Talk:Allegra Stratton

Birthplace

Allegra Elizabeth J. Stratton. Mother's maiden name : Owens. Registration District : Nottingham, Volume 8, Page : 936, Birth Quarter : April/May/June 1980. (Source : General Register Office via Find My Past : 185 Fleet Street, London, England, EC4A 2HS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OctaGent (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like The Telegraph [1] and The Evening Standard [2] are misreporting her place of birth as Chiswick (this appears to be where she grew up), as primary sources indicate she was born in Nottingham. So far I can't find any secondary sources to support this but will continue to keep an eye out. Crisso (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It is worth waiting for validation of the different birth date. That source also says she was born in June as opposed to April 1980. Andysmith248 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Rather than saying her birth took place in June, it shows her birth was registered in the April-June quarter, entirely fitting with a birth of April 10th. I also found this tweet from her from 10th April 2018. Crisso (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I see we're still going with the Chiswick infobox/section detail, and accordingly, as there are dissenters, I added {{disputed}} - we should do something positive. I also added the archived URL after the original lede who's who inline ref box, which is not viewable without log-in. I do wish editors would add {{registration required}} where necessary, and also add access-dates.

The archived link clearly shows the April date and Nottingham (her mother is shown with a later married name), also the names which tally with another free archive entry. I would surmise that the Standard article has been part-plagiarised and that the Telegraph content is wrong; I would email the author at Telegraph but there's no certainty of a response and it's a bit late to update the article. Given the corroborative Twitter stuff, I would've thought Allegra should have had it corrected last year, though.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what the fuss is about. The Who's Who entry says clearly (since Dec 2020 at least) that she was born in Nottingham, thus confirming the FreeBMD entry. Chris55 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the section on the Christmas party be corrected?

I think there are inaccuracies contained in the section, that build upon the ITV report's wording. Should it be clarified what jokes were made and by whom, for accuracy? It currently seems to elevate Stratton's role and downgrade the role of others in the clip. GR8DAN (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote the original section when the news first broke and admittedly quoted just words straight from the video. Maybe Ed Oldfield should be quoted as saying certain quotations along with additional No10 staff. 2A00:23C4:B901:2F01:C08E:191F:A1D9:D34A (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording slightly, to better reflect what the written reports say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wording updates are fairer (ie its slightly unfortunate she is taking 100% blame for multiple people, not all of whom are in the clip). Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

100% agree 2A00:23C4:B901:2F01:C08E:191F:A1D9:D34A (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked this yet but the OP got the grammar wrong, too, worsened by a regular editor who added quotation marks ("..."), essentially ascribing comment(s) to Stratton that was from the BBC source, which I corrected, added the source into prose. Quotation marks (also known as speech marks) need to accurately reflect the source, not the gist. Another new editor keeps doing this elsewhere, so I knew what to check for.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Context of video

The following statement in the article...

"press conference rehearsal during the COVID-19 lockdown in December 2020 where she joked about a Christmas party at 10 Downing Street with colleagues"

omits a crucial piece of information, specifically that the lockdown explicitly forbade such parties or social gatherings in England at the time. This is important to understand just why the video was such a big deal. The government was violating the rules it had made forbidding citizens from holding such parties (or even nick smaller gatherings) whilst ignoring those rules itself. Furthermore, the video shows that the government employees were rehearsing excuses should they be found out. 86.173.248.14 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added a few words to clarify the significance of the "tier 3 lockdown restrictions". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Government buildings loophole

Hi again @DeFacto - per your revert, bringing this here. Your edit states "it is unclear whether these restrictions applied to government buildings". The source cited for this information states "there may have theoretically been a loophole for government buildings like 10 Downing Street" and the following paragraph effectively disagrees with this idea. Your wording suggests, at least to me, that an exception might have been made quite deliberately, whereas the source moreso implies that a specific interpretation of the law is required to reach this conclusion. As such I think it's preferable to use the source language more directly (i.e. "may have been a loophole") rather than speak in Wikipedia's voice describing the situation as "unclear". Given how unclear this is, and how small a note it is in the source, I wonder if we should mention this at all, but my edit was an attempt to meet you halfway on this. Sam Walton (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because it isn't clear, and can be interpreted in different ways, I went for the neutral middle-of-the-road expression of "... it is unclear whether these restrictions applied..", rather than trying to editorialise it one way or the other. We should provide all relevant context for our readers and let them decide how relevant it is, and not try to influence them with editorialisation or ommission. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be deleted at this point as WP:UNDUE. There’s no extensive coverage of this point and the government hasn’t put it forward. The current reference isn’t proportionate to one very minor footnote in a BBC article simply quoting 2 barristers of a theoretical possibility. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)