Misplaced Pages

Talk:John Prescott: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:54, 6 July 2013 editGhmyrtle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers130,592 edits →The Right Honourable: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:02, 25 November 2024 edit undoRscprinterBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Rollbackers27,538 edits Article appeared on In The News, added {{ITN talk}} banner to talkpage (T7) 
(70 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{pp-semi-blp|small=yes}}
{{ITN talk|23 November|2024|oldid=1259140599}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|politician-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Prescott, John}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|class=B|listas=Prescott, John|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Maritime Trades|class=B|B1=yes|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Wales|class=B|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Transport|maritime=yes|maritime-importance=mid|importance=}}
{{WP UK Politics|class=B|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Wales|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Yorkshire|class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Yorkshire|importance=High}}
|blp=yes}}
{{WikiProject European Union|importance=Low}}
{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=}}
}}
{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
Line 17: Line 20:
}} }}


== First Secretary of State ==
== Infobox ==

Changes made to the infobox were one of the countless little things to be improved on this article. As they have been reverted, it appears that discussion is now required. Firstly, I don't believe it is controversial to state <s>that</s> Prestatyn <s>is in Denbighshire</s> per ], (although I would accept it saying Prestatyn, Wales). So why was it reverted?<br>Secondly, I understood from the discussion above that opposition to stating John Prescott's nationality related to a perceived confusion arising from the juxtaposition between 'Welsh' and 'politician', or something similar. Please explain the problem now? ] (]) 09:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:Apologies. I accept Kotniski's point about Denbighshire. It should say Prestatyn, Flintshire (although I would still accept it saying Prestatyn, Wales) . ] (]) 10:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Prestatyn, Flintshire or Prestatyn, Wales - i can live with. ] (]) 10:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::(e/c) @DC- there's also some discussion on this in a thread up above. It could link to ], which is locationally correct in a way that ] is not - but can we all accept "Prestatyn, Wales", for simplicity if nothing else? ] (]) 10:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::The thread above deals with the introduction and is far too cumbersome anyway. This discussion concerns the infobox.<br>I accept "Prestatyn, Wales". However, there is no reason not to state John Prescott's Welsh nationality in the infobox. ] (]) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::: I oppose the inclusion of Welsh in the infobox. If Welsh needs to be there the fact he is a British politician should be added to the first sentence of the introduction. He is Welsh and British. ] (]) 11:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Let's try not to go back to the introduction. In the spirit of compromise, is there any support for the idea of putting both Welsh and British (or British and Welsh) in the infobox? He is both Welsh (by self-identification, as explained in the article) and British (by legal nationality). Or, if not, just leaving it blank? ] (]) 11:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::: I would support ] and ]. I think that is how the infobox should be handled most of the time when dealing with the English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish or British issue. But i wouldnt support Welsh there alone and not mentioning it would seem like the easiest and less controversial compromise. ] (]) 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I assume you mean ] and ]...? ] (]) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: yes ] (]) 11:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::...or even ]...? ] (]) 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Id rather it was to the British people article than to the nationality laws article although in this case i wouldnt be opposed to it if it got consensus. I think Welsh, British there looks good. I have never understood why the advice tells us to choose between one or the other when in many cases so much conflict could be avoided by just saying Welsh, British. English, British. Scottish, British except in cases where they only really identify as British or reject British all together. ] (]) 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::For me, leaving out the nationality parameter would be a far better choice. It's clear from his political offices that he's British; it's far from convincingly documented in the sources that he's Welsh (one isolated quote, given to a Welsh audience by someone who is - how can I put this nicely - a politician). Having given his place of birth as (in) Wales, we're not giving the reader any additional useful or reliable information by trying to state a nationality on top of that.--] (]) 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Its down to self-identification and citation. Its not our place to speculate as to why he said something. My view is that British is a default unless there is clear self or third party identification with Welsh, English or Scottish. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::: I accept that sort of view when it comes to someone like Sean connery who clearly identifies and is identified as Scottish and has been for decades. One specific interview doesnt seem enough to me to justify exclusion of British. THe easiest option is to leave it empty as it was until earlier today when it was stable. ] (]) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::@Snowded: We've surely been through all this, at length, above. ] (which I assume is the basis for your statement that "It's down to self-identification and citation") is a useful essay, but it is not advice, not guidance, and the general consensus on this page (not complete, I accept) is that in this instance it is not fully adequate. In relation to politicians notable at UK level, self identification (in one reliable source, but in an interview that was specifically discussing the man's ancestry and family background) needs to be balanced against other considerations, including legal citizenship and other background statements (such as his reported statement: "Why are you asking me about this, I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician."). In these circumstances, one instance of self-identification and citation should not override all other considerations - it needs to be given due weight. Hence, the suggestion that the words in the infobox should be both or nothing. ] (]) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::We went through this at length, and the general consensus on this page, related to the inclusion (or otherwise) of his nationality in the lead paragraph, due to a perceived confusion arising from the juxtaposition between 'Welsh' and 'politician', or something. There can be no confusion here. As for his reported statement: "Why are you asking me about this, I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician." - it sounds like he's saying he isn't interested because his ''job'' is in the British government, so he can't do anything about devolved matters anyway. ] (]) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::There can always be confusion if we start telling a story that the sources don't. We have this quote about his supposed Welshness in the article, but to use it as a basis for calling him "Welsh" in the infobox is giving it very undue weight - for a man of his prominence, a reader would expect such a statement to be backed up by at least a sprinkling of reliable third-party sources.