as the "Acting PM" we should refrain from defining him as what he is not.BitterGiant (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The IfG has an article explicitly stating the position does not exist, and why. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/acting-prime-ministers — MouldyFox (talk)  20:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the office exists de jure is irrelevant. The office of Prime Minister didn't exist de jure until the early 1900s, but everyone acted as though it did. Raab is de facto deputy PM, so de facto acting PM. The infobox should reflect that.GibbNotGibbs (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It should reflect that if he is actually Acting PM, but he isn't; He's the First Secretary of State doing what the FSS does in this situation. The infobox shouldn't reflect something which doesn't exit, which is this idea that he's somehow become Acting PM when he's just the FSS deputising for Johnson. For all this talk of de facto and de jure, you miss the point that he's neither.BitterGiant (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:yeungkahchun he is not Acting PM, please see discussion, the position does not exist and no credible source has defined him as suchBitterGiant (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Deputisng in the lead
I know what you are adding is true and sourced by RSs that Raab has deputised to Johnson's role but as I stated in my edit summary this is a case of WP:RECENTISM and is currently not worth mentioning in the lead. Please self-revert. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "where necessary" Thanks, EditQwerty (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty

Rennie
Do we have a rock solid proof that his full name is indeed "Dominic Rennie Raab"? The jokes in association with the stomach and intestine medicine of the same name would write themselves... unless the joke is on us! --Edelseider (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * According to The London Gazette (which is "one of the official journals of record or Government gazettes of the British government") his full name is Dominic Rennie Raab . Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn’t his name originally Rab? He thought it would make him more acceptable to the Tory establishment if he extended his name Raaaaaaab 82.29.45.155 (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

1942, not 1938
Unfortunately Dominic Raab has given wrong information about his father's immigration, which has now been published in several places. "His father, who was Jewish, came to Britain from Czechoslovakia in 1938 aged six." According to Raab's aunt, and also according to the documentation, the family arrived in 1942, not 1938. See the tree on Geni at https://www.geni.com/people/Peter-Raab/6000000032036028018 and the immigration document at https://photos.geni.com/p13/5a/a6/1b/9b/534448540e7bbf53/screen_shot_2020-04-07_at_11_original.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randols (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Volunteering on Kibbutz
Dominic Raab volunteered on Kibbutz Sarid during his gap year. Adding this fact isn't vandalism, and adds valuable content to the biography. Can we add it in again please?Baalmaloche (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you think he got any instructions from mossad? 82.29.45.155 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

2019 Election result
The article includes the Esher and Walton constituency result for every election in which Dominic Raab has stood except the latest in 2019. Given that he saw his majority reduced from over 23000 to under 3000 it is surely important information which is relevant to understanding the electorates view of him given that this represented the biggest swing against a Conservative MP in the general election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C804:5D00:F17D:3711:BDA3:ABAA (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was in the infobox but I have now added it to prose . Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 10:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What will Raab's title be as of tomorrow (02/09/2020)?
As the FCO is becoming the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will Raab's title change to reflect this? Will he become the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJWilde (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Raab Blinken Phone Call.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021
The infobox is overly long because of how many offices Raab has held; can a module like the one on the right be added to reduce it? 81.157.224.127 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I agree with your assessment, but I'm unsure about where to exactly collapse the offices, should I collapse them all, only the old ones or the junior roles? I still think the info about his current and recent past to be immediately visible, but it's hard striking a balance - then should this also be applied at an infobox level instead of just this article? Hmm. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 02:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be done like this:
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closing request while under discussion and awaiting input, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Raab Blinken Phone Call.jpg

Acting prime minister
He is acting prime minister for a day 31.125.6.126 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for Trump coup attempt
Can a new section be added, covering Raab’s support for Trump’s coup attempt in 2021. 88.97.108.45 (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

, Please read this tweet. Sahaib (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor error in lead
The current lead reads: "Following a stint on the backbenches during the brief premiership of Liz Truss, He was re-appointed to the posts in the Sunak ministry."

The 'h' in He is capitalized where it shouldn't be.

Correction should be: "Following a stint on the backbenches during the brief premiership of Liz Truss, he was re-appointed to the posts in the Sunak ministry." 2601:249:8E00:420:C4E3:7054:8FD6:1FD2 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of bullying
I wrote "The Times reported a formal complaint that civil servants were “signed off work for extended periods of time” when Raab was Justice secretary. Civil servants were allegedly left in tears after speaking to Mr Raab or his senior team acording to the Times.  The Times further maintains work pressure and unreasonable deadlines impacted some colleagues’ mental and physical health to point where they saw their GPs,.  A group of mid-ranking officials  reportedly submitted the complaint against Mr Raab in March 2022.  The report was allegedly resubmitted in the week to 17 November 2022 after the government stated that no formal complaints had been made against Raab.  It was further reported that a “tangible shift towards a dysfunctional working culture is starting to hinder” effective work in the department. " See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominic_Raab&type=revision&diff=1122415198&oldid=1122354487.

DeFacto reverted it.

The Times is behind a pay wall but The Independent is reliable and I'm sure they reportedThe Times accurately.

I wrote ""The Times reported a formal complaint that civil servants were “signed off work for extended periods of time” when Raab was Justice secretary. Civil servants were allegedly left in tears after speaking to Mr Raab or his senior team acording to the Times. The Times further maintains work pressure and unreasonable deadlines impacted some colleagues’ mental and physical health to point where they saw their GPs."

