Talk:Priti Patel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CV?[edit]

Does anyone have a link to a copy of the actual CV on which she ran in the last election? There appear to be some discrepancies in the information given in the main article that should be checked for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.100.203 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supports Workfare and Slave Labour?[edit]

In a Daily Mail article today (<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106601/Tories-order-police-halt-workfare-demos-MP-makes-formal-protest-BBC-bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html>), Patel accused the BBC of being heavily biased towards left wing political groups, and supported Ian Duncan Smith's call for the Police to be forced to prevent lawful protests against compulsory WorkFare and A4e-esque work schemes for the unemployed. Can we include a section about her interest in using the Police to supress free speech along with lawful and peaceful protest? 212.139.100.203 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.203 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly and definitely no to unsigned commenter above, she does not support slavery to say that would be libellous and Patel's words have been taken out of context by the Daily Mail, from what you can read in Hansard she was talking about enforcement of riot and disorder offences rather than a legislative change. Other right-wing arguments have been heard but it is best to quote them directly from Hansard rather than put in a lot of hearsay.Adam37 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it. She "doesn't support slavery" wink wink nudge nudge. Say no more. 78.73.33.20 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement that "she was talking about enforcement of riot and disorder offences rather than a legislative change" should be reviewed in light of the legislative change now underway to limit rights to protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.247 (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Law and order views[edit]

I think the capital punishment section is treading too softly at the moment – she only referred to “absolute burden of proof”, which could describe the long established system and didn’t give any explanation when challenged by Hislop as to how a capital punishment system could prevent errors. I was thinking of revisiting it and adding some more info on tough-on-crime views she’s taken, such as votes for prisoners and opposing media access for Jeremy Bamber (a constituency issue for her). Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?[edit]

As someone who has looked for someone claimable as first Hindu victor in a UK Parliament General Election, it would be interesting to know what her faith is (not mentioned in this article) Cloptonson (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

found this article http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/uk-hindus-list-demands-before-may-election The flying pasty (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very illuminating. However, I have in meantime discovered Shailesh Vara had preceded her to Westminster in 2005.Cloptonson (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

The controversy section has been removed, is there way to recover it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.56.57 (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.218.106 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In general Wiki articles should not have Controversy sections, rather the criticism should be worked into the rest of the article. If there is something specific you think was removed and not put in the rest of the article then please say so on here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never saw the controversy section, so don't know what things were included or removed when it existed. I do know, though, that she's a controversial person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.218.106 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Priti Patel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Priti Patel. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Headings under 'Parliamentary career'[edit]