--] (]) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::There is nothing supposed about it. How could it possibly be more explicit? The accepted the source as a reference for the previous lead. If there is any doubt as to whether it would be sufficient for the infobox it should be raised there. Otherwise it is a source, and it is not your place to decide if it is correct or not. ] (]) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::It was accepted as a reliable source - which wasn't really in dispute anyway among those of us who accept that he has said "I am Welsh", etc. It wasn't necessarily accepted as a basis for the wording proposed in the introduction, because that wasn't a matter for that forum. ] (]) 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I didn't say (or even imply) that it was. Kotniski appears to be saying that it isn't a good enough source for the infobox to show his nationality. As I say, if there is any doubt as to whether it would be sufficient for the infobox it should be raised at the ]. Otherwise it is a source, and that's enough. ] (]) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::There are many sources that say many things - we certainly quote from this source in the article, but we don't have to put every scrap of information in the infobox. In this instance I don't see enough (or indeed any) third-party support for stating as a plain fact that "Prescott was Welsh". Our job is to reflect the totality of reliable sources, not just those that support our own personal wishes (and I can't help noticing from your user page that you seem to have a bit of a Welsh nationalist slant).--] (]) 10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::This is a third party source. John Prescott said it on a BBC TV programme (which I saw, btw). It was reported in the newspaper, and that is the source we are using. If you have any sources quoting John Prescott saying he is anything other than Welsh; lets hear them. If you doubt the source is reliable enough; take it up with the noticeboard. Otherwise, this is the totality of reliable sources of John Prescott self-identifying his nationality. It is notable and should be noted in the infobox. And seeing as you are passing comment on the editor as opposed to the edit, may I ask your reason for mentioning my user page here? ] (]) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::'''a bit'''?? lmao ] (]) 10:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::"lmao"? Grow up. ] (]) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Just that having strong national biases might cloud someone's judgement as to what is a fair representation of the entirety of the sources. No-one's questioning the reliability of the source - I'm sure Prescott really did utter those words - but a single act of self-identification doesn't necessarily make it so. If it's correct to say "Prescott is Welsh" in the way our readers will understand it, then we must expect at least a few of the many independent reliable sources about him to actually say that he is Welsh (not just say that he once said that he was Welsh). --] (]) 15:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:FFS, it should be self-evident to the one hold-out here that the issues that virtually every other editor here - not to mention common sense - might have had with a definitive statement to the effect that "Prescott is Welsh" in the first sentence of the lead on the basis of a single comment also apply in precisely the same way and for precisely the same reasons to saying the same thing unadorned in the infobox, even if it at least jumps out a bit less down there. No one is saying he is ''not'' Welsh, or that he did not say he was Welsh on one occasion, they are just saying that as ever identity is more complicated than that, and that ''one'' on-the-record statement on the subject by an otherwise prolific British politician is not enough to exclude, replace or ignore all other identities that he might assign himself or that others might place on him. If he and third party sources all constantly highlighted it, fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so we shouldn't here. There is no need to fight this battle all over again. Look at how much space has been gobbled up above by this nonsense (which I am now adding to). All this flag waving nationalism tends to make WP a very tedious place at times. One wonders why Welsh nationalists are so keen to claim him anyway - most people would rather keep it quiet. Anyway, having said all that, I'm fine with the current "Welsh, British" formulation as a compromise for the infobox that covers all the obvious/possible points, until northeastern English regionalists arrive to complain that it's concealing his "Humberside" identity. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
::My thoughts pretty much exactly, except that I'm not all that fine with the "compromise" formulation (we shouldn't have to compromise with people whose objectives are not objective). "Welsh, British" is what general readers would reasonably expect to see written about, say, Neil Kinnock. To say it about Prescott is still misleading.--] (]) 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree in that I'm not entirely sure you can describe someone's "nationality" as "Welsh" (or English, or Scottish or whatever), but maybe I'm just confusing citizenship (or subjectship?) with nationality, and I wouldn't want to open up that whole discussion anyway. It seems an OK compromise, or at least not an entirely fraudulent one, which seems worth it for the sake of peace, and not a huge deal anyway. What's really odd is that page has him - quite accurately - in the intro simply as a "British .. politician", and his nationality in the infobox as "British", but without any explicit "Welsh" additions. You'd have thought his Welshness was far more worth highlighting, and that he'd be a greater prize than Prescott to boot. Oh well. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 18:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Even more amazing - given the length of this discussion - is that there have been ''no'' comments on that article's talk page for ''over three years''....!!! ] (]) 19:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Its got to be one or other not both. Normally we use British unless the person is clearly identified as Welsh, English etc. Personally I would have thought he was English (assuming Yorkshire is really English) but the citation is the evidence we have to go from. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

