Talk:Michael Portillo/Archive 1

Michael Portillo
Michael Portillo
Born	26 May 1953 (age 70); Bushey, Hertfordshire, England
Occupations	Broadcaster (1998–present); Politician (1984–2005);
Television	Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys
Office	Shadow Chancellor and Deputy Leader, Conservative Party (2000-2001); MP, Kensington and Chelsea (1999-2005); Defence Minister (1995-1997); Employment Minister (1994-1995); Treasury Secretary (1992-1994); MP, Enfield Southgate (1984-1997);
Political party	formerly Conservative Party (UK)
Website	www.michaelportillo.co.uk

Michael Portillo
Michael Portillo
Born	Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo; 26 May 1953 (age 70); Bushey, Hertfordshire, England
Alma mater	Peterhouse, Cambridge
Occupations	Politician (1984–2005); Broadcaster (2002–present);
Employer	BBC
Title	Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer; Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party; Secretary of State for Defence; Secretary of State for Employment; Chief Secretary to the Treasury;
Political party	formerly Conservative Party (UK)
Spouse	Carolyn Eadie (1982–present)
Website	www.michaelportillo.co.uk

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

More reversion woes

I reverted to here [1] after a page blanking, but think I may have caught some real stuff. If so, sorry, and can someone who knows about the subject please have a check to make sure I've not done anything too dumb. LeeG 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Radio 4

As featured on Radio 4 on 24-Jul-2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/efv21/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamie Kitson (talk • contribs).

Any chance you could elaborate? Have you perhaps posted to the wrong place? Mark Chovain

He presented "The Wikipedia Story" today - Tuesday 24 July 2007 11:30-12:00 (Radio 4 FM) - I heard it - including an interview with Jimmy Wales - there's more about it at [2] and a little bit more about it on the Talk:Clive Anderson page. Presumably the Radio 4 site should provide a stream of it, though the media player on the site is currently not working as it should. Georgethe23rd 13:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As Clive Anderson presented the programme presumably this thread should be on his discussion page. Although Anderson and MP did in fact go to school together, they are as it happens two quite separate people.--Smerus 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Clive Anderson presented the programme, and in the course of it edited the Michael Portillo page. This edit was made by Anderson, guided by David Gerard. You can hear him making and discussing the edit about 10 minutes into the programme. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Does BBC usually make transcripts of shows available, btw? That would be perfect. Mark Chovain 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The programme will be a podcast on the BBC Radio site from Friday. Philip Cross 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In Romeo and Juliet

The reference to Portillo and Abbott being in a production of Romeo and Juliet, but not in the leads, as mentioned in the Anderson programme, was quickly removed after the broadcast. In addition to my revert, I have tried to indicate in the reference that this addition can be considered valid. Philip Cross 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

North London Collegiate School

OK. I know that any member of the liberal elite of north London would sell their eye teeth to get their children to the North London Collegiate School, but is the fact that Michael Portillo made a speech there worthy of inclusion? Why does this appearance merit a reference as against any of the other engagements he must regularly undertake? Unless a good reason is given, I propose deleting the reference. Informed Owl (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl

I see that "Brownhairedgirl" has taken an executive decision on this and gave effect to it (quite coincidentally) as I was posting my last comment. I would not recommend undoing her edit. Informed Owl (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl

Offer of shadow cabinet post by Michael Howard

A recent edit states that he was offered a cabinet post by Howard. This rings the faintest of bells, but I think it needs a reference. Does anyone have one? Perhaps the person responsible for the edit? Informed Owl (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl.

Sorry. I forgot the poster's name. No discourtesy intended. It was Smerus.Informed Owl (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

I am seeking ref - if anyone can help please do!!--Smerus (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Found it.--Smerus (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Portillo moment quote

The linked article is well worth reading and gives insight into Michael Portillo as a person in his post-political career. But that's the money quote, and you can tell he wrote the piece meaning it to be. I suspect he's a little proud of becoming a noun ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Subject's broadcasting on economic affairs

On 25th September 2011, I added to the end of Media career the carefully researched sentence: “Although on BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze on 26 March 2008, Portillo stated, apparently without irony, that he did not understand how putting smaller portions on his plate would benefit a poor person in the developing world, in September 2011 he presented a two-part series on Radio 4 entitled Capitalism on Trial.