I'm reinstating "Denial of secret meetings with Israeli Government" as a major heading. This is because it's highly likely that this is the end of her political career. Member of her own government have stated that her behaviour was unacceptable. This last week contained the most notable events of her entire life. Her conduct is currently being debated in the Commons. On that basis, I'm reinstating the heading. Veej (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reinstating "Denial of secret meetings with Israeli Government" as a major heading again. The reason why this and the Boris Johnson story are at the top of the UK news agenda this evening is not just the breach of the ministerial code but the fact that she lied to UK voters in her interview with The Guardian on the 3rd. Hence her denial is essential to the descriptive nature of the heading. Also, referring to the meetings as 'undisclosed' rather than 'secret' were appropriate on the 3rd Nov when the story broke but serious media outlets have used simpler term of secret since it was exposed on the 6th that she lied and further details have become available. References 55 through to 72 illustrate this point.Veej (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government ministers have "secret" meetings all the time, with members of the intelligence services for example. The main issue is Patel not informing the FCO and the absence of communication within the government; conveying false information to the media has often not led to the end of a ministerial career in the past. "Secret" makes it sound more conspiratorial than it is and, when it comes to certain issues, like Israel, we should take especial care not to feed the conspiracy theorists. For now, suggesting this is the end of Patel's political career is WP:CRYSTAL, and the current controversy is still part of her parliamentary career which, at the moment, looks like continuing to at least the next election. Of course, this government might fall next week, and I am now being speculative, but we should presume that the parliamentary career section of this article might have further sub-sections. Philip Cross (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no defender of Patel by any means, but the current article emphasis on the details of her Israel visit and the consequent political fallout is disproportionate. WP:NOTNEWS applies. --Ef80 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The section was already too long, I took a little rather than a lot out mostly because I wasn't sure where to start with a heavy prune and thought it could wait a little. I come back and Veej has effectively written another new article describing a session in Parliament, which is the most detail I've ever seen on any single session in Parliament in any Wikipedia article ever. The article needs Patel's own quote and retraction, one or two quotes explaining how that relates to the ministerial code, a reference to the fact numerous other figures on both sides of the aisle have said she probably ought to go, and probably some commentary that puts it in the wider context of May's leadership style and pressures. It doesn't need a Pulitzer prize winning article covering everything that anybody remotely noteworthy has ever said about this issue. Dtellett (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this section is far, far too long. This is a topic definitely worth being covered but it does not need to be anywhere near this lengthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everyone else. The section is far too long. It could almost be an article in itself, which we obviously don't want to do, unless this and some of the other political scandals currently troubling May's government were to lead to its downfall, then we'd perhaps incorporate it into a broader article. In the context of this article though, at the moment the topic has undue weight. This is Paul (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this scandal should be covered on a separate page? It's a notable event and arguably the biggest issue in the UK media today.Veej (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the biggest issue today (though that's highly debatable), but it's unlikely to be tomorrow, and certainly won't be the day after that. That's the whole point. Patel will ride this out, resign or be sacked, and the news agenda will move on. --Ef80 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it further, although it is still too much and, of course, the issue is still developing now that she has been recalled from Uganda. Please note that this section is likely to fall under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

The article says Patel "claims" to have attended Watford Grammar School but actually attended Westfield Community College. This is not what the sources say: the first source is explicit in saying she did attend the grammar school, and the second source is explicit in saying she attended some unidentified comprehensive school (which may or may not be Westfield). So, we have two sources that contradict one another, an explicit statement about a specific school that is completely unsupported by the source, and an impugning of her character by using the word "claims" simply because the two sources contradict each other.

I've no idea what is correct or not here but as it stands it is a clear BLP violation. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to get to the bottom of this. Multiple sources say that she attended WGS, the official government biography says a comprehensive school. But then WGS isn't actually a selective school, so it appears that the refs are not contradicting each other. I can't find anything other than wikipedia that says anything about Westfield Community College so I've just taken that out. I've also tied it up so that it now doesn't say anything about claims - the sources we have available say she went to WGS. I don't know where they got that from, presumably her. Anyway, unless I find anything better, then all the sources say WGS. JMWt (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. I found a bunch of other BLP issues, now resolved. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'WGS isn't actually a selective school' - Incorrect: it is partially selective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watford_Grammar_School_for_Girls)
'I can't find anything other than wikipedia that says anything about Westfield Community College' - Westfield Community College is the former name (at the time of Priti Patel's attendance) of what is now known as Westfield Academy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfield_Academy).

OK this is starting to annoy me now. If anyone has an ACTUAL REFERENCE that suggests she is lying about the school she went to, then let's hear it. Otherwise stop adding rumour to the page. ALL the references I've looked at say that she went to WGS, including Watford Grammar School itself and NOTHING says anything about another school. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Patel attended Watford Grammar School for Girls in Watford, a non-selective comprehensive despite the name" - this is factually incorrect, Watford Grammar School for Girls is NOT a non-selective comprehensive school. It is and always has been a selective grammar school.Nordicsam (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Watford Grammar School for Girls it isn't. The sources list it as a "partially selective" school. Possibly the wording should be changed as it probably isn't a "comprehensive" as such, but it isn't a "grammar" school selecting only the top 20% as happens elsewhere in the country either. JMWt (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to clarify this. The school is mostly non-selective with a certain proportion selected based on musical and academic ability. Cowlibob (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion, Cowlibob. You couldn't be more wrong. Everyone in Watford knows it is a selective school, the vast majority of the student body was selected for their academic or music ability.Nordicsam (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's how all the sources say it is considered, including this report about partially selective schools, this comment by an MP in the House of Commons and so on. If "everyone in Watford" knows it is wrong, then they need to tell the MP, the National Foundation for Educational Research and the school itself. JMWt (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017[edit]