: He is Welsh and British. In this case the simplest solution is to avoid mentioning it. Welsh was only added to the infobox a couple of days ago by Dai when the consensus was clear for its removal from the introduction. ] (]) 12:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

::The convention is that only one is listed per my comment above. Start listing two here and we will have changes being made over thousands of articles. The only citation we have is Welsh. I am surprised by it, I have no particular desire to claim him but Misplaced Pages runs from citations, I suggest you try and find some. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::: There is no rule that says only 1 must be listed. Putting both was a compromise that was being tested if you had taken the time to read this section. Clearly if we want to follow convention we should simply remove the nationality listed. Dai added Welsh to that infobox without consensus, atleast two editors disagreed with it being there alone. ] (]) 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Just have a look at all other articles BW - how many have two nationalities? Dai had a CITATION in which Prescott clearly says he is Welsh, that trumps two editors who disagree unless they can find material. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Have to say, from the available sources, it does look as though Prescott claims to be Welsh. Not quite clear though why calling him "British" would cause an overturn in thousands of other articles Snowded? Why does this one set a precedent - aren't special cases allowed? Also not clear why you are so anxious to have Prezza as one of yours, although personally I am relaxed about the transfer. :-) ] (]) 13:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::As I said above I personally think he is a Yorkshireman, the problem was the only citation says he is Welsh and its a legitimate claim as he was born in Prestatyn (although if I am parochial I would say that is as good as being born in England). As to the precedent, I know what will happen, we will have editors hitting every article that says Welsh, Scottish or English and adding in British. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::And that would be bad because....? Doesn't it in fact say "British Citizen" on all our passports? Not that I am keen on opening up another area for dogfighting, but in principle I can't see what's wrong with it - most people in these islands have multiple identities, as do many around the world. It seems a shame to restrict that. I consider myself a Midlander of Yorkshire and London origins, English, British and European. I suppose infoboxes are meant to be succinct summaries though. ] (]) 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::And I would choose Welsh and European, there are simply too many. One nationality (that is the label) and its another of those UK problems that don;t impact elsewhere in the world. We need to remember the WIkipedia is international in scope--] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::If we were going with standard international definitions, it is surely more likely we would all be down as either UK or British, depending on what usage was operational, rather than Welsh/English, etc. I can see the point though about having too many identities - most people have lots. ] (]) 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Snowded, please review the discussion above before making edits such as , which leave it as his being definitively "Welsh". Yes WP runs on citations, but we also have to exercise some judgment - short of outright original research - into how we present and apply the information contained in sources. Whether he is Welsh or not, he is also British. If we want a simple one-word description here, we then have to choose which. As discussed at slightly bizarre length above, we have only *one* statement from this high profile and noisy politician that he considers himself Welsh - we do not have any suggestion that this excludes or overrides the default position that his nationality should be described as British (even if we accept that nationality can be "Welsh" or "English", which is another whole debate). Nor are we are talking about someone who regularly and explicitly asserts his Welsh identity, or about someone where third party sources - who also count when it comes to this sort of thing - focus on his "Welsh nationality". To be a little flippant, I'm sure there's a quote from him saying "bloody hell, I'm an idiot". That doesn't mean we describe his as such here, unless we find a counter-quote asserting he's not one. I'm sure he's also said "I'm a man". That, in turn, doesn't mean he is not a "human being" unless and until we find a second quote from him confirming that. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 14:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::ps: I've put it back to British, pending agreement on this. That's the way it was for a long, long time I think. It's the default nationality and includes Welsh within it of course. If we only want one nationality, that's the one it should stay at for now, pending such agreement to change it. We seem to have somehow crept from from "British" to "Welsh, British" to "Welsh" over the last couple of days, without any consistent logic or discernible consensus. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Not for the first time, an editor here has chosen to believe what they want to believe, without bothering to make even the most basic checks. Before I added John Prescott's nationality to the infobox, no nationality was noted there at all. I have restored the cited information. ] (]) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::: You had no consensus to add Welsh there the first time, you only did it because the majority of people here disagreed with you over its inclusion in the introduction. The stable version before your actions should be restored, where NO nationality was mentioned. ] (]) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Do I "believe" that Prescott is "British", both by way of general description/identification and as a specific assertion about his legal nationality? Yes I do. In fact, I know it. I'm not sure why that should be a reason for criticism or for an insinuation that I'm some kind of fringe theorist or fantasist who hasn't bothered to make "basic checks". The idea that we need sources for that, or, say, that someone needs to personally verify his passport, is preposterous. What makes editing here often so difficult is people demanding sources for the simple and the obvious, while shoving in far more complex and contentious words and material as definitive fact on the basis of one purported magic trump card. One thing I should have checked though is what the infobox actually said - I did assume that the older version before all this nonsense started simply put his nationality as British. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 17:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You should have. You didn't bother. A simple apology would have been appropriate. ] (]) 18:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::"Apologise" for what? The information I put in was accurate, and entirely legitimate as content. Most Britons' infoboxes have their nationality, oddly enough, as British. I just got it wrong when I said that it was there in the previous version. I've already acknowledged the error in that side observation. This is a utterly minor tangential point to the substantive issue. Don't be so silly in demanding an apology for it. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I haven't demanded anything. You just can't seem to stop making things up. Please be more careful. ] (]) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::This is like discussing something with a petty, literalist, pedantic point-scoring child. Slight - and transparent, for effect - exaggeration of another's words is not "making things up". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I just did some fairly close searching of his blog and also past statements in Labour Party-related sites to see if he makes any other statement as to his national identity. He uses the word "British" a lot in his talk but never once phrases like "as a Welshman", etc. Just an interesting thought. I agree with N-HH's last edit reverting it to the long-standing British categorisation - I think we can overlook this one statement as an all-encompassing source as to his Welshness and he is pretty widely seen as a British/English politician. Short of asking him personally, that seems to be pretty much it. Wales by the way is part of Britain, legally and officially, absolutely regardless of any local POVs we editors may have on that point. ] (]) 15:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::And in any of those statements did he self-identify as British? ] (]) 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::And if he didn't, would that mean he wasn't? And if we're going to be pedantic about sourcing, is there a source where he or anyone else specifically says that his ''nationality'' is Welsh? <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The infobox works if the word "Nationality" is replaced by "Citizenship". Do others think that would be a solution? The template at ] suggests that one or the other should be used - "Nationality: May be used instead of citizenship or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result." Citizenship is certainly less arguable in this case. ] (]) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:We do seem to be conflating issues of "identity", "nationality" and "citizenship" here. The three are not the same. ] (]) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
: I would support that, although in these sorts of cases the easiest to way avoid the dispute continuing would be for it to avoid mentioning Welsh / British, like it did for a long time in a stable way until Dai decided by himself to add Welsh to the infobox the other day. ] (]) 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

