Talk:John Redwood

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Redwood article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Berkshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

It was of Redwood that John Major is believed to have been speaking when he made his famous comment about neutralising MPs who disagreed with his policies by inviting them into the Cabinet. (Major used a less polite turn of phrase.)

Could someone who knows more about this provide some additional information? It's impossible to understand for someone already not familiar with the incident as the description currently stands, and google doesn't turn up anything. --Delirium 00:45 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You are quite right. Major said something about "the bastards", but I forget the exact quote. I'll dig it out. Mintguy 17:09, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok I've found it and, it looks like (at least as suggested from this report), Major wasn't talking about John Redwood anyway. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,534415,00.html

Another of those apocryphal stories, I suppose. But I've met JR and he is one. Deb 17:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's messy because it appears that Major wasn't thinking specifically of individuals and was very tired when he said that, at the end of one of the longest weeks in politics. According to his memoirs (pages 343-344) he was really meaning ex ministers (presumably Norman Lamont amongst others, but not named) were bastards. At the time the media identified Lilley, Portillo and Redwood rather than Howard, but it is quite possible that Major had no specific individuals in mind (and asserts in his memoirs that the media knew more of those threes intentions than he did). Instead Major asserts no minister had threatened resignation over the Maastricht Treaty.

I've also met Redwood and don't find he meets up to the media image. Timrollpickering 14:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not according to Paul Routledge and Simon Hoggart from The Observer on Sunday July 25, 1993, as given by the above link. Mintguy (T) 22:34, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Did he really have an 'excellent adademic career'? Sure, he got the prize of an All Soul's scholarship, but this is open for application to any student who has got a First. I thought he'd gone on to the City to make money rather than persue a career in academia.

No- although those gaining good firsts can be invited to sit the examination, the All Souls scholarships are limited to only two or so a year in all disciplines. The scholarships themselves are enormously well-regarded in academia.

I've updated the article and added in some key points about Redwood's career which are not included in the article. I've also made some slight changes to avoid a neutral point of view dispute.

I've added his full, correct title which is 'The Rt Hon Dr John Alan Redwood DPhil PC', although am happy to be corrected if there is a particular Wikipedia style which needs to be followed. Shotlandiya 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hideous. Using both "Dr" and "DPhil" is wrong. Ditto "The Rt Hon" and "PC" - the "PC" suffix is only for peers in the Privy Council because they could also be "Rt Hon" because of their peerage. Timrollpickering 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will change it back

Shotlandiya 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube clip of John Redwood miming the national anthem

I wanted to include a link to a Youtube clip of John Redwood miming the National Anthem. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc I think it is valide to add this link because it is (1)accessible to the reader (b) it is relevant to the content of the article (useful, helpful, informative, factual, etc.) and(c) it is a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link. However when I added the link it automatically got reverted.128.122.242.66 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Most of the articel assumes a generally over-wishipping tone, describing events in such a manner that implies he was right in everything he does, kinda subtle but still fairly clear-cut. I haven't really got time to correct it, but I'd encourage others to do so.Nwe (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for this to be checked, because the article seems to bear little resemblance to your criticism, and you haven't given any examples at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.235.122 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything immediately wrong with the article and seeing no examples or disputes, have removed the banner. Juggertrout (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caligula

Caligula / appointment / horse gag - isn't this quip a bit weary? God knows who first used it, and of whom. And it was a consul, anyway.

Shall we put this portly, tedious old clubmanism out of its misery and delete it?

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satirised

This section used to read as follows:

"Redwood's appearance has led to some commentators, originally former Conservative MP turned political sketch-writer, Matthew Parris, noting similarities between him and Star Trek's Spock and so Redwood is often called a Vulcan. The name stuck, and in line with this, political cartoonists often draw him with pointed ears. It is a comparison which Redwood has not taken in good humour."

I've removed the final part, since it is uncited. It is also worth noting that it used to make the opposite statement. This can be seen looking back at this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Redwood&oldid=442080519

I didn't go back and see when the change was made, but someone else might want to do that.

Perhaps some citation can be found for the inference one way or the other. Theadder (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a little light on Redwood's role in facilitating privatisation within the Thatcher aegis, not just in the UK - and especially in Jamaica - with the assistance of City merchant bankersDelahays (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was born in Dover

The first sentence reads "John Redwood was born in Dover" and then the second sentence begins "The second child of" but if you read these two sentences in conjunction, it would make more sense to have a comma after Dover than a full stop. Vorbee (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amatuer cricketer

It was mentioned on The Media Show on December 27 2017 that John Redwood is a talented amatuer cricketer. This could go in the article, possibly in the section on Redwood's personal life. Vorbee (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthood

The article has been edited to refer to him as Sir John Redwood to reflect his inclusion in the 2019 New Year Honours list. But does this make someone immediately a knight, or does it require the accolade ceremony in the presence of the Queen? —BillC ^talk 20:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to Sir John Redwood

He has now been officially knighted, can we please change the name to add the title "Sir"? Or at least a redirect? ViscountVismut (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]