Talk:Petronella Wyatt

Article initially self written

This entry was written by the subject herself as she writes here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450045&in_page_id=1770 and should therefore be deleted according to Wikipedia guidelines 81.223.241.73 07:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's notable that Ms Wyatt's newspaper article makes several claims of content supposedly added that aren't actually bourne out by checking the page history, unless they've been deleted by an admin. Ms Wyatt also removed the paragraph about her affair with Boris Johnson (not mentioned in the Mail article), although it is still mentioned on his page and is fairly well documented (e.g. [2], [3], [4]). Nick Cooper 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the logs [5].Geni 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Something was added here [6] that she then deleted herself, though of course it's much less dramatic than she claims in her column... Moyabrit (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And it does trace to Charlottesville, VA. Moyabrit (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For a similar controversy, you may want to visit the talk page for American author Dean Radin. He initiated his article, admitted it (not knowing fully the rules); the article was nominated for deletion, and ultimately kept. Anyway, here are the relevant Wiki policy articles: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Biographies of living persons. 209.26.38.244 17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm a tad late, but for anyone else suggestion the deletion of this article, remember that WP:AB says "discouraged". It doesn't mean that it's an initially autobiography, ergo its a deletion. Petronella had done a fairly neutral (in the content, biased in what she left out) initial stub. But since, it's become more and more referred and unbiased (at least from my POV). On a side note... could she sue Wikipedia? No right? Isn't that stated in WP:General Disclaimer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caoslinger (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this person notable?

So, Ms Wyatt has now ammended the discussion to make it clear that she wrote this herself. Now could we please have a look at WP:BIO to see if she meets guidelines to be considered a notable person. The two relevant criteria I can find are :

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person

and

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

Whilst she's published, as far as I'm aware her work does not receive multiple independent reviews or awards. And let's be honest, if she hadn't been Boris Johnson's bit on the side the general public would have no idea who she is. I don't think being the mistress of an MP is much of an achievement, but if it is I think it's adequately covered on his page. I'd tag this page for deletion but it's locked.Gemmaanna 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ack, "mother of his alleged mistress, Petronella Wyatt" comma placement confused me. Sorry for the removal. Cary Bass ^demandez 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for anyone else but I knew of her before that; she is mentioned in her father's book "Confessions Of An Optimist" (along with a photo), which was published in 1984 and long before she was Boris Johnson's 'squeeze'. She also wrote a highly controversial piece for the Spectator in the summer of 2000 which got some airing on local radio.88.110.226.6 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Boris Johnson is a bit more than a standard MP. While he isn't John Profumo he is definetly one of the more recogniseable conservative MPs.Geni 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. The way she entered and edited her original text makes me think that she was testing Wikipedia as a whole. She included such giveaways as "glamorous" as to her own person, and "eccentric" (Hungarian baroness), as to her mother's details. Did she realise, these two items would have been the first things to be removed in any encyclopaedia, and sure enough, it was in Wikipedia? In fact, we were true to the nature of Wikipedia and did what we should.

The fact that this other person came and added what she did without registering, does however bring me back to the fact that we are leaving ourselves wide open to widespread vandalism by giving access to unregistered editors. I know, registered users can if they want to be most controversial too, but at least it would stop the wearying misuse, wearying to us editors who are trying to contain the problemes within a minimum. One day also, someone will throw a defamation suit at us, are we ready to meet that? 80.47.34.132 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't signed in, how ironic. Dieter Simon 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how she is notable. Yes she may have written a few published articles, but is that notable in itself? 87.114.106.184 (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

I find it rather astounding that someone has deleted this section, since it's what seems to have brought most people to this page recently! Nick Cooper 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a poorly-written repeat of what has been discussed many, many times here and elsewhere. It was not relevant. Gary Kirk [Talk] 07:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can something published yesterday have been, "discussed many, many times here and elsewhere"? Nick Cooper 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

because they were the same standard criticisms. Unless we are going to have a section on every single one of her columns ever it makes no sense to have a section on the one where she mentions wikipedia.Geni 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unless this article is of outstanding note in her career, the Daily Mail article itself is not worth noting. -- Zanimum 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here out of curiosity after noticing that article myself. Personally, I'm a little disappointed the whole bare-breasted hunting and random screaming attacks were either fabricated to give good copy, or the result of a hypnogogic episode. Although I am amused to note that as I have the ability to edit articles I am by definition a "hacker", and that a Wiki employee "said he had rarely come across a case as bad". Maybe said employee wants to go and hang around the Dubya or Beckham pages... Slavedriver 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The accusations of malicious inaccuracy Wyatt made in her article for the Daily Mail have been comprehensively debunked as being partly self-editing and the rest untrue. If they are to be mentioned at all, shouldn't this be made clear in the article? Especially as the article that makes the accusations is still available (uncorrected) on the Daily Mail site, and readers may well come to this article for a definitive explanation. Centrepull (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rel status

She is notable but more to the point, she is cute and this article does not give her marital status. From an admirer, obviously. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) [] Recently in the London Evening Standard, she lamented that she is single after a string of affairs with older men. Which is entirely her own fault. 109.145.43.213 (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

Her father's autobiography "Confessions of an Optimist" gives her date of birth as being May 1968, so I've changed the one given in the article.