::Either of the above would work for me. Just please make it stop ... <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::ps: yes, identity is definitely a separate and much vaguer, more fluid, thing, but I'd have said that nationality and citizenship are usually pretty much synonymous, and much more easily settled as well. And, of course, we have no sources that state he is Welsh in either of those two categories, even if we do count them as different
I've reverted DC's latest change. We have two categories, potentially. "Citizenship", for which he is unambiguously (I hope we all agree) British. Alternatively, "in cases where any confusion could result", we could use "Nationality" - which is contested. I propose that the infobox says "Citizenship: British", and leaves the "Nationality" parameter blank. ] (]) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
:Let's just leave it blank, as apparently it used to be (something I shamefully got wrong when I suggested/assumed it used to say British for his nationality). This is as nuts as it was two days ago. He obviously is British by legal nationality, and we have no reliable source that states his nationality - as opposed to possibly one aspect of his broader identity - is anything else, Welsh or otherwise, but I guess we can just say there's no need to state the obvious. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::There is always a risk when decisions are made other than on citation. Now OK, it can be argued that he said he was Welsh to a Welsh audience to make a point, but that is our opinion. What is clear (having done a few more searches) is that there is no clear identity in the way there is (to take two examples, Kinnock and Lloyd George who self-identify and are identified as Welsh). If he strongly self-identified as Welsh I would expect to see some other references. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
===Let's have another straw poll===
Proposal: that we leave the Nationality parameter blank, but add, in the "Citizenship" parameter: British. NOTE: As a sub-poll, please indicate whether you think it should be linked to ], or ]. ] (]) 20:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Citizenship: ]. ] (]) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::I'd go along with using neither parameter if that is the consensus view. ] (]) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Infoboxes should summarise the article's content, which, in this case does not mention his citizenship. And (tbh) it's not that notable.<br>I have been pilloried here for being some wicked nationalist, plotting the downfall of the Western world in general, or the British government in particular, whose crime is being unable to see that the 'one true way' is to agree noting John Prescott's nationality in a way we have no way of knowing that he does himself, rather than in the way we can be certain that he has expressed his feelings of self identity. And mocked for wanting to 'claim' John Prescott as Welsh, despite not being such a great 'prize'. I have been further castigated for not realising that the arguments against including John Prescott's expressed nationality in the lead were also relevant to the infobox. However, those arguments were primarily that saying “John Prescott is a Welsh former politician/Deputy Prime Minister … “ could be confusing. But that argument could have no relevance to the infobox.<br>The truth is that I saw the TV programme where John Prescott said how proud he was of Wales and to be Welsh, thought it was interesting and notable, and that it should be in his article. He is no hero of mine. But he feels Welsh, so his article should say so. It is a ], suitable for the infobox and is the only source we have of John Prescott's self-identity (if there are sources saying he considers himself English/British/etc they can be considered if and when discovered). It should say his nationality in the lead paragraph per ], but I accepted consensus was against complying with ]. However, John Prescott self-identifies as Welsh and this should be reflected in the infobox. ] (]) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
::I think your comment that "Infoboxes should summarise the article's content" is not quite accurate; according to ] they exist "to present certain summary or overview information about the subject" - a slight but important distinction. ] (]) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


