Talk:Gillian Tett

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

Twitter account is incorrect - please fix![edit]

Under External Links the Twitter link goes to the wrong Twitter account - The correct account is: @gilliantett

Hoping someone familiar with the code can fix it.

Cengelbart (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV language[edit]

Stating that the subject is an "influential financial journalist" while perhaps demonstrated is POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The article is sufficiently referenced to establish notability and is not in danger of deletion, so the editorial guidelines should be followed. Bongomatic 15:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, the entry is in danger of deletion. Several people have tried to delete it. The fact is, she is an influential journalist. Maybe you don;t like her, though why that might be escapes me, but it is only your point of view that she is not influential. I have no relationship with this person nor any interest in her, except that there are a great number of lesser people who have far longer entries in Wikipedia, and it is an omission for her not to be here. Just to be clear, it is not a point of view to say that a leading journalist in the most serious section of one of the world's top five newspapers is influential, except in the utterly trivial sense to say that the proposition that 2+2=4 is a point of view. What is it that you dislike about Dr. Tett so much? NOKESS (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS[reply]
It is not my POV that she is not influential. I think she is. I think saying "she is an influential journalist" is a POV statement and (as the article does effectively despite its brevity) that demonstrating rather than stating that she is influential is preferable. While this article may have its detractors, it is in no danger of being deleted because it is now more than adequately sourced, unambiguously demonstrating the notability of its subject. Bongomatic 18:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has anything against Dr. Tett. We have a manual of style and a great fear of weaselly wording and puffery. I have removed the sentence as it most certainly does not belong,and consensus on this page agrees. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


On the Wikipedia entry for Tony Blair's. this phrase appears: "Murdoch's globally influential News Corporation media empire." Why is the adjective "Influential" allowed in that entry, but not in the equivalent phrase in Dr. Tett's entry? Is there indeed an answer to this question? ~~ NOKESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOKESS (talk • contribs) 07:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is appropriate in the Tony Blair article, it certainly has a reason to be there. In that context, the fact that News Corp is influential is cited in the context of criticism of his association with the company's owner, such criticisms relevant only because of the reach of News Corp. Here, the fact that Pearson is influential adds no context to the article. Those who know Pearson understand that the FT is its main claim to influence (in the relevant sense), so it is irrelevant. Bongomatic 08:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument doesn't hold water. We're talking a poorly-sourced, poorly-cited, tiny article on a generally unknown person. It is vital to avoid puffery in order to properly assist in this article. WP:NPOV is vital, Nokess. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins -- thanks for your input. If one of the most prominent journalists on one of the World's leading serious newspapers is, as you say, "a generally unknown person", could you please explain what sort of people are suitable for entries in Wikipedia? There are many other people who are less well known who have entries, many of them more subjective than Dr. Tett's. Sometimes the argument against my edits are from the basis of what the Principles of Wikipedia state, but when I demonstrate that these criticisms are not founded in those Principles, and indeed themselves violate them, then my critics switch to an opposite tack, citing consensus and what they claim to be neutrality. Saying that Person is influential is hardly what most people mean by "Puffery." May I respectfully suggest that we close this debate and try to regain some perspective here? Or else our debate itself may be ripe for investigation by an influential social anthropology PhD such as Dr. Tett, because this debate is beginning to look like a bunch of insiders who were comfortable with their own interpretation of a set of rules, and fear the challenge posed by an outsider who has an equally valid, but slightly different, interpretation of exactly the same rules. In closing, please be assured that no one supports Wikipedia, its Principles and what it stands for and promises more than I do. \\\\ NOKESS (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

