This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists 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.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
Jo Johnson (politician) and Leo Johnson (partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers)[edit]
should also be mentioned in the opening paragraph, along with BJ and Rachel J.
My attempts at getting User:Lydonnian and User:Johnbod to having discuss this have failed despite contacting them directly. So as advised by an admin I'm starting one here. Why is there a need to mention Jo Johnson's peerage on his mother's article and why can't we do without it? Baron Johnson is a title not a position. Calling him a peer or member of House of Lords is a position reference. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's what he now is? It's perfectly normal and appropriate for peers to be referred to by their titles. I don't really understand the issue here. Proteus(Talk) 08:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Proteus: "Now" shouldn't be used to refer to someone's position. "Later" should be used because it sounds as if someone's name. And it's not normal to use titles. See article of David Frost, Baron Frost. Also per MOS:HONORIFIC: Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent... And btw why exactly should his title be mentioned here? This is not a Jo Johnson article. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also he is not Baron Johnson, Baron Johnson is a title to reflect his peerage as a honour. And it doesn't have any real use outside it. It's not a position. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does "Also he is not Baron Johnson, Baron Johnson is a title to reflect his peerage as a honour" mean? I really don't think you understand this stuff. Johnson is a member of the House of Lords and has spoken & no doubt voted there. I have suggested you read MOS:HON carefully & you have said you have done so. Please say precisely which part of it you think forbids the sentence you object to, and why. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Baron Johnson is a title and not a position name. We are not going to call a Prime Minister "His Excellency" on an article or repeatedly refer to him as Prime Minister even if that may be the formal way like it is in communiques or news. Johnson being a member of the House of Lords is his position.
And I suggest you please drop your combative and condescending attitude which you have been taking with me since yesterday. I already read MOS:HON before your suggestion. Your repetitions aren't going to change anything. It's clearly stated about honorfics, Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent...
And regardless this is not an article about Jo Johnson. This is his mother's article and on his mother's article we don't need to mention who he is or was. It should simply call him politician as it's accurate and not fluff, I suggest changing it to that. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baron Johnson is both a title and a position name, and avoids having to give a lot of detail about him being a member of the legislature. It is his mother's article, but it is entirely expected to give very brief details of her son's career, as we do for her other notable children - that is not "fluff", despite your evident POV against any mention of peerages. You haven't answered my question about the policy. This is in fact the "initial reference" (indeed the only one) to him in the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a position name nor he is a functioning noble or baron of anything. When referring to his job or position he won't be said to be working as a baron or holding position of a baron. The title solely exists because he is a peer.
And what I say about his title being mentioned here is not POV. Why do we even need to mention he is MP and now Baron Johnson of Maryleborne when simply politician is all there's needed? You talk about initial reference yet fail to notice he is the only one with a long line describing him. Use one or two words, that's brief. This is not a place to describe what positions he has held and being an MP or peer isn't some very remarkable achievement, especially as the latter position was given customarily. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I thought this was overuse of a title given the amount of words dedicated on two forums about it. But it appears to be a single mention and really isn't worth the time-sink editors are committing to it. Leave it in, it's really not that serious and does no harm for a reader. Slywriter (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a single line but it's a single line too many. We should be brief and succinct. This is not a place to mention his titles and positions which edit-warring editors like Lydonnian and Johnbod want to keep. And the policies are policies. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