I believe his offices are incorrectly listed.
:::It's still not that notable that he is a British citizen. Indeed, as a former Deputy Prime Minister of the British government, it would be notable were he not. ] (]) 09:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
::::True, but we have to bear in mind that we have an international readership who do not necessarily understand the relationship between terms like "British", "UK", etc., and that there are some (but not necessarily overriding) benefits in consistency between articles. ] (]) 09:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


He is listed at being First Secretary of State: 8 June 2001 – 27 June 2007. In fact, he held this office from 8 June 2001 - 28 May 2002, and again 5 May 2006 - 28 June 2007.
:::::Misplaced Pages should not just reinforce people's preconceptions and prejudices. It is to educate and inform - the 'Oh, I didn't know that about ...' reaction. Otherwise, what is the point? ] (]) 09:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The source and material put forward so far appear to be about Prescott's ''identity'', not his ''nationality''. Personally, from spending some time reading his rather tiresome blogs, etc, I am fairly convinced he sees himself as having British nationality and I am not convinced by the quotes put forward. Therefore a sensible default is to list his citizenship as British, with the proviso thaat this does not set a precedent for other articles. ] (]) 07:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


In the meantime, he was Secretary of State for Local Government and Regions from 29 May 2002 - 5 May 2006.
:There could be no such proviso. And we all know at least one editor who would quote such a decision on dozens (if not hundreds) of pages. ] (]) 09:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
::In my view, we should treat this on a case by case basis, and revisit ] if it proves necessary to do so. ] (]) 09:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-prescott/374
:::Sounds as if this ''will'' be used a a precedent for other articles (see comment above). ] (]) 09:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=John%20Prescott&display=summary <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:I know that this comment is a couple of years old, but I '''agree''' that the dates for Prescott's time as First Secretary of State are wrong and should be changed in the article. ] (]) 09:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: This is a pretty unique situation. Its rather rare we would be considering saying Welsh in the infobox based on just one interview he gave. Clearly this would not apply in situations like Sean connery or Alex Salmond who only identify and are identified as Scottish and reject being British. So its hard to see where this specific agreement could be repeated. I suspect in most cases where this might apply, it already states British as the nationality anyway. ] (]) 09:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - saying citizenship rather than nationality should help address concerns by Dai and linking to the British nationality law page is fine with me. I do however still think the easiest and least controversial solution is to return the infobox to not mentioning British or Welsh as it did until Dai added Welsh without any consensus. ] (]) 09:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although even better would be to have neither a nationality nor a citizenship parameter.--] (]) 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''', I rather heavily approve of Kotniski's proposal for neither parameter to be included instead. ] (]) 06:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::I would support that, better none that "citizenship" --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::: If Dai is prepared to support that compromise of not mentioning either then i will support it too if it means this matter is resolved for the time being. It would provide stability and consensus that we should all be able to defend unless major new evidence for either side swinging the balance surfaces. ] (]) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


::I have attempted to have a go at correcting parts of the body of the article in relation to this today, but I'm afraid that I struggle with infoboxes. Could someone please amend the infobox to include the following information, from the :
== Lord Prescott's concerns ==
::* Deputy Prime Minister - 2 May 1997 to 28 June 2007
::* First Secretary of State - 8 June 2001 to 28 May 2002 and 5 May 2006 to 28 June 2007
::* Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions - 2 May 1997 to 7 June 2001
::* Secretary of State for Local Government and the Regions - 29 May 2002 to 5 May 2006


::Thanks! ] (]) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
quotes Lord Prescott speaking in the House of Lords thusly: " I get a full page in the Telegraph but what worried me about that they used evidence of all personal factors and when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Misplaced Pages. Well they didn't even ask you the question they just pumped it out. Why? Because it was a political action to in a way attack somebody from another political party for decision they have made."