On 26th September 2011, Smerus helpfully added a reference to two-part series but also removed the first part of the sentence with the comment “rem non sequitur”. I do not believe that this is a non-sequitur. Did Smerus not perceive the relevance of the subject’s apparent failure to understand a simple consequence of the operation of a market to his qualification to present a series on capitalism? Could I have made this clearer? This was my first non-trivial contribution to Wikipedia and its removal does not encourage me to make further contributions. AlanS1951 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I made several similar errors in my early days on Wikipedia until someone pointed out to me WP:OR. Editors need to keep as neutral as possible which excludes making our subjective comments or interpretations on facts. Whether or not the sentence you posted was a non sequitur is a matter of opinion of course - some (including presumably Portillo himself) might contest that his frugality might result in another's relief. Our individual 'beliefs' about anything non-citable, don't alas count in Wikipedia. The purpose of WP biographies is far as possible to give facts, not our comments (either in praise or in criticism). Whether or not I personally understood, or shared, your own perception of this as an irony is outside the point. See also WP:NPOV, WP:ALIVE. Please keep contributing to Wikipedia, and please don't take counter-edits personally, it's all part of the process. Best regards, --Smerus 08:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I take your point about synthesis constituting OR. However, unless you can suggest a valid counter-argument, I propose to reinstate "In BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze on 26 March 2008, Portillo stated that he did not understand how putting smaller portions on his plate would benefit a poor person in the developing world" earlier in the chronology of Media career, refraining from making any judgement as to whether or not the subject intended any irony.AlanS1951 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that could be fine as long as you could cite a verifying reference to the exact words he used (e.g. a printed transcript either on line or in print, or a permanently available online recording). I f you can't -e.g. if you are just relying on your memory of what he said - then I think you would be going outside WP guidelines. Even if you can cite a verifiable reference, you would need to ensure that you are not highlighting this particular sentence out of context - e.g. Portillo might have retracted it in a later part of the talk. You would also need to be able to demonstrate that the extract which you have chosen (which I suppose cannot have been more than a few seconds) was materially central, or representative of the talk as whole, so as to to justify picking up just this one point. See the guidelines on WP:ALIVE which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that no charge of misrepresentation could be brought against WP. Best regards, --Smerus 07:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that, in the Moral Maze, it is possible that Portillo might have used this wording in order to provoke one of the 'witnesses' in the programme - that is, one cannot necessarily in the circumstances infer that this statement represented a personal belief, or an absence of understanding........indeed such a construction would be WP:OR....--Smerus 10:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

TY. Unfortunately only the Beeb has the recording and no transcripts are published. Unfortunately, I do not have time to research the extent in time of his contributions to the Moral Maze, which will otherwise go completely unmentioned. AlanS1951 (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried googling 'portillo moral maze portions' but did not come up with anything. Unless we can validate the quote we shouldn't of course include it in the article.--Smerus 16:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Hi there. I've just removed the following anon edit (hardly a "minor edit", contrary to its edit summary!) from the article:

(unsubstantiated allegation removed per WP:BLP)

While it is common knowledge the Portillo had homosexual relationships in his youth, it's not clear to me that he is necessarily bisexual, as the edit rather baldly states. This may violate WP:BLP. Given the sources, I reckon that it could be better to say something like:

"While at the University of Cambridge [is that correct?], Portillo had a number of homosexual relationships [see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/456555.stm]. He married ...".

