Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 20 April 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This 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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Template:WikiProject Maritime Trades Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wales Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑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 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yorkshire High‑importance John 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 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.

Ancestry

"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. jmb (talk) 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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

'box of kink' vandalism

This edit 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 user who added it was blocked back in December for 'abusing multiple accounts'.

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

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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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.RafikiSykes (talk)

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 .RafikiSykes (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the article itself hasn't been edit-protected for three years (the last edit prot expired 11:27, 23 April 2012), it has come to my attention that this talk page is indefinitely semi-protected, and has been since 10:01, 1 February 2012 - over three years now. Jimbo Wales, is this still necessary? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly the talk page shouldn't be protected at all at this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Education

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. Jim Michael (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

Following Prescott's resignation from the Privy Council, an IP persists in removing from this article the title "The Right Honourable". 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 is still a peer, so his title as "Right Honourable" needs to be reinstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:86.135.197.215:

• The people who can use the title the Right Honourable are members of the Privy Council, and Barons (including life peers), viscounts and earls, and their wives. He is still a peer, and therefore is still entitled to use the title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  You are utterly wrong. You can only use the title the Right Honourable if you are a Privy Counsellor. Think long and hard and ask yourself why not every life peer is refewrred to as the 'the Rt Hon.', their title is the 'noble Lord'. I think you need to brush up on your titles.--86.135.197.215 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  Your statement that "You can only use the title the Right Honourable if you are a Privy Counsellor" is simply untrue. No source that you have identified suggests that he will not continue to be called "Rt. Hon.". I'm copying this thread to the article talk page, where any further discussion should take place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  Where is your source for your statement that "In order to differentiate peers who are Privy Counsellors from those who are not, sometimes the suffix PC is added to the title. Not all peers are 'the Rt. Hon.' - only for Privy Counsellors." ? It directly conflicts with the information at the article on The Right Honourable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  I see that some sources like this are now saying that he does lose the title. I'm still not convinced - they may well have got their information from here, and it would be unsurprising if Prescott himself was unaware of the precise rules of etiquette. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this sort of thing, and have no real interest in it all either, but I had always understood that "right honourable" was used only for members of the Privy Council – whether they are also peers, MPs or whatever – not to all peers. I'd be wary of taking what that WP page says on this as being correct. If necessary, that will need to be changed too. N-HH talk/edits 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see it's been restored again, by someone who hasn't even bothered to discuss it. As well as the ITV source cited above, both the Guardian and the Telegraph suggest he will lose the prefix/title. I know there's a risk of the media taking cues from WP pages, and they all tend to speak as a pack anyway, but the consistency does seem to suggest we have this wrong. While I'm here, I'd also query the title "The Lord Prescott". Isn't it just "Lord Prescott", in common usage? N-HH talk/edits 09:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

By amazing coincidence, further research by the magic of Google reveals this blog post from a member of the House of Lords, which appears to answer both questions. Probably not to be taken as the final word, especially for article content, but it does shed some light on the issue. On the second point, I'd also still maintain that, even if formally correct, "The Lord Prescott" is a bit odd and not in common use. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form (the standard guide to titles and forms of address in the UK) states that all barons, viscounts and earls are "Right Honourable". I don't have a copy with me, but I'll try to locate it to provide the exact details. The London Gazette, essentially the government's newspaper, provides plenty of examples of non-Privy Counsellor peers being termed "Right Honourable", most recently "Air Chief Marshal The Right Honourable Graham Eric, Baron STIRRUP, G.C.B., A.F.C., A.D.C." (in his appointment as a Knight of the Garter). Proteus (Talk) 10:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess the conclusion is that he technically still is Rt Hon, on account of his peerage, but that the full title would not usually be used or specified, even in many formal settings (with some exceptions, depending on who's doing the saying). That ties in with what Philip Norton's blog says (cited above) and your evidence. As for what to do on this page, I'd suggest that if we don't use it in the infoboxes for most non-PC peers, we should now lose it for him; equally, if we do tend to use it, we should keep it. The right honourable page also needs amending to reflect the technicalities of the point. N-HH talk/edits 10:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not commonly used even for non-peers. We do normally use it in infoboxes, which generally have the full formal title (including post-nominals) at the top. Obviously it (and the formal title "The Lord Prescott") are not used in running text. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is some time since there has been any contributions to this talk page section, I think it would be a better place to discuss this unresolved issue than article edit summaries. It was stated at that that "his resignation means he will drop the "right honourable" title". Do some editors insist that the Guardian got it wrong? Viewfinder (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian, like most news outlets often get things wrong. As a peer, he is still entitled to the title 'The Right Honourable'. As a response to a far earlier statement, there is no such title of "noble Lord". Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right about news outlets. But we at Misplaced Pages also get things wrong. As you say, it would appear that as a life peer he is entitled to remain the "right honourable". I reverted myself because I was concerned about being blocked for joining an edit war. You should not have serially reverted your opponents without justifying your reverts here. Viewfinder (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As a general rule of mine 'You don't need to discuss every edit yo make on WP', I only put a note on your talk page to better explain myself, since a quick look of the View History page showed 'some' contention. Until you pointed it out I was unaware this discussion existed, since It really is a clear cut case. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Wales articles
• Low-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Yorkshire articles
• High-importance Yorkshire articles
• WikiProject Yorkshire articles