Hey
He also about it about an hour ago.
Added news about him recently having a stroke.
Updates will come out in the following days.
We must keep it updated.


UnculturedOzBoz
I hope we can fact check this quickly and make sure there are no lies, repeated in the Telegraph, in the Misplaced Pages article.--] (]) 09:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
12:00
: has his full remarks in the Lords. These remarks were made January 30th, yesterday, and since he says "within the last 24 hours" he probably means either the Telegraph on the 29th or 30th. If the Telegraph article genuinely contained lies of a personal nature, they may have pulled it from the web already, thus making it more difficult for us to research what went wrong here. I will now look for the Telegraph piece and, failing to find it, will start through the article history and article looking for the problem.--] (]) 09:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
24th June 2019 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Although the timing isn't quite right could be the article. He may mean that the Telegraph told him in the last 24 hours that their story of 22 Jan was sourced to Misplaced Pages. It is a bit of an absurd article, a laundry list of negative personal claims about speeding tickets and whatnot.--] (]) 09:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
::The seems to be a reference to something on no win no fee cases. Although there are some snide selective quotes (the one to European translators) in the article I can't see anything that we need to worry about. I also imagine it will blow over very quickly --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Hmm, let me step you through this to make sure we both have the same understanding. He's talking lately about no win no fee as a legal principle. He's using an example the Telegraph article, suggesting that if the law is changed it would be hard for him to sue a big media company for libel. He's saying that the Telegraph told lies about him, and that they say they got the lies from Misplaced Pages. What I want to know is whether or not that's true. So far, I have been researching all the personal claims made by the Telegraph and it does seem that most of them (so far) can be found in Misplaced Pages. It also does seem that we have sources for all of them, although in some cases I'm not thrilled with the quality of the sources. I'm sure it will blow over quickly, but that's not the standard that I hold for us, particularly not in areas where I edit as a hobby. I want us to get it right, whether anyone else cares or not.--] (]) 09:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
::::It is quite plausible that a lazy journalist at the Telegraph used Misplaced Pages as the basis of an article, without really checking sources. However, I find the idea that, when challenged, the Telegraph would admit that Misplaced Pages was the source to be straining credulity. Anyways, what's needed is to go through this article making sure that all material is solidly sourced, and that the sources are actually saying what we claim, and also that they themselves are not simply repeating hearsay.--] (]) 10:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::I talk to journalists all the time, and for one of them to say that material was found in Misplaced Pages is not surprising at all. What I'm looking for is material in Misplaced Pages that is false - you are 100% right about that! I am also extremely sympathetic to Snowded's point below that our article badly needs a cleanup. Repeating every minor allegation and controversy that ever appeared in any tabloid newspaper is not the right way to write a biography!--] (]) 10:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
::::I think a clean up of the article is called for, at times it seems to be a catalogue of controversies for their own sake and as I say of them are pretty snide, even if sourced. So if this incident prompts that its good news. I couldn't find a reference on the Telegraph to their use of Misplaced Pages in that connection. The only recent article was on the Police Commissioner issue per your comment. Now its a fairly common ephithet to suggest that someone is using wikipedia as a source, with the implication that they are lazy; there may not even be a allegation that wikipedia was used, i.e. its a form of speech. I've heard "s/he gets his/her insight from Misplaced Pages" bandied about in a few common rooms. I half wonder if that is the use? He also says its the Telegraph, but points to a Politics Home web site. Sometimes tweeting gets ahead of the best of people. Looks to me like a series of confusions, especially as I can't see anything on the page about the case he references --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think we still aren't understanding each other, but I'm not sure where the confusion lies. I would not expect to see anything about the case he references on this page - that's not what he is talking about. He is saying that in the Telegraph article about him possibly taking on a new role as Police Commissioner, lies are told about him, and that the Telegraph told him that those lies came from Misplaced Pages. His points to Politics Home because that is where his complaint about the Telegraph article and Misplaced Pages can be found. (As well as in Hansard.) He doesn't seem confused at all, and his tweet seems very much clear and on-point to me.--] (]) 10:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Well its too early in the morning and I am jet lagged so I am more than prepared to entertain the possibility that I have misunderstood something. However I think there is some confusion in Prescott;s statements- the dates he claims in Hansard and the date on the Telegraph article itself is one and I doubt the Telegraph would have pulled an article from the web site arising from that alone, or run similar articles in such a short time period.. Also although the Telegraph article is a light weight piece and selective I can't see any outright lies. I also find it difficult to believe that a national newspaper would say they got the facts from Misplaced Pages even if they did. Politically I am on Prescott's side, think he is generally mistreated and dislike the Telegraph, but there are still times when its best to leave well alone on some of the complaints and statements Prescott makes. Our aim should be the article itself, check the sources and also the balance of the reporting and let that speak for itself--] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I know enough journalists at the Telegraph and elsewhere to know that for them to say they got something from Misplaced Pages is not astonishing to me at all. I think the understanding we can have of the dates he mentions in Hansard is that the Telegraph article appeared and he's been complaining to them, and within the past 24 hours (of his Hansard statements) he was told by the Telegraph that the same information is in Misplaced Pages. Anyway, that's not so important as you say. What's important is the article.
:::::::I'm going to keep plugging away (as best I can - travel + Wikimedia board meeting this weekend) fact checking this article. But I think more than mere fact-checking is needed, per the discussion above. The article strikes me as having serious BLP issues related to ] - the controversies section mentions a lot of stuff that's really inconsequential (and some stuff that is important). It's a parade of horribles.--] (]) 09:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


