Talk:Kwasi Kwarteng

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015
My name is Anthony (Tony) Caporn and I would like to update Kwasi Kwarteng's wiki entry to keep it up-to-date. I currently manage Kwasi's web site www.kwasi4spelthorne.org.uk on behalf of Kwasi. Specifically I would like to add a Parliamentary Timeline for Kwasi's offices in Parliament (e.g. dates of membership of Select Committees and his latest government position) and to add books that Kwasi has authored as they are published. I did add the election result in May but nothing since. As Kwasi's Wiki entry is semi-protected I am unable to update it. Can you give me access to this page. Thank you Tony Caporn email: tony_caporn@btinternet.com

CapornAJ (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
 * You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
 * You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.
 * That said, I strongly suggest you read the information at WP:COI (and its supplemental page, WP:PSCOI) - Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have policies in place regarding conflicts of interest and paid editing which you need to be aware of. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kwasi Kwarteng. 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:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20100710160812/http://www.kwart2010.com/about/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20100510223513/http://www.kwart2010.com/about/ on http://www.kwart2010.com/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Owen Paterson section removal
Why was it removed? Stevan Mitnick (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone in Westminster supposedly tried to scrub the page of details of the scandal: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-torys-wikipedia-edited-parliament-27868548 Cortador (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed the page being edited from the article. At the moment, the only source for this is the Mirror; this is a BLP so we'd need more reliable sources for a claim like this, especially since it could be read as implying that Kwarteng was somehow involved in the page edit. BLPRS explicitly excludes tabloid journalism from BLP sourcing, which the Mirror is. If this turns out to be an important story it will be picked up by additional news outlets and we can include it then. WJ94 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A couple of people have reverted my edit on this. I won't revert back any more per 3RR; however, I do think it is important that we wait until this story is picked up by other news outlets before including it here. Firstly, anything we put on Wikipedia is automatically given prominence; it is important that we do not give undue prominence to a story about a BLP which has so far only been reported in one tabloid paper. Second, including this story creates the impression that Kwarteng himself was involved in the removal of the material, which there is no evidence for. Even though this is not explicitly stated in the text, we should avoid giving that impression. WJ94 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have provided an additional reference from the The Spectator. Turini2 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also removed an editorialising comment "this was reported by the UK's media as potential tampering of the record" as neither source says that. I think if we did want something similar, it would need a quote. Turini2 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with WJ94 here. While the tabloid/gossip sources verify that an anonymous IP edited the article, it gives undue weight to mention it in the biography of a living person. This type of trivia is navel-gazing and doesn't belong here per WP:NOTNEWS. gobonobo  + c 19:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Active censorship of the subject by an IP located in their workplace is a clear rationale for ensuring the offending content is restored. Despite the UK governments increasingly authoritarian censorship of the press and heavy-handed use of supreme injunctions to supress investigative journalism, no-one should hold sway over Wikipedia as a historical, un-biased resource. I second the use of the Spectator to support the inclusion of this event. MrEarlGray (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just talked to WJ94 about this. Here's my reply which more or less includes my opinion on this issue: Hi WJ94, thanks for leaving this message. While I completely understand the BLP concerns that you may have, I would say that these concerns do not quite justify removing the content. Foremost, it is clear that sources could be found on that incident of the content being removed, and not only did Daily Mirror report about it, but sources such as TLDR and even Wikipedia's own logs can verify the Parliament edit. Ok, you may say that Wikipedia in itself is not an RS, but in this very situation, it is a reliable technical source just like court and government filings (after all our servers are renowned for being quite reliable). Another thing, which I'd say is arguably more fundamental to this issue, is whether this even falls under BLP. OK, I know that we're writing on a living person's Wiki page, but the crucial point is that BLP only covers claims made on a person or information about that person and themselves only, no matter if that claim is made on that person's personal wiki article or not. Interpreting this rule in plain language, the edit saying that stuff on his Wiki article got removed is neither. We are not making claims against him, it's just saying that someone else did it, and we aren't even talking ABOUT him, we're just talking about his Wikipedia article. Well I think if talking about a celebrity's pet dog doesn't fall under BLP, then talking about his article won't either? Webpages aren't living persons are they? I may be wrong so please correct me if necessary. I'll copy this to the article talk page for others' reference. Thanks!! WikiAviator  talk 02:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that the material on Owen Patterson should not have been removed and I am pleased that it has been restored. I also agree that there is good reason to believe that the removal was done from someone within the House of Commons. If it helps, I probably share many of your political sensibilities. However, the question is whether the story of the Owen Patterson material being removed from Wikipedia should be included in this article. For reasons I have outlined already (and also will do so below), we have good reasons not to include this story in the article, however much we condemn the original actions which led to it. I think you have misunderstood what BLP requires here. BLP requires that material challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be supported with reliable sources, and that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed. That does apply in this case because by saying that Kwarteng's article was edited by an IP from within the house of commons (within a section which is critical of him), we implicitly suggest that Kwarteng was somehow involved in the removal, even if the article never explicitly says that. This would then fall under BLP. (In a similar way, a celebrity's dog does not necessarily fall under BLP, but writing that a celebrity's dog died due to neglect, even if one never explicitly blamed the celebrity for the death, would fall under BLP). also brought up NOTNEWS, which is also a relevant policy here. If this story is important enough to include in Kwarteng's article, then it will be picked up by multiple reliable sources and we can include it. At present, this is not the case; there is no need for Wikipedia to be an early adopter for this story (in fact we should actively avoid this). What concerns me is that there is now reporting on our addition of the content removal story ; our actions have become news which should not happen. WJ94 (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Given that a journalist tweeted about this within five minutes of the two edits (removal, revert) in question happening, I think this was most likely a PR stunt aimed at discrediting Kwarteng. Andreas JN 466 15:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a Twitter bot that tweets out any edits made from the houses of parliament IP range, so it's not too far-fetched an idea that it's followed by lots of reporters who have a story ready for when the inevitable happens - just fill in the blanks and off you go. Instant low-effort, potentially high impact story. There's no need to arrange a stunt or set something up, when it's virtually guaranteed to happen. EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That occurred to me too after I wrote the above. TLDR News does follow that Twitterbot (I just checked), so it's possible they might have seen the tweet of that edit. But note that the Twitterbot had not tweeted anything for an entire week, so for someone to see the first edit after a week and respond within five minutes is ... well, it's possible. The next issue is that we have no idea whether this was Kwarteng or someone on his team. It could just as well have been a fellow Tory allied with the other side of the leadership contest, or someone associated with one of the opposition parties. Hell, if I wanted to embarrass a politician by making it look like they had tried to delete something from here, and had access to the Houses of Parliament IP address, practically any politician with a biography here would be a sitting duck. (The other three edits flagged by the Twitterbot yesterday were all about footballers ...) Just as well there is no one in the Houses of Parliament who would wish anyone else there ill ... Andreas JN 466 19:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'd simply not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. It's the IP range for the building, and some 3,000 people work there. In general, most people are aware that editing your own article is more hassle than it's worth. Also, on the response time - instant notifications when somebody tweets are possible, so the simplest explanation is just to assume that TLDR knew this was bound to happen and prepared accordingly. EditorInTheRye (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Cheers, Andreas JN 466 20:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Last Chancellor under Elizabeth II
Is it worth noting that he was the last Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed during the reign of Elizabeth II as he was appointed less than 48 hours before her death. I am somewhat torn as to whether this is significant enough to be included or if it is veering towards trivia, so would appreciate the opinions of other editors Dunarc (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so, it's trivia. Jr8825  •  Talk  18:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (It's fine to have it Elizabeth II in the infobox as the monarch when he was appointed, though.) Jr8825  •  Talk  18:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's trivia, but the equivalent information is currently in the first paragraph of the lead at Liz Truss, so we're not consistent in treatment. EddieHugh (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should really be there either, particularly when considering the WP:10YT, the de-facto lack of political relevance of the UK's constitutional monarch, and the lack of mention of royalty in other PM articles. Smacks to me of recentism in the wake of the other Liz's death. Jr8825  •  Talk  07:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've bold removed it for now. Happy to move the discussion to the talk page of that article if the removal is challenged, though. Jr8825  •  Talk  07:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Racist abuse.
In the Kwai Kwarteng ‘Personal Information’ section someone has added vile racist abuse. It’s quite shocking tbh. 82.46.233.113 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already reverted it and asked for the revision to be deleted. See --Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022
Add reference to stamp duty tax change: 0% up to first £250,000 of the property or lease premium or transfer value.