94.31.38.226 (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a mistake or spam. Can we delete it from here? No edit has been suggested. JMWt (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

This article states that Patel has been criticised for claiming that British workers are lazy, but does not give a citation for this claim. Vorbee (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this claim until it can be sourced. Now edited for clarity ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to Wikipedia[edit]

This article can be congratulated for keeping Wikipedia up-to-date. News of Patel's resignation from her post as International Development Secretary has only been broken tonight (November 8 2017) and is already in the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Article' is an abstract noun. It is nonsensical to congratulate an abstract noun. (cf. Bush's declaration of 'war on terrorism').

Lead[edit]

The start of the article contains many rather minor details that are duplicated in their appropriate sections, which are obscuring the major matter that Patel has been forced to resign from her cabinet position due to meetings with foreign government representatives, including a foreign prime minister, without disclosing it to her own foreign secretary, a major breach of the ministerial code. This needs to be rectified. I had never heard of this MP until this hit the news. Clearly, this is the most notable aspect of her career so far; it's not often a cabinet member is referred to as "toast". Clark42 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had fixed that but someone reverted those changes saying I had changed too large portion of a text without explanation when it was clearly mentioned in my comments 🤔 sighhh.. will try again. --MayureshK 01:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've edited the LEAD to remove duplicate text. For now I am keeping the bit about her being right wing and Thatcherite. --MayureshK 07:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MayureshK, it's much tidier now; the general descriptions you left seem relevant to the lead. I have removed three tags since they are all covered in the body of the article. Clark42 (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to summarise her career and not simply highlight the one thing she has come to most attention for. Original version was a little too detailed in some areas, but this one goes too far the other way; even eliminating one of the ministerial positions she held. I'm putting some of the more significant content back Dtellett (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Dtellett, her Ugandan origins and her past in Referendum party is covered in later sections. So is her PR career and involvement with BAT and Diageo. Her right wing inclinations and being a thatcherite are incited, but I am going to keep them for a bit marking them as such -MayureshK 13:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems OK to me, but do we need the "by whom" and "citation needed" tags in the lead as they seem to be verified by references in the article body? Clark42 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -MayureshK 14:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The exact reason for Patel's resignation[edit]

The lead now says: "[Patel] resigned as Secretary of State for International Development following a newspaper article revealing that she had been involved in unauthorised meetings with the Israeli government during a private holiday in the country, in breach of the ministerial code."

I think this is factually incorrect. The publication of that article in The Sun only led to Mrs. Patel being summoned to the PM on Monday 6 November. That meeting did NOT lead to Patel's resignation, because Theresa May 'accepted her apologies' regarding the meetings during the summer trip to Israel. This fact is mentioned by Theresa May in her letter to Patel of Nov. 8th.

(Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4867108/priti-patel-resigns-after-secret-israeli-meetings-following-crunch-talks-with-theresa-may)

Theresa May wrote that following the Nov. 6 conversation, 'further details have come to light'. What were these damning 'further details'? They can be found in the same Sun article. On Tuesday 7th, the PM learned from another Sun publication that in September, Patel had attended several more meetings with Israeli officials, both in London and in New York. Patel had not told the PM about these meetings in their Monday evening talk.

This is why on Wednesday morning, the PM called Patel back from her visit to Africa, and summoned her to Downing Street yet again. The result of THAT SECOND conversation was that Patel stepped down.

In sum, why did Patel step down? Because of: - several unregistered meetings with Israeli officials during her holiday trip in August; - several unregistered meetings with Israeli officials during her work in September; - witholding information about the latter meetings in her conversation with the PM on Monday.