:The notion that Prescott wasn't First Secretary of State but "Secretary of State for Local Government and the Regions" between 2002 & 2006 seems to be a retroactive thing on the parliament website based on the fact that in 2006 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was taken off him and retitled thus showing it did not need the DPM running it. Here's which lists Prescott on the title page as "The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State," and repeats this later on when listing the whole ministerial team. (Hit the enter key early.) The ODPM dates back to the June 2001 reshuffle and was an unusual bit of government that basically developed as Prescott picked up responsibilities and took his unit out of the Cabinet Office rather than a more straightforward splitting of the Department of Transport, Local Government & the Regions into two separate departments with two separate titled Secretaries of State. (The closest analogy would probably be the Ministry of Administrative Affairs in '']'' which also collected responsibilities rather than Jim Hacker changing actual titles.) In 2006 it was taken off Prescott and renamed as a more conventional department headed by a Secretary of State but that doesn't mean Prescott had been such before then. ] (]) 22:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
== Ancestry ==


::Hello again! The parliament.uk website would normally seem like the best source to use for this sort of thing, so I hope you understand why I used it, but I do now agree that the ODPM is an outlier. Indeed, The London Gazette refers to Prescott as First Secretary of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in June 2003. I notice that you've already reversed my edits, so thank you for that! ] (]) 15:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
"During the filming of the programme it was discovered that his great great great grandfather, Thomas Parrish, was the most likely father of the first four children of Parrish's own daughter. Athaliah Parrish"
*That was claimed on the programme but no evidence was produced and it was disputed in family history circles. ] (]) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:I tend to agree with you that this is problematic, and as this is a BLP I've removed it at least for now. It's a rather extraordinary claim not backed up by DNA evidence as far as I know. It's based on his daughter having 4 children while living with him. But for all we know, that could be a live-in boyfriend, a secret lover, etc. Unless further sources emerge, I think this should be treated as speculation.
:Additionally, I very strongly question whether it has any relevance to this biography. I think each of us needs to ask whether whatever our non-notable great-great-great grandfather got up to should in any way be considered encyclopedic. Perhaps if Prescott were to go on to write a historical novel set in that time period as a way of dealing with his personal emotions about this, or some similar fantastic thing we could dream up, then this would be something that we would naturally conclude is important and relevant to the readers understanding of him, his character, and his work. But as it stands, it's just a curious tabloid-y speculation of little value.--] (]) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


== Television appearances: British Made ==
== 'box of kink' vandalism ==


TV series on food manufacturing “British Made” ] (]) 09:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
dates back to July 7, so this vandalism stayed in the article for 6 months. I have searched in Google web search and UK Google news archives, and I find absolutely no evidence that there is any truth to the claim at all. The who added it was blocked back in December for 'abusing multiple accounts'.


== Two Jabs? ==
I wish we had a system for immediately raising a red flag on edits done in the past by such abusers.