This is a bit of a blunt edit, almost a bit of a non sequitur, but it can be edited/adapted as fits. Anyway, thought I'd raise this here rather than let it sit, dubiously, in the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article already discusses his previous relationships quite appropriately. This anon has been trying to put the bisexuality thing in for weeks, if not months. We should just keep reverting it each time as per WP:BLP. Mark Chovain 10:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'm new to this particular article, so wasn't aware this was a long-term problem. I checked out the anon's contributions but, as so often, this edit was their first and last one. I presume that they don't have a fixed IP and are just hopping around. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out in the future. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact Anon's 'narrative' is a crude mixture of unsubstantiated and uninformed gossip and libel. Portillo and his wife Carolyn have known each other since childhood btw. I have removed the offending sentence from Plumbago's original comment since 'republishing' it like this in itself trasngresses WP:BLP and leaves Wikipedia open to obloquy.--Smerus 08:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry about leaving the text there - I'd not thought WP:BLP forward that one extra step (duh). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we not give this article the LGBT people from the UK tag? Incidentally a person doesn't just stop being bisexual - they remain thus. ^{[citation needed]}The most we can say is that Portillo claims not to have had male lovers since he became a MP^{[citation needed]}.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability very carefully before you start adding tags.--Smerus (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not dare to alter my comments and tag them as you have above. I expect a retraction and apology. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use threatening language on WP. Please be prepared, if you make statements on Wikipeda, to verify them, and not to bluster. Please do not put words in people's mouths (Portillo did not 'admit to a gay past' as you wrote in the article,and I have copyedited out). And please read WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability very carefully. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not used threatening language, so not point trying to play that game. You have been extremely discourteous in amending my comments above by suggesting that I need to verify my own comments. This is not in the spirit of editorship. This is not acceptable behaviour. You need to revert your amendments. Separately the phrase "gay past" is taken from a BBC article - it is legitimate to quote this as a reliable source. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If by "tags" you mean categories, then Smerus is right. The claim that he is bisexual needs to be sourced. Many people dabble in homosexual acts when they are young—I know I did—but this does make them homosexual or bisexual. A person is LGBT only if that is what they know to be true about themselves rather than if they happen to "play away from home" on occasion. Portillo has never confirmed indisputably that he is bisexual; therefore we cannot assert that he is. Threats get you nowhere, BTW, Contaldo80 --Jubilee♫clipman 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Look I can agree with your comment and take your point on the text. Although Portillo it's pushing it a bit far to suggest that it was a youthful indiscretion when it was going on well into his 20s according to reports from alledged lovers. But that aside I do not accept that I have been threatening. It is not acceptable for (talk) to amend someone else's comments on a talk page. This is against the spirit of open debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what point it is that Contaldo80 is trying to make, but let me explain in detail why I hve reverted his latest edit. One needs to consider the article as a whole. Portillo is a media guy now, not a politician. His personal activities in the past are not a matter for Wikipedia, save to the exent that he himself refers to them (see WP:BLP). If we include them in the article they should be in a relevant context. The article already mentioned Portillo's interview about his homosexual experiences before Contaldo80's edits, and at the appropriate timeline in the article. In changing Contaldo80's original edit, I actually included the quote and the reference which he gave, which I entirely agree were relevant and informative. The second part of the quote from the BBC which Contaldo80 used is actually meaningless - it has clearly become garbled - which is why I cut it out. (For reference, the deleted section reads verbatim: "The only way you can deal with it the things that are untrue which were very vile, and very unsubstantial and very many, and the things which were true, which in my view, were very mild and a very long time ago.") As it stands the reference is clearly in place, is clearly sourced, and the article explains why it was significant at that point of Portillo's career.

By taking it out of this context and placing it at the end of the article, with extended third-party commentary (e.g. the BBC's use of 'gay past'), the article gives undue and completely unnecessary emphasis to Portillo's sexuality, which has nothing to do with his present ativities and little to do with his past as a politician (unless Contaldo80 agrees with Norman Tebbit, which would surprise me). As editors we have a duty to ensure that biographies of living people are accurate and balanced. They should not be vehicles for us to pursue our particular enthusiasms or prejudices. For the third time I politely ask Contaldo80 to read and understand WP:BLP and to conform with its spirit. Many thanks. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is quite unreasonable to talk about "enthusiasms" and "prejudice". I don't have any prejudices on this. That Portillo has had a gay past is as legitimate an item for inclusion as the fact that he is married, that he is Christian, or that his father was a communist. Otherwise all we have at the moment is a garbled couple of sentences that allude to the whole gay thing simply in reference to Norman Tebbit and something about "sexual deviance", but which for the casual reader would make little overall sense. All I'm asking for is that we present the facts as transparently as possible, rather than bury them away.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As regards Contaldo80's pique at my request for him to provide verification for his statements, he will undoubtedly know that while it is poor form to edit other editor's own talk pages, it is not uacceptable for one editor to ask another to justify his comments on article talk pages. It can never be a justification for an edit to bring in an argument based on a non-neutral point of view. It was that to which I sought to draw attention by my request for citation for the statement 'a person doesn't just stop being bisexual - they remain thus'. Many would disagree with this ex cathedra pronouncement. But of course I am very sorry if I upset Contaldo80's amour propre in any way, and I am glad to apologise if this is the case. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Well what a gracious apology. And thank you for having taken the time to so thoughtfully laden it with another round of barbs and snipes. At least you've acknowledged it was wrong and discourteous to amend my comments as you did. I am quite happy to respond to points made and justify comments as need be. I have not refused to do so; but I reserve the right not to respond to comments so clumsily-made. It is your opinion (to which you are entitled) that my comment was NPOV. I thought it was quite fairly made, and one based on both experience and academic evidence. Study of sexual behaviour suggests that in most cases one's sexual orientation and sexual preference establish and set themself shortly around and after adolescence. Therefore if one is seeking sexual pleasure with a member of the same sex (and I assuming that Portillo was not coerced) in ones's 20s and perhaps later then there are good grounds to assume fairly ingrained homosexual or bisexual tendencies. There's nothing wrong with these - they're quite normal. That said I can accept that adding a category tag for LGBT might not be helpful without something more concrete. Incidentally you might help me by providing a single verifiable source suggesting that Portillo has denied being bisexual. Separate to this, I don't know why you keep reverting the section I've put under the personal life section. This is all to do with his personal life. I'm afraid the attitude of it will all go away if we don't talk about it, is not the best one. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