I think that lying to your own PM is more serious than 'breaking the ministerial code'. Should not the article (and the lead) reflect any of this?Mcouzijn (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence is okay. According to 1, 2, 3 and this, she had to resign because of breach of ministerial code, specifically the bit about "a dozen meetings she had with Israeli officials while on holiday, which were not sanctioned by the Foreign Office". The articles clearly state that a minister is required to declare any conflicts caused to the public interests by private actions. According to the this BBC article, she "admitted she had been wrong to suggest to the Guardian that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knew of the trip in advance when he had only learnt about it while it was under way". She failed to do so and was forced to resign. Keeping the PM in the dark was only the side effect for which she had been rebuked. -MayureshK 14:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we disagree. The reason given in your first source is evidently *not* the sole reason for Patel's stepping down. Why not? Because after Patel presented these facts (the visits during her Israel holiday) to PM Theresa May on Monday evening, three things happened: the PM excused her, Patel did not resign, and Patel went back to work. These are facts, plain for all to see. These facts are in themselves enough to disprove 'the sentence' in the lemma's introduction.
Next, your sources may mention 'breach of ministerial code', and Patel may have acknowledged that she shouldn't have broken it, but that does *not* imply that this is her *sole* reason for stepping down. The abovementioned fact proves otherwise: it is clear from the source I mentioned that Patel only resigned *after* the PM learned of Patel's meeting Israeli officials in September, i.e. *after* her holidays and *during* her work. Patel's resignation followed immediately after her conversation about these meetings with the PM on Wednesday, not Monday.
These facts make it safe enough to abandon the line in the lemma's introduction, and use something like this instead: "In November 2017, she resigned as Secretary of State for International Development following several newspaper articles revealing that she had been involved in unauthorised meetings with the Israeli government. These meetings took place both during a private holiday in Israel in August 2017, and during her work in September 2017. All of these meetings were in breach of the ministerial code." Mcouzijn (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarati parents[edit]

According to "Profile" on Radio Four tonight (November 11 2017), her parents were Gujarati. If anyone knows anything about this,it could be added to the article. Vorbee (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated :) -MayureshK 08:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Against the Euro[edit]

This edition of "Profile" on BBC Radio Four mentioned that Patel was very much against the Euro - this could be added to the article. Vorbee (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added BBC Radio Four's 'Profile' programme to the 'External links' section JezGrove (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safe seat?[edit]

The article states that the constituency of Witham was created at the time she was elected, yet elsewhere says that it was a safe seat. Shouldn't it refer to predecessor constituencies as safe seats? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food shortages threat in the lead[edit]

Patel was involved in some controversy earlier this year when she was accused of threatening Ireland with food shortages as a result of Brexit. She responded that her comments were taken out of context and she did not refer to food shortages specifically. There was some sympathy for her position from the media: Eilis O'Hanlon argued that Patel's comments had been deeply mischaracterised and that the "divide between fact and comment broke down entirely in response to Priti Patel's comments." There are clearly two sides to this debate and while this event is covered in the lead it should be neutral . However, an anonymous editor has been determined to make the coverage one sided by deleting Patel's response from the article, often under the guise of misleading edit summaries: [3]. I would like to get some community input as to whether Patel's response should be included or excluded in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection[edit]

SIGNIFICANT VANDALISM, FOR EXAMPLE, A NUMBER OF HISTORICAL FACTS WERE CHANGED FOR EXAMPLE DATES I HER PERSONAL LIFE

Holds one of the great offices of state, note the Chancellor's Wikepedia page has semi-protection. High threat of vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by H S. Leonard (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done @H S. Leonard: We do not protect pages pre-emptively, and there has not been a history of vandalism at this page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a comment on whether the page should be semi-protected but there has been regular disruptive activity at this article. In the last year it has had to be semi-protected on four occasions for a combined period of two months. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence[edit]

It seems that according to MSM specifically the "Daily Mail", Patel has been denied very important MI6 intelligence because it might pose a security risk though MI6 later denied this. As the Home Secretary it is generally implied that this information is free to access though Patel is likely to have signed the "Official Secrets Act" prior to or after accepting the post. This is concerning as the information could affect policy. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/122239 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

School - not Watford Grammar School for Girls[edit]

Okay, so I know Popbitch isn't a reliable source, but this is interesting reading:

"Obviously Priti Patel has a fair bit on her plate right now, but once her bullying scandal has blown over, perhaps she could address a bit of confusion regarding her schooling?