Always understood that the nickname was ‘Two Jags,’ referring to his ownership and use of his Jaguars (even for very short journeys) during Labour’s promotion of ‘green credentials’ ] (]) 14:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
In the meantime, I'm semi-protecting this article and encourage everyone who has helped out so far to continue checking every sentence of the article for accuracy and fairness.--] (]) 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
: "Two Jabs" is a not-unamusing play on the original "Two Jags", arising from the famous incident when some hulking oaf egged Prescott and was, as the sobriquet suggests, promptly socked twice in the face by Prescott. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Oh my I hadn't got to that section yet. I knew about him going about in his customized "battlebus" but I'm amazed that second part stayed in so long. I might add back a brief mention of his battle bus as it was pretty visible and shows his distinct campaigning style etc.] (])
::Given theres only about 100 edits showing I'm surprised just went through at that users contributions. A few moments looking has found this copyvio in the users userspace copied from a section of this .] (]) 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


== Education == ==He has died==
The Early life section quotes him saying he "went to school in Wales". However, all the places it says he was educated at are in England. ] (]) 03:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


Just heard on Classic FM Radio News this morning that Lord Prescott has died, in a care home.] (]) 06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
== The Right Honourable ==


==Ships==
Following Prescott's resignation from the Privy Council, an IP persists in removing from this article the title "]". According to that article, the title is applied both to members of the Privy Council '''''and''''' to "Barons (including life peers), viscounts and earls, and their wives." Prescott's title as "Right Honourable" needs to be reinstated. ] (]) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we know which ships Prescott served on? ] (]) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:02, 25 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Prescott article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
In the newsA news item involving John Prescott was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 November 2024.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconTransport: Maritime
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconWales Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYorkshire High‑importance
WikiProject iconJohn Prescott is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean Union Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

First Secretary of State

I believe his offices are incorrectly listed.

He is listed at being First Secretary of State: 8 June 2001 – 27 June 2007. In fact, he held this office from 8 June 2001 - 28 May 2002, and again 5 May 2006 - 28 June 2007.

In the meantime, he was Secretary of State for Local Government and Regions from 29 May 2002 - 5 May 2006.

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-prescott/374 http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=John%20Prescott&display=summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1995421 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that this comment is a couple of years old, but I agree that the dates for Prescott's time as First Secretary of State are wrong and should be changed in the article. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I have attempted to have a go at correcting parts of the body of the article in relation to this today, but I'm afraid that I struggle with infoboxes. Could someone please amend the infobox to include the following information, from the UK Parliament website:
  • Deputy Prime Minister - 2 May 1997 to 28 June 2007
  • First Secretary of State - 8 June 2001 to 28 May 2002 and 5 May 2006 to 28 June 2007
  • Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions - 2 May 1997 to 7 June 2001
  • Secretary of State for Local Government and the Regions - 29 May 2002 to 5 May 2006
Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Added news about him recently having a stroke. Updates will come out in the following days. We must keep it updated.

UnculturedOzBoz 12:00 24th June 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnculturedOzBoz (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The notion that Prescott wasn't First Secretary of State but "Secretary of State for Local Government and the Regions" between 2002 & 2006 seems to be a retroactive thing on the parliament website based on the fact that in 2006 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was taken off him and retitled thus showing it did not need the DPM running it. Here's the 2005 ODPM report which lists Prescott on the title page as "The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State," and repeats this later on when listing the whole ministerial team. (Hit the enter key early.) The ODPM dates back to the June 2001 reshuffle and was an unusual bit of government that basically developed as Prescott picked up responsibilities and took his unit out of the Cabinet Office rather than a more straightforward splitting of the Department of Transport, Local Government & the Regions into two separate departments with two separate titled Secretaries of State. (The closest analogy would probably be the Ministry of Administrative Affairs in Yes Minister which also collected responsibilities rather than Jim Hacker changing actual titles.) In 2006 it was taken off Prescott and renamed as a more conventional department headed by a Secretary of State but that doesn't mean Prescott had been such before then. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello again! The parliament.uk website would normally seem like the best source to use for this sort of thing, so I hope you understand why I used it, but I do now agree that the ODPM is an outlier. Indeed, The London Gazette refers to Prescott as First Secretary of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister here in June 2003. I notice that you've already reversed my edits, so thank you for that! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Television appearances: British Made

TV series on food manufacturing “British Made” RadioTimes David Woodward (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Two Jabs?

Always understood that the nickname was ‘Two Jags,’ referring to his ownership and use of his Jaguars (even for very short journeys) during Labour’s promotion of ‘green credentials’ 78.146.7.41 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

"Two Jabs" is a not-unamusing play on the original "Two Jags", arising from the famous incident when some hulking oaf egged Prescott and was, as the sobriquet suggests, promptly socked twice in the face by Prescott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.103.180 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

He has died

Just heard on Classic FM Radio News this morning that Lord Prescott has died, in a care home.Cloptonson (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ships

Do we know which ships Prescott served on? Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: