Talk:Rachel Reeves

Goldman Sachs quote

The source of this is "Investor Fresh News" a site that sounds dubious, is not known, and I suspect doesn't have exclusive information about her. Can this have a better source or perhaps should be removed. 5.151.198.140 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Found a BBC article with the same quote, have replaced. While the BBC article came 12 years after the original, so may have used it as a source for the direct quote, she is quoted in other references() as turning down Goldman Sachs so it appears reliable. Orange sticker (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is this under the HBOS lable, when Goldman Sachs (GS) is independent from HBOS?

Secondly, being "interviewed" for a position with GS is not the same as being offered a job with GS and her CV is exaggerated and later discredited. GS after due diligence and investigation could well have pulled any interest in employing her at all. The claim from Reeves is without a secondary source, the citation merely repeats one of a number of dubious claims from Reeves and should be removed entirely.

QUOTE

Reeves has said she was once interviewed for a job at Goldman Sachs but turned it down despite saying that the job could have made her "a lot richer" Dotsdomain (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

This was removed for lacking notability and encyclopedic value. Peripteros (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

2015 expenses scandal?

I'm surprised there's no reference to Reeves being named in the 2015 expenses scandal:https://archive.ph/1Y6y3

She was by no means the worst offender but - given the focus on her banking career and the expenses investigation she was subject to at Halifax (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg75jr5284o) - £4000 isn't irrelevant.

The exaggerated CV and her agent mishandling a renting license (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4ywl7w820o) are small-fry for politicians, a substantiated history of misusing funds should not be. WLLSTRR (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Reeves and the landlord license

The point added about Reeves was sourced, it was just that this was the same source that the existing point used. @~ŤheŴubṂachine @tony ~2026-18602-91 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-18602-91, you're correct, my apologies. tony 19:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead content

@Orange sticker: it seems almost nonsensical to dedicate nearly 25% of the lead space to polling commentary. This content was added by a TA back in February. While I understand that we're waiving the citation requirements because they're in the public opinion section, I'm not sure this is commonplace with encyclopedic articles of comparable subjects. Thoughts? My suggestion would be to cut from lead and maintain in article. When I came across this article, I immediately called into question its neutrality. Peripteros (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Going to cut it down to a sentence. Sourcing in the main body is poor too - I suspect LLM use and the wording was exactly the same. Working on it! Orange sticker (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good – thanks so much. Peripteros (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I've removed a lot - I think the Public Opinion section in the main body could be expanded a bit now. I personally think mentioning popularity ratings in the lead is helpful - if a politician is suddenly sacked or resigns it's the type of background information readers are looking for, but there's a danger when going into great detail of editorialising/WP:OR. Orange sticker (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, you've integrated it into the article perfectly. Peripteros (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)