I'm a journalist, and have never heard of her. That be said, at this point the article remains. You have been advised how to improve it. Shortly, I will be forced to remove any unsourced claims of awards, etc. Source them. Improve the article without WP:PUFFERY. No double-standards, simply stating how to move forward. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins, I'm delighted to hear you are a journalist, but what counts is not which journalists have heard of her but which people in her field and among the world's policy makers have heard of her. By chance, I see that her picture is on the front of today's Financial Times, and the Swiss edition at that. So there will be many people who read the Financial Times who have heard of her. Who will force you to remove unsourced claims of awards? Some higher being? I think it is probably fairer to say that you will decide to remove them. One of the citations (or, in your parlance, "sources") that I gave for one of her awards was deleted by one of them that objected to the use of the term "influential." Had that person been a little less zealous in editing, the information that you want would still be there. Can you see why I feel this whole episode reeks of hypocrisy. I'm not sure that it really matters what you do for a living, but in case it matters to you, I'm an editor for one of the larger players in publishing. Before my recent brush with the Wikipedia Gestapo, I would have said that my employers are influential. I really don't mind whether you lot ban me or not. It won't stop me using Wikipedia or liking it, I won't miss spending time making minor additions, and if this one word matters to you so much in this article and you can argue with a straight face that its use in other articles of an identical nature is irrelevant, then I have better things to do with my time and attention. Good luck in your day jobs! xxxx NOKESS (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

Look, I'm becoming quite tired of your inability to follow the policies of Wikipedia. Indeed, the phrase "Wikipedia Gestapo" is bordering on a violation of WP:NPA. I'm not against you here, so settle down, and stop the WP:SOAPBOXing. There are serious issues with the article that need to be fixed - and thankfully one intelligent editor has already begun doing what you failed to do. You're quite fortunate that some editors take the policies and their editing seriously, as your WP:OWNership of this article is beyond belief. Spend more time researching and editing, less time making up long replies to simple requests. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The genesis of what is making you tired is the inability of people other than me to follow Wikipedia's policies. Whenever I point out an inconsistency, much of what you accuse me of and what you disapprove of is deployed against me. Rest assured that however tired you are of this, I am much more tired. I have no ownership of this article, that is your opinion, and another example of double standards. Delete the article if you wish, and as more than one editor has tried to do, and I will not mind - that's how little ownership I have. My fundamental request, for consistency in following Wikipedia's principles, and for equal treatment of women, are the simplest of any made in this long and tedious discussion. Anyway, I have done exactly what you requested and added a line on Dr Tett's appointment to the Lex column. Many sources, only some of which I cite, state that this column is influential. This is exactly the same context as the entry for Tony Blair. One of the sources is the UK government, to wit HM Treasury. It's up to you whether you choose to delete this, but should you do so it will be inconsistent with the policies as allowed elsewhere in Wikipedia and with your own previous statements. Two professional women, both very senior in their field, tell me that they see this sort of thing all the time, and very much doubt that such vehemence against a frankly inconsequential assertion that someone is "influential" would occur were that person a man doing the same job as Dr. Tett. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of two senior professionals. Over to you chaps. XXXX NOKESS (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

Drop the sexism, as it has no place in this discussion. You mention working for a publishing company ... is it in any way related to the one that publishes Dr. Tett's books? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you make my point, that is, drop the sexism. I notice that when one of my critics here calls me a Crusader, which is a term that many of the race of my country find deeply offensive, I am told that is it merely an expression and, in effect, a colloquiallism, but when in the same spirit I use the term Gestapo, offence is taken and threats issued. It is a matter of record that the Crusaders killed more people than the Gestapo. Once again, my critics display a lack of consistency and deploy one argument against me while availing themselves of the same tort in spades. In answer to your question, right now I do not know who publishes Gillian Tett, despite having just added a bibliographic entry - let me go look on Amazon. I see that Harper is one of her publishers, and Free Press the other. So no, the publisher for whom I work is not related to either that publish her books. Just to be clear, and to repeat an earlier claim, I do not know Gillian Tett (except for reading her columns in the FT), I have no relationship to her or her family, and no prospect of any. I have no interest in her or her success. My only interest in having started this entry, which I now regret, was to fix what seemed to be a gap in the biographical entries of Wikipedia. If the question behind your question about whether I work for her publisher is about my motives in this entry, it is no more and no less to make Wikipedia better, which I assume are yours too. Rest assured, I shall not trouble to fix any other gaps in Wikipedia for quite some time. This has not been a pleasant experience, nor a good use of time. ZZZZ NOKESS (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