{Comment by86.185.115.11 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC) deleted per WP:ALIVE} --Smerus (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"It is worth recording them here" you say. To show that he is straight? Or to show what? In fact what is the point of your post? You are posting non-relevant tittle tattle. Fletcherbrian (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

{Comment by 109.158.45.71 (talk)deleted per WP:ALIVE} --Smerus (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 19:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I take the opportunity to remind those contributing to this thread (and especially, in his or her own interest, the anonymous editor using the IDs of 86.185.115.11 (talk) and 109.158.45.71 (talk) ) of the words at the head of this page : 'Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.' --Smerus (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Shortcuts

This page has been semi-protected for three days from today. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed.

Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and this talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. Wifione ^Message 01:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go in the article?

Shouldn't it go in this article that when Portillo was Minister of Transport, he saved the Settle to Carlisle railway? After all, on his programme about Great British Railway journeys tonight (i.e. December 4 2012), he did say that of all the things he did in parliament, that the the achievement of which he was most proud. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry - I have just had another look at the article and seen that that information is already in the article! Many apologies! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr X.

Portillo had homosexual relationships, including one with X. for several years during the 1970s and early 1980s. X. spoke to the national British mainstream media, criticising Portillo for downplaying his gay/bi past as mere youthful experimentation. This information has been repeatedly removed from the article, despite Norman Tebbit's statement on the same matter remaining in the article. WP:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops does not cover this, because X.'s statement is in a reliable source, presented as true and it is relevant to the subject. It does not use weasel words, nor does it use anonymous sources. There is no chance that The Guardian used Wikipedia as its source, because this Wikipedia article did not exist when the Guardian article was published in March 2001. 92.40.161.134 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi 92.40.161.134, firstly Andrew Roth was very well respected and would have checked his facts, his MP profiles are already used on a number of pages, the Guardian is a wp:Suggested sources so you're right -this reference should be included if relevant. In accordance with WP:BLPNAME we shouldn't mention X. as he's only known in the context of Portillo, nor in accordance with wp:undue should we add a lot of detail. The Guardian article is relevant as it shows the reader that a range of newspapers carried the story, which true or false in the context of 20th Century morality, affected Portillo's career. Smerus has made a substantial contribution to this article and I'm certain he will accept something intended to improve it. JRPG (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe JRPG's comments and present edit to be entirely appropriate. Thanks for finding the right resolution to this.--Smerus (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Spanish name?