A common line in articles about Priti's early life is that she went to Watford Grammar for Girls with Liz Kendall and Geri Halliwell. Because the claim has appeared in a number of well-established publications, there are plenty of sources for her Wikipedia page to cite. That Wiki page is then plundered by journalists looking to crib a quick detail to put in an article – and so the cycle starts.

But Popbitch has seen an email seemingly sent from Priti's constituency office to the school in question apologising for any confusion caused, admitting they are aware that reporters have "incorrectly" cited her as a former pupil in the past, but claiming they are powerless to correct the editorial content of media outlets and Wikipedia. Priti's own website is unhelpfully vague on the matter too, saying she was "educated at a comprehensive girls school in Watford" stopping short of actually naming anywhere specific.

There could be a perfectly innocent explanation for this. We'd be interested to hear it if so, because currently it looks suspiciously like the UK's Home Secretary – one of the Great Offices of State – has knowingly let a fib circulate uncontested for years, allowing the public to believe she was at school with a Spice Girl.

Rest assured, we're searching for answers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.213.204 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Patel attended Westfield School in Watford which was a pretty rough comprehensive school at the time. The only thing it has in common with Watford Girls Grammar is that they are both in Watford. This lie has been circulating for years and needs to be stopped. Here is confirmation of her actual school from The conservative home website which actually mentions Westfield School, although it refers to what it is now, a technical college not the comprehensive school it was when Ms Patel attended it. https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/08/ben-jeffreys-forget-brexit-the-real-reason-to-be-excited-by-johnsons-premiership-is-education.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfrom1961 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2020(UTC)

Update It seems Priti Patel's office is happy to let this lie continue. Here's Popbitch of 27 November 2020:

"Now that Priti Patel's bullying allegations have been comprehensively undealt with, it's time to address the other murky scandal concerning her past: her schooling.

A common line in profiles about Priti Patel is that she attended Watford Grammar School for Girls with Liz Kendall and Geri Halliwell. The claim reappeared in the Sunday Times just this weekend – but, as staff and alumni are getting pretty sick of pointing out, she didn't go there.

What's more, Priti is aware this misunderstanding is causing issues for the school. WGGS has complained to her constituency office about how they have to keep fielding inquiries about her, but the most her staff has done is offer sympathy for the confusion, then claim to be powerless to correct the editorial content of media outlets.

Yet the one place that she could provide some clarity on the matter – Priti's own website – is curiously vague about it all too, saying only that she was "educated at a comprehensive girls school in Watford" but not actually naming any place in particular.

Maybe you think it's weird of us to care about this. And maybe it is. But is it any more weird than knowingly letting a fib circulate that you went to school with a Spice Girl?"

I know Popbitch isn't considered a reliable source, but it has been instrumental in pointing out how the citation mis-cycle is perpetuated ... 86.177.158.176 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can contribute is that she's not currently a member of the Old Grammarian alumnae website.92.24.195.158 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That source rather upsets things, doesn't it. I may have been a little too hasty in my answer to the "Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021" below. I think this may warrant a new discussion thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020[edit]

Priti Patel categorically did not attend Watford Grammar School for girls. She attended Westfield Academy which was an all girls school back in the 80s when she was at secondary school. 82.31.237.44 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since The Telegraph says she attended Watford Grammar School for Girls.[4] —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your reply, you are right that many websites including The Telegraph continue to say she attended Watford Girls Grammar School. However she attended the comprehensive I mentioned in my post and provided a link to a well respected website. However, if you want a definitive post here's a link from her official website. She doesn't mention Westfield School but does at least admit she attended a comprehensive school in Watford. The Girls Grammar is not and has never been a comprehensive school. I have also included two other sites that perhaps aren't so famous as The Telegraph but at least they've done their homework on Ms Patel unlike The Telegraph who seem to have just looked her up on Wikipedia.For some reason my 3 links to websites supporting this change seem to have been posted under the claim that Ms Patel attended Francis Coombe school in watford, which she did not.