The source states "Dominic Raab reportedly presided over a “perverse culture of fear” in which civil servants were “signed off work for extended periods of time” when he was Justice secretary, according to a formal complaint seen by The Times. Civil servants were said to be left in tears after speaking to Mr Raab or his senior team, the paper reported. Some people were apparently so stressed that they were “signed off work for extended periods of time”. “The combination of the pressure of work and unreasonable deadlines has had such an impact on some colleagues’ mental and physical health that they have visited their GPs,” the complaint reportedly said.

I wrote "A group of mid-ranking officials reportedly submitted the complaint against Mr Raab in March 2022.  The report was allegedly resubmitted in the week to 17 November 2022 after the government stated that no formal complaints had been made against Raab.  It was further reported that a “tangible shift towards a dysfunctional working culture is starting to hinder” effective work in the department."

The source states "The complaint against Mr Raab was reportedly submitted by a group of mid-ranking officials from the Ministry of Justice in March. It was apparently resubmitted this week after the government said that no formal complaints had been made against the former justice secretary. The letter reportedly said: “We are extremely worried about the perverse culture of fear that is clearly permeating this department... We are proud of the work we do here, but the tangible shift towards a dysfunctional working culture is starting to hinder that.”

I can see no serious problem with what I wrote. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Proxima Centauri, I'm not questioning whether the Independent reported The Times accurately, I'm saying that the Independent does not support all of those assertions you added, especially the ones made in the voice of The Times.
 * And that's just one of the BLP policy requirements though, for the rest you need to thoroughly read and digest WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Unnamed sources and unnamed insiders
I agree with DeFacto that it's important for the article to be fully compliant with WP:BLP. I feel that the biography currently now contains too many newspaper quotes from "unnamed sources" and "unnamed insiders". In my view, the accusations against Raab should be stated concisely, with the response given from Raab. As per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, Wikipedia is not written in news style.

On 10 November 2022, before the allegations emerged, the biography contained under 113,000 bytes. It currently contains, on 26 November 2022, over 121,000 bytes, with accusations against Raab now in multiple sections of the biography – his first and second term as Justice Secretary, his time as Brexit Secretary and as Foreign Secretary.

As the accusations against Raab were not actually reported in reliable secondary sources until November 2022, I feel it may be better to have the allegations in one section, with a subheading of, for example, Behaviour complaints, rather than having accusations from unnamed sources in multiple sections of the biography. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, especially as these three retrospective allegations of historical bullying are unproven and denied. A short summary paragraph describing that the facts of the three allegations are going to be looked into should probably have due weight. We should definitely avoid the rumours, tittle-tattle, and scandal mongering that is written in the press (that's just journalists making a living), and concentrate on summarising the verifiable facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The accustions come from reliable sources, The Guardian and the BBC. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023
Dominic Raab was the Secretary of State for Justice and Deputy Prime Minister. He resigned this morning - his twitter

https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1649334236216713219?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet 79.70.22.186 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done or I'm missing where you want to change this. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Section titled "Libel Case" is wrong
As of the date/time I'm typing this, there is a section called "Libel Case" which is confusing. It begins "On 30 January 2011, The Mail on Sunday published an article alleging – falsely – that Raab, in his previous role as Chief of Staff to David Davis in 2007, had paid a female employee £20,000 in an out-of-court settlement as part of a confidentiality agreement to drop a claim of workplace bullying". But in the second paragraph it says "During these proceedings, it was disclosed that the employee had taken a claim against Raab to an employment tribunal, where it was settled with a compromise agreement which included monetary compensation and a confidentiality clause for both parties."


 * There is no footnote next to the "– falsely –" providing a source. The footnotes that DO exist show that the Mail's reporting was true.


 * For instance, one of the sources leads to a judicial ruling in the case, to the effect that Raab didn't have to release the accuser from the confidentiality agreement/settlement to enable the Mail to review the confidentiality agreement/settlement to prepare a defense. The decision further makes it clear that the confidentiality/settlement agreement being sought concerns a claim for workplace bullying. How then can someone who says "Raab was complained against for bullying and settled" be sued for libel? We need an explanation of how it was possible for Raab to get that apology out of the Mail when it's obvious that the gist of what the Mail published is true. Now, I haven't run across a source for the £20,000 figure. Suppose the settlement was only £1,000. Was THAT the basis of Raab's libel claim? I can speculate about WHAT might have been false about the Mail's article that would enable a libel-claim, but I don't think I should have to. I think it's Wikipedia's job to explain WHAT allegations contained in the Mail article were untrue.


 * Even if the explanation is simply "In the U.K., libel-law is so insane that if someone complains against Person A for bullying and the case is settled before any finding of fact is made as to the truth or falsity of the bullying accusations, and if you then publish the mere EXISTENCE of the the accusations that were never proven 'true' in court, then you can be sued for libel EVEN IF you carefully state "as to whether Person A is a bully or not, this newspaper feels that it doesn't have sufficient information to report one way or the other on that question", then that explanation needs to be included in this "Libel Case" section because otherwise everyone from any country other than the U.K. is left scratching their heads as to why the Mail would apologize for stating things that the cited sources make clear are obviously true.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk)Christopher L. Simpson — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording of this section is confusing. Judging from the sources cited, my guess would be that the libel was the allegation that Raab had been a sexist bully, rather than the fact that there had been a compromise agreement.Southdevonian (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the section to reflect the fact the libel concerned the sexist bullying and not the compromise agreement itself.Southdevonian (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Liz Truss is linked twice in the lead
Can this be fixed? She doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)