User:Daytona2 has twice edited the lead of the article with a claim that Portillo has a (presumably and implicitly legally valid) Spanish name, 'Miguel Portillo Blyth'. However this fails WP:V (and WP:ALIVE) as the only evidence brought forward by Daytona2 is a separate Wikipedia article about one of Portillo's TV shows - the article does not even mention Portillo's name. It may be that Daytona2 is quoting something which Portillo said on the show. Even if this was said, we have at present no way of knowing whether it is true or in jest. If anyone has anything on this topic which meets WP:V, and WP:ALIVE, that would be very helpful.--Smerus (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong - the reference isn't to a Wikipedia article of one of his shows. The show where he mentions his dual nationality and Spanish name just happens to have a Wikipedia article on it, so the reference is linked to it, which is standard Wikipedia practice, but I'm sure an editor of your experience realises this. He said what he said. It's laughable the you, a mere editor on Wikipedia, think that you have the right to censor it without providing any evidence of Portillo lying. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Given people can change their name if they wish to do so, it seems bordering on trivia. Even if sources were available, I would only include it if it was likely to change peoples views on his behaviour or if he had a history under his previous name. There is no evidence it is sinister, people in politics need a name which is pronounceable, spellable and memorable. A Greek lady I knew changed her name to something after council tax demands in 3 different variants! A search of Highbeam didn't reveal anything I could see from a wp:rs JRPG (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A persons name and nationality isn't trivia, it's a matter of fact. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings John(Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) and Smerus. I believe all 3 of us are trying to get a better wp:npov article. I willingly admit that his politics are much more of interest than whether he has or hasn't dual nationality. This is particularly true since we already know he has a Spanish father & hence an unequivocal citable claim to citizenship but Wikipedia:Civility applies to all of us. Hope that helps. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What politicians or showbiz personalities (or any others) say about themselves does not count in itself as appropriate evidence for Wikipedia. In the present case, the subject of this article has the name and birth certificate of Michael Denzel Xavier Portillo. This appears in Parliamentary records, election ballot papers, and every other documentary record known to me. It may be perfectly true that he could be known in Spain (if he wished) by the name which he mentioned as an amusing aside in a TV documentary. There is no evidence however that he is anywhere (even in Spain) known by this name, and to place it in the lead in a WP article is frankly misleading. If Daytona2 has a WP:POINT about this, he can make it elsewhere - for example - it could reasonably be included somewhere in the body of the article, stating that MP had said this once on a broadcast. But not in the lead.--Smerus (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@JRPG: - you write "We already know he has a Spanish father & hence an unequivocal citable claim to citizenship" - we 'know' that MPs' father was a refugee from Spain (cited in the article from an article by MP in the Guardian, which is incidentally not an acceptable third-party source acc. to WP:VERIFY). But to justify this statement you need to give citeable evidence that MP's father was a Spanish citizen and/or counts as such for present Spanish nationality law. I am not aware of such citeable evidence, so your statement is ahead of WP:VERIFY. What 'we already know' doesn't make the grade. And we should be especially careful with what we 'know', which is not supported by a third-party source, when it comes to WP:BLP--Smerus (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. What Portillo says about his Spanish name and nationality on a programme aired by the BBC and under their editorial standards is valid per Wikipedia verification policy Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That Portillo's father was a refugee from Spain is surely common knowledge - he has been endlessly mentioning it for years. Him saying his "Spanish name" is 'Miguel Portillo Blyth' is like me saying my "Russian name" begins "Ivan Evgenevich"; without good evidence that he actually uses this form in Spain it is not worth recording, especially in the lead. He may very well have dual nationality, & an evidenced statement from him that he does is enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Smerus is right here; one might possibly mention this supposed Spanish name, which is apparently nothing more than a joking aside, somewhere in the article, but certainly not in the lead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

For information, Daytona2 has thought it fit to complain about my editing here at the administrator's notice board, although he has not brought it to the notice of this page, claiming that I am seeking to censor Wikipedia. If anyone is interested, my comments on this behaviour can be read there.--Smerus (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what brought me here; looks like a case of WP:FORUMSHOP to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just re-watched GCRJ s2e6. About two-thirds of the way in, Portillo explains that he was registered as a Spanish citizen at age 4, and holds up his two passports for the camera. He explains that, in accordance with Spanish naming customs, his Spanish passport names him as Michael Portillo Blyth. As this name is contained in an official document, it cannot be described as a joke. I suggest it is worth noting in the article, perhaps in "Early Life" just after his parents' names. 82.16.87.209 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As suggested above, I am perfectly happy with this.--Smerus (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming the context; given that the suggestion of inclusion in "Early LIfe" sounds reasonable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now added this as per my earlier comments and per the suggestions of 82.16.87.209 and Jonathan A Jones. --Smerus (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Political Party = Conservative

As a brief visitor I noticed the Info box states:

Political party None Other political affiliations Conservative

Should it not be the other way around? JDE 188.164.224.203 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Corrected: he is not a member of the Conservative party--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why is there no longer any mention of Portillo's sexuality in this article? In 1999, after years of rumours, he himself publicly admitted he'd had gay relationships. It was headline news, so why has any mention of it been removed from the article? I can't see any WP:BLP issues since it was factually correct and can be well sourced. In fact, WP:WELLKNOWN applies more than anything. 88.104.25.158 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's well known and there are wp:RS articles available, please free to cite using WP:Suggested_sources. Frankly, if he hasn't said anything and neither has any alleged partner then we're not a tabloid and it's none of our business. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the initial editor in this thread might try reading the article before posting. Portillo's admission of past homosexuality, and the controversy which this engendered, is indeed mentioned therein. Nothing sourced has been 'removed', as s/he alleges. --Smerus (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has chosen to edit the article naming a person who should not have been named. (see section above, Talk:Michael_Portillo#Mr_X.). I have reverted and have referred this issue to the BLP notice board here.--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Portillo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Seems to be comprehensive, but needs a proper lead and referencing.