[1] [2] [3] Alfrom1961 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Alfrom1961 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.priti4witham.co.uk/about/bio/
  2. ^ http://celebsiren.com/priti-patel-wiki/
  3. ^ https://www.collegenp.com/news/indian-origin-preeti-patel-become-home-minister-of-uk/
 Done The MP's own website seems a reliable enough source for this (in fact, it is probably the best source) so I have changed the information using that source and that source only, since the other two don't exactly inspire confidence to me (a celebrity gossip site, and a Nepali education website which I am not sure where they got their information from...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The school was again changed to Watford Grammar and I have reverted the change. It seems to me we should go by what is said on her website that she went to a comprehensive school in Watford. If, however, a reliable source specifically claims that what is stated on her website there is wrong (not merely claims that she went to a different school) we should discuss here what to do about the differing claims. It is not in any way disputed that many generally reliable sources say she went to Watford Grammar. Thincat (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: As the article said with references until February, Watford School for Girls was a girls-only comprehensive while she would have attended. That makes the school fit the bill for the "comprehensive girls school in Watford". Therefore there isn't a contradiction between reliable sources and the MP's own website. --Inops (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020[edit]

She was not the first Female BAME cabinet minister. That honour was Valerie Amos, Secretary of State for Development.

Can this please be changed? 82.132.247.185 (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'd just added a citation needed tag. Amos wasn't an MP, though, so perhaps Patel could still claim a first, although I think that such labelling is often condescending and so best omitted anyway. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020[edit]

Please change school sttended to Frances Coombe 2A02:C7F:4835:1900:6510:40CF:9BAA:F55E (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal affliction or affectation[edit]

Patel has an unusual vocal peculiarity whereby she drops the 'g' sound from words ending 'ing'.

This seems likely to be an affectation rather than an affliction as she sometimes forgets to drop the g...

"Always drops her Gs (speakin, learnin, feelin etc).

But has anyone noticed how she doesn't drop her Gs when she's angry or talking quickly ?

She's just been on Radio 4 and got slightly hot under the collar. Forgot to drop about 4 in a row!!"

and... "She also says ‘anythink’ and ‘everythink’. This is a senior member of The British cabinet who apparently can’t speak English properly. That’s before we get to the troubling way she reads numbers, (300,34,974000)"

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pedants_corner/2077339-Priti-Patel-and-her-dropped-Gs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.46.193 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Former politician?[edit]

I don't quite understand why this article claims Priti Patel finished her post yesterday and is now a former politician. I just watched her on the news, and there was no hint that she wasn't the incumbent Home Secretary. Perhaps a proper editor will fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.166.201 (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. https://www.gov.uk/government/people/priti-patel#current-roles says she's still Home Sec. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was simply vandalism (or wishful thinking) by Dennis2628, which has thankfully reverted. Such editors tend to get blocked eventually for WP:NOTHERE if all their edits over time show that they're just here to cause disruption. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Nick Moyes (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of her bullying staff in three departments, resulting in a Cabinet Office inquiry[edit]

Hi,

I suggest that this be included, certainly when the inquiry report is published, if it is. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/02/priti-patel-bullying-inquiry-delay-eroding-trust-within-whitehall Jontel (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'd agree it should be added as it is significant one way or another https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53422019 Jclaxp talk 01:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that Patel's career is basically one big controversy, shouldn't there be at least some mention of this in the lede?Ch1p the chop (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Patel under fire over tour of Bahrain police station where human rights activists were tortured[edit]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-bahrain-police-station-torture-activists-b1768747.html?utm_source=reddit.com