Sources:

https://www.gov.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax/residential-property-rates

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-23/uk-stamp-duty-cut-when-will-it-start-how-much-is-the-reduction 82.28.185.171 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. EnIRtpf09b chat with me 09:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC).

Date of graduation? Born 1975 double first in what year ?
Is the date of graduation correct? 2A02:C7E:56C9:A00:1D8B:FA72:ACDB:A704 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Reference 13 says that he matriculated - started his degree - in 1993. Which makes his graduation date 1997. 80.229.252.245 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022
Kwasi Kwarteng was sacked by Prime Minister Liz Truss on the 14th of October 2022. 81.149.115.221 (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggested text:
 * "Kwarteng was sacked on 14 October 2022, making him the second shortest-serving chancellor in British history after Iain Macleod, who died while in office." 2A02:6B6A:FDE6:0:D9F6:5A44:D130:40BF (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Would second shortest serving “since the start of the twentieth century” be more accurate rather than post-War which we currently have? Guardian have used this expression previously BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * British news sources concur that he is second shortest serving Chancellor in British history. E.g. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/kwasi-kwarteng-full-list-shortest-serving-chancellors-b1032831.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kwasi-kwarteng-chancellor-shortest-serving-b2202812.html


 * If you were to include the non-political interim Chancellor Lord Denman, it might be more informative (and less misleading) to add his name after Macleod's, with the qualification that he was an interim Chancellor and that he was a member of the judiciary. But caretaker office holders are often left off lists. It's not an absolute science, but to call him the "second shortest serving Chancellor post-war" could be misleading. Apart from one who died in office, and one who is barely counted, he is the shortest serving. If you were to take into account the ten days that government was put on hold for the mourning period for the Queen, he would be the shortest serving bar none. I've made an edit in an attempt to better reflect the balance of this. Meerta (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
redirects here. Please indicate the name article.

Please add:

-- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

✅ WJ94 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Responding to edit summary by User:RedGrinchJr
Response to this edit summary in particular:

06:34, 23 October 2022‎ RedGrinchJr  talk contribs‎  59,276 bytes −22‎

I just spent the last 15-60 minutes rewording the section you removed and adding new sources/content, as I stated I would in my edit summary. I believe my edits have fixed some of the biases and improved the section in contention. Thanks, Unburnable (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Foreigners
No taxation without representation 90.252.211.157 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)