Nokess, nobody is making this unpleasant but yourself. Rather than follow the rules and work co-operatively, you have been claiming sexism and that people "hate" Dr. Tett from the beginning. Look back over your combative nature over your dealings with this article, then come back and chat. Oddly enough, you'll find that I'm the easiest person to get along with, and as someone with a mixed ancestry and multifaith household, your continuous equating me to portions of Germanic history are offensive. I asked you a simple question, you came back on the offensive and questioned why. Stop being so contrary to people who are merely trying to ASSIST on the creation of an article that we all agree has validity. Stop, seriously. You have a lot of apologizing to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wilkins, old chap, yet again you play double standards. The genesis of this argument is that while I was following the rules, others were not, and while I assume terms that many find abusive, such as "Crusader," to have been made with no intention to insult me, merely pointing out that in the context they are a most unfortunate choice of words, others show no such tolerance. Almost everything you tell me to do you might usefully do yourself. And as I have said several times, it seems to me we are on the same side. Overall, the paramount lesson here is that the group who consider themselves old Wikipedia hands find it unpleasant to be held to the Principles of Wikipedia and seem to get angry when inconsistencies in their assumptions are surfaced. This is not uncommon behaviour in social organizations. However, between us all we have produced, in short order, a good article on someone of note. Perhaps we might all raise our virtual glasses and celebrate that. Anyway, here's to you and I feel you are doing a great job here on Wikipedia. VVVV NOKESS (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

Moving right along here....[edit]

I have slightly altered the layout - I find the full book citations with ISBN look too clunky in paragraphed text, so I've pulled them out. Are there examples of where her writing in the Lex column (which has a long and honorable history of being influential) has been cited by other finance journalists, bankers, politicians etc?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and misplaced an italic tag - and I did view before save this time as well. Thanks BWilkins for catching.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, for someone who came to the article due to the WQA alert, I'm doing my best considering the rest of the circumstances :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have some tea--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


My understanding is that the Lex column is anonymous, and tightly enforced anonymnity at that. So there won't be any Lex pieces that can be attributed to her. Paradoxically, the Lex column for many years has had little influence (if I dare to use that word) in the Capital Markets, Tett's current area of responsibility, and many heavy hitters in the industry never read it, but it is those outside the capital markets who regard Lex as having insight into the Capital Markets. BBBB NOKESS (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS[reply]

No matter, there is interesting stuff out there relating to the 2008 Award which will add detail to the article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


She does have her own, signed, column now, and has done for a while. I know many key players in the Capital Markets read her. I'l look into whether any of those columns have been cited -- after I'm back from my afternoon hike up a mountain. MMMM NOKESS (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]


Elen, I'm not sure if any of these are the sorts of things you had in mind, so I'll put them here rather than in the main page:

Official record of the UK Parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90507-0006.htm

Brad DeLong, an economist at UC Berkeley http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/05/gillian-tett-why-public-private-plan-has-bankers-squirming.html

The Market Oracle - a blog that has a reaosnable following http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article11160.html

Industry and Parliament Trust - a talking shop for UK and European parliaments and industry http://www.ipt.org.uk/Research/PrivateEquity.htm

credit writedowns blog - a good blog http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/03/gillian-tett-washington-is-talking-to-swedes-about-banking-crisis-solutions.html

Open Europe, a political blog http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=882

Euro Intelligence http://www.eurointelligence.com/Article3.1018+M5f82d885c75.0.html

Demos, a left leaning but well respected UK think tank http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/aftertheapocalypseblog

Columbia University's IPD http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/ipd/programs/item.cfm?prid=133&iyid=5&itid=1206

Her talk at the Frontline Club was also very good. I understand the reasons why the link to that has been deleted, but I'll happily ask the owner of Frontline, a chum of mine, for copyright permission if that's of any use.

AAAANOKESS (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

Predicting the financial crisis[edit]

I take umbrage with this statement. Nobody 'predicted' the financial crisis. Tett wrote a series of articles challenging the foundation of the structured credit market (see FT.com and the print version for corroboration of this). However, she did not say 'there would be a credit crisis' and any claim pointing to this should be properly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.217.206.6 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gillian Tett. 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) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Authers?[edit]

Why does this have John Authers under "See Also"? Neither this article nor that on Authers which also links this one makes clear the relevance. Nlight2 (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gillian_Tett&oldid=1210238795"