John Cummings (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"of Ugandan descent" category[edit]

There is nothing Ugandan about her. Just because here parents lived in a country before emigrating to the UK and then giving birth to her that doesn't make her somehow "of Ugandan descent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:249B:C400:98C6:284E:4B87:67C2 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being descended from parents of a particular nationality makes one of that nationality's descent, by definition. One does not shed one's ancestry at birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.224.47 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would call her of Ugandan descent only if she was ethnically Ugandan. 'Descent' is a biological and genealogical more than nationality position, Uganda is a man-made nation state.Cloptonson (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As if ethnicities weren't entirely man-made. 2001:7C0:2517:C:794F:CBDA:9B7F:ACB1 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No she is of Hundu descent, her lips are permanently twisted to one side. This is from cows chewing the cud !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acentuari (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to pronounce the final /ɪŋ/ sound in "~ing" words[edit]

Are there really no reliable sources for this intensely annoying feature of Patel's speech? I can find only blog/ chatroom sources such as these: Quora, NewsBiscuit, Gransnet and theafterword etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuneately for her credibility it makes her sound as if she hasn't matured sufficiently to shed a teenage predilection for speakin in a particular way to prove she's bein part of the in-crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.224.47 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about her... Her "annoying" speech pattern isn't really one of them. People speak how they speak. V2Blast (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's not something that every politician would care about. I can't help but agree with the IP regarding "credibility"; perhaps it's because she's a Tory. It seems Alastair Campbell also doesn't like it. A more detailed analysis of her articulation style and accent appears here. But the final /ɪŋ/ isn't even appearin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Competence at using language is fundamental for a politician. Retaining and maintaining an adolescent 'include me in the gang' pronunciation habit is juvenile and indicative of significant shortcoming in a role that requires adult behaviour. That it is an adolescent affectation is supported by the fact that her enunciation in other parts of language is precise and, if anything, slightly 'upper class', which suggests that she was taught to speak in one way but acquired a particular drop-the-Gs habit during adolescence and has never moved beyond it. Thus, it is not the speech habit, per se, that is the issue but, rather, the retention of an adolescent affectation into adulthood: an altogether more serious issue for a person in a position of power and authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.197.156 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By all means provide a WP:RS for that analysis of the psychopathology of Patel's speech patterns. Otherwise it's just your own personal WP:OR and amounts to WP:FORUM, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article does need to mention her accent, not because it has any relevance to her character but because it's often been mentioned and discussed in reliable sources. The accent is quite common amongst British Asians in London and the Home Counties - Sadiq Khan has it - but it's unusual to hear it spoken by senior national politicians of any party. What grates for a lot of people is that Patel appears to be trying to use standard received pronunciation while still dropping her Gs. --Ef80 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a odd mixture. I'm wonderin if anyone did a /ɪŋ/ count at Manchester this week. But even if they were watchin, I won't be addin it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EU countries snub Priti Patel’s plans to return asylum seekers[edit]

Not sure if this should go here or on another article?

John Cummings (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021[edit]

Priti Patel was educated at Watford Grammar School for girls, not westfields, the final source linked even says “Watford Grammar” 78.151.18.71 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this source says " educated at a comprehensive girls school in Watford"; this one says "educated at a Watford comprehensive school" and that last one says "Watford Grammar School." So presumably it's Watford Grammar School for Girls as supported by The Guardian here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now corrected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except now I've bothered to read the thread headed "School - not Watford Grammar School for Girls" above. And things do not seem quite so clear. Particularly (or perhaps critically) with this source. I may have been somewhat hasty here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2021[edit]

Change "Home Secretary" to Secretary of State for the Home Department. "Home Secretary" is not an official title. The official title is "Secretary of State for the Home Department." For consistency, as all other offices are mentioned with their full titles, and correction, "Home Secretary" should not be used. 76.71.157.66 (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Terasail[✉️] 00:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Patel go to school?[edit]

