Talk:Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Elements of DIUS?[edit]

This article currently gives the impression that the new department is simply a renaming of BERR, whereas it seems to be effectively more like a merger of BERR and DIUS. Can anyone shed any further official light?

80.2.63.55 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)MBoy[reply]

Censorship of bilderberg meetings[edit]

Regarding this edit, a user seems intent on removing all mention of Bilderberg meetings from this article. Although their edit suggests undue weight, their edit does not match their edit comments, in that they have deleted the information in its entirity rather than relocate or re-word it, as would be the more appropriate course of action. I will re-instate the information, but I ask that with your next edit, your actions should match your justification - i.e. relocate and/or re-word - do not delete. If you delete again, you will need to explain your actions in order for them to be considered good faith edits. --Rebroad (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg doesn't (AFAICS) belong here. This is an article on the role, not a couple of the people who have occupied it. It does deserve mention in their own biographies. It would only deserve mention here if anything duly referenceable demonstrated a link between this office (and not even just high ministerial office) and the Illuminati.

It certainly doesn't belong in the intro. Separate section if needs be (if the office itself has a demonstrable link, then that would warrant a section). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article mentions the current occupiers of the role, so apparently what you say is not the case. The article is about the role, and it's current fulfilment. Therefore Bilderberg is highly relevant. --Rebroad (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the issue of how to handle Bilderberg meeting participation in BLPs has been raised for specific pages at Talk:Jon Corzine#RFC Bilderberg Group participation and a directly related discussion at Talk:Peter Mandelson#Bilderberg Group.—Teahot (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

controversy?[edit]

Where would information about controversy be placed? I'm trying to find information about a leaflet that was relased by DTI between 1999 and 2004 that recommended "industrial espionage"; would it be on this page or on the page of the individual whowas minister at the time? (Assuming it is important enough to be included in WP, which it migth not be.)

--31.96.95.137 (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is/was the "Board of Trade"?[edit]

Would be nice to put in the article. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Board of Trade and this post no longer fused[edit]

Liam Fox, now Secretary of State for International Trade, has been granted the President of the Board of Trade title. Someone ought get to work on cleaning this mess up, as 'President of the Board of Trade' should never have been joined to this article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Yeah, I'd recommend that the article is wound back to this revision, moved to Secretary of State for International Trade, and this is re-started as a new article with the content since then for SoSBEIS. I'm not sure having a distinct article for PBoT and the SoSIT is necessary. If you agree I'm happy to do it. James F. (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead. Generally speaking, though, I think PBoT should have its own article, but the priority now is getting rid of the misinformation here. So, as such, I support your reform. RGloucester — ☎ 18:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Now done, mostly. James F. (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is misleading[edit]

Particularly when it comes to the roles and responsibilities of different SoS. The departments have changed and evolved and the linking in this way is superfluous. Current SoS page should be its own page. Atomix330 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]