Meltingpot (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Petronella Wyatt and Boris Johnson

It is interesting to note the similar career paths taken by both. Both PW and BJ were journalists for The Daily Telegraph and then moved over to The Spectator where PW was Deputy Editor and BJ the Editor.

I found this excerpt in a profile in The Independent about PW at The Spectator - written in 1999 - about how her days were apparently numbered once BJ took over as Editor:

Boris has also boldly tackled "the problem of Petronella": he is in the process of finding a new deputy editor to replace Petronella Wyatt, the daughter of the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford. Everyone, including Johnson, is being diplomatic about "Petsy". "It's true that she is stepping down as deputy editor, that she no longer holds that great office of state at The Spectator," says Johnson, "but she will continue to be an honoured and valued honcho with a title of some grandeur which is still being thrashed out."

Petronella had caused a stir with an unflattering interview with Sir Christopher Bland, the chairman of the BBC ("Sir Christopher runs the company as a personal fiefdom..." "Sir Christopher puffed up his chest like a blue canary," etc). Her piece was a gripping read, but the magazine was forced to publish an apology for various inclusions, in particular the allegation that Sir Christopher had shouted at Miss Wyatt. "He did not say, in relation to presenters, 'It is good for them to be afraid,'" the apology continued, "nor did he refer, in the context of life in the pre-television age, to 'bear-baiting and prostitutes'. Finally, Sir Christopher maintains, contrary to the impression we gave, that he watches plenty of television."

Miss Wyatt also asserted that there are pictures of erect penises on Sir Christopher's office wall - a claim that The Spectator has not withdrawn, despite the BBC's insistence that the only penis on Sir Christopher's walls is limp and appears in a painting of the Madonna and child. A mystery remains over whether Miss Wyatt's imagination got the better of her, or whether the BBC has quickly taken down the controversial drawings.

But Petronella's days as deputy editor seemed numbered well before the Christopher Bland article was published. She is respected for her ability to craft a fine sentence, and charm the old chaps whom she selects for her interview couch (Denis Healey was a memorable conquest), but her youth, beauty, Chanel clothes and perfect make-up made her an object of envy; while having a famous father and a comfortable home life with her mother Verushka gave the impression of a charmed and pampered existence.

Then she began to be accused by colleagues of spending "less than conventional office hours" at her desk, and considerable amounts of time working on her book - an affectionate portrait of her father. At times it seemed that she epitomised a culture gap, and consequent internal tension, that had been developing for some time at the magazine. Ian Buruma, the writer and former foreign editor of The Spectator, has described working at the paper in terms that make it seem more like a lifestyle choice than a job. He says the place is, deep down, a "theatrical fantasy", bringing together old style, in the form of the editorial staff, with new money.

While Petronella is a version of "the old style", the "new money" on the magazine is represented by Kimberley Fortier, the glamorous American publisher placed inside Doughty Street by the Canadian Conrad Black, who owns both the Telegraphs (Sunday and Daily) and The Spectator. It is Miss Fortier's task to ensure that the magazine is run in a modern, professional manner and makes money.

At times she makes her frustrations with Miss Wyatt quite obvious. One day last year, for instance, when Petronella was not at her desk, Miss Fortier telephoned Verushka to persuade her to send her daughter to the office for an important meeting. ("Do all British companies work like this?" she wondered. "Do you really have to call up the mothers of executives to coax them into getting their offspring to meetings?").

Now, it seems strange that a four year affair took place between the two if BJ was party to removing PW from her position. When did their affair actually start? It must have carried on after PJ was demoted to being a writer for The Spectator. The news of the affair was broken by PW's mother in November 2004, so it seems the affair started when PW was moved from her Deputy Editorial position.

In his book 'Friends, Voters, Countrymen' (published in 2002), BJ does make mention of PW in reference to an article she wrote in The Spectator criticising a monastery building designed by a Wyatt architectural ancestor and how he goes to visit it - although only a part of its grounds are in his South Oxford electoral area - to make amends following a large amount of criticism from the Catholic community. He also thanks her (along with Conrad Black) in the Acknowledgements section. Ivankinsman (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I've cut a gossipy detail that was the only mention of her in a review of Andrew Gimson's Boris: an archived version of that now paywalled article is here.

We are quoting a blog on her fabricating quotes, and the Daily Mail (following an RfC, banned except for extraordinary cases) on her music. Per WP:BLP, I'm going to remove both statements with my next edit. There may well be more acceptable sources, in which case I'd be delighted if both bits are reinstated based on those sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Honourable" question and partner in infobox

Petronella Wyatt does not have the title 'Honourable' - this should be removed. Also, maybe remove the reference to Boris Johnson as her partner (2000-2004) as he was married and she had an affair with him, to call him her partner is disingenuous to his wife, married until 2020, when she divorced him. Bridgetdonoghue (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"The Honourable" was added to the infobox on 23 Feb 22 by an IP editor (diff) so there is no one we can ping to ask for an explanation for why it was added. Nothing in the body explains it, so I've removed it.

I'm ambivalent on mentioning Johnson in the infobox. If you remove it, I won't revert but other editors might, in which case hopefully they'll engage here to discuss it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)