Her own website says, somewhat coyly, "Priti was born in London and educated at a comprehensive girls school in Watford.". Maybe this is all the article should say? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Note: editors may wish to review the thread above titled "School - not Watford Grammar School for Girls". Thanks.[reply]

Everyone's talkin' about Patel's schoolin'. So I've been searchin' and trawlin' the net, but I'm not findin' nothin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Notes' tab should be removed[edit]

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab contained within the article should be removed if no notes can be added to it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Agreed. Although a note about her secondary school might be justified (see above). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain[edit]

The article states "repressive state of Bahrain". Now while I do understand that there are human rights abuses in Bahrain, the same can be said about any other country there. Why isn't China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and other countries not mentioned. Bahrain is also a small country, about the size of London, maybe a little bigger. Globally insignificant if you ask me. 175.103.25.138 (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some amendments to the wording of this section. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subheading "Evidence of bullying and breach of ministerial code"[edit]

The section heading "Evidence of bullying and breach of ministerial code" seems to suggest that the section will speak about the evidence of bullying and breach of ministerial code. However, the section is about the allegations of bullying and the only point when evidence is mentioned is

... a Cabinet Office inquiry found evidence that Patel had breached the ministerial code following allegations of bullying ...

The section heading thus appears misplaced and should be reverted to "Allegations of bullying and breach of ministerial code" or "Bullying and breach of ministerial code". Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher was not a Brexiteer[edit]

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

Thatcher was a supporter of the EEC/EU, and although she became somewhat disillusioned. She (or rather, her ministers) signed the Single European Act, which created the single European market - one of the biggest acts of European integration. [1] Arrivisto (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto, the onus is on you to make any content you add verifiable. Also note WP:SYNTH which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". If you want to contrast Patel's views on the EU with Thatcher's, you need a source that does that to support it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto, Patel is a right-wing Tory who has been a Eurosceptic/Brexiteer for more than 25 years. Thatcher was a right-wing Tory who took us deeper into the EU by joining the Single Market, and she approved the the Maastricht Treaty. Thus, by simple logic, if Patel claims to be a Thatcherite, she is cherry-picking. I am grateful for what I presume you think is helpful editorial advice, but excessive WP policing can be very tiresome; one should not need endless sources when one is stating the "bleeding obvious".[2] Arrivisto (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your subjective opinions are not necessarily statements of the "bleeding obvious" though. Wiki works on the WP:V principle, which means readers - today, tomorrow, or in 50 years time - need to able to verify for themselves what is written in the article. And that generally means providing reliable sources that support what you have written, so they can readily do that.
I'm sure that if what you say is so bleeding obvious, that you won't have much problem gathering plenty of such sources to support it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Arrivisto is a true blue Tory (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123 No I'm not; you've guessed wrong (unless you were trying to be ironic). I'm a social democrat and a staunch Remainer who considers Brexit to be a gross example of national self-harm, and the stupidest UK foreign policy since the Iraq War adventure. But that's not the point. It is not appropriate for editors on a WP talk page to make ad hominem comments. Please remove them. If you don't, I will. Arrivisto (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Arrivisto. I had hoped the irony attached to such a lame pun was obvious. 60% on my comments are ironic, and the other half are sarcastic. But as it happens, I agree with you 100% about Brexit. Please allow me to remove or strike out. What would suit you best? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Source [1]. Priti Patel's claim to be a Thatcherite is cherry-picking; so please stop pointless reversions of what are well-known historic facts.
  2. ^ Illustration [2]

Draft[edit]

Can anyone have a look at Draft:Priti Patel's tenure as Home Secretary, and improve/expand it? Peter Ormond 💬 09:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023[edit]

Article needs updating to reflect Priti Patel being made a Dame WikiRavenclaw (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Citizenship[edit]

She is an East African Asian born in Britain. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:450A:D8D:3C30:DB7F (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her ethnic background is addressed in the second paragraph of the lead section and in the "Early life" section. She is a British citizen and so is correctly described as "British". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priti_Patel&oldid=1217371866"