Last edited at 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ministerial successors and predecessors

It seems that the page does not state his ministerial predecessors and successors but I see no reason to keep that blank. My recent attempt to fill that in has been reversed, with no apparent reason. All other British politicians have predecessors and successors and I don't see why this article should be treated differently. --Daffy123 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the section immediately above.--Smerus (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the predecessors and successors of various offices be in the Infobox? All other office holders have that and it would be more useful to have the information right at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.119.111 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is a firm no. See MOS:INFOBOX - "An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop view), or at the very top of an article (in mobile view), that summarizes key features of the page's subject." The important words here are "key features", i.e. not a list of everything listable. Otherwise you just get a clunky abortion which clutters up the article. If anyone wants the information about predecessors/successors (which cannot be conceived of as 'key features'), it's set out more legibly and comfortably in the templates at the bottom of the article. What 'all others have' is not a justification - if they all do, then they need cleaning up as well. See Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent - and the example given there of "When you want to make a change but you are turned down by the reasoning that "We always do it this way" or "This is how it was done in x article"." --Smerus (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Given that there are thousands of articles about politicians, trying to change them all would be a gargantuanly impossible task, or at least would require a lot more patience or dedication than most people have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.119.111 (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  - Let's then at least get this one right.--Smerus (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    - Ok, thank you for explaining your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:8489:195D:78E:A16D (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Very firm no, per Smerus. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. Portillo's predecessors and successors most certainly qualify as "key features", in as much as it is useful to be able to navigate quickly and easily between the articles of those who held a certain office (e.g. if I wanted to compare the presidencies of Obama and Bush Jr., I shouldn't have to go all the way to the bottom of Bush's page to find the name of his successor). As far as Wikipedia: Ignore all precedent goes, that is subordinate to WP:OWN. There are literally thousands of politicians' articles on Wikipedia, and virtually all of them contain infoboxes with predecessors and successors listed where they are known. It is an established consensus, which has not faced any significant opposition. It is not, and should not be, the place of just two registered editors to overturn such a consensus – "no one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." Indeed, if I am honest, the page looks rather shoddy as it does – people have come to expect the listing of predecessors and successors as standard, and the page really does seem either a) incomplete, or b) like it was the subject of vandalism. I have little sympathy for the argument that a detailed infobox takes up too much space; just have a look at Winston Churchill – Portillo doesn't come close. For the reasons that I have hereto outlined, I am restoring the infobox to its original glory. Kind regards, Specto73 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in the infobox?

There appears to be a clear numerical majority in favour of omitting Portillo's predecessors and successors from the infobox (twelve and a half against six). Both sides in the debate raised pertinent issues although there do not appear to be clear guiding policies on this issue which override all other considerations. It therefore appears that there is a rough consensus against inclusion of predecessors and successors in the infobox at this time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should predecessors and successors be included in the subject's infobox, in line with other articles? Specto73 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No per discussion already undertaken (twice) at Talk:Michael Portillo. Information of this sort is clearly available in the templates at the foot of the article. No purpose is served by duplication. The names of predecessors and followers are not of themselves 'key facts' intrinsic to the biography of the article subject. A large and bloated infobox distracts from the article. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE -"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". --Smerus (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Smerus: You are aware, I trust, that no less than 4 users have objected on the talk page, and there have been 2 attempts to revert the changes which have been over-ridden. By contrast, only 3, including yourself, have signalled assent to these changes. Even if you don't consider the sheer enormity of past precedent and consensus, I think it's fairly clear that you've lost. Specto73 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No per previous discussion and compelling arguments above from Smerus based on WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No per both above. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It is patently absurd, to be honest, that this is even a question for debate; there is literally no other article on Wikipedia which describes a mainstream politician and which does not contain predecessors and successors. I appreciate the argument that "all precedent should be ignored", but in a case where past consensus is so overwhelmingly stacked in one direction then you are treading on very thin ice indeed. Predecessors and successors are, evidently, viewed by the majority of editors to be 'key facts' (hence the fact that they are, as I have said, included in literally every other politician's Wikipedia page), not least because they provide a sense of chronological continuity. Wikipedia is designed to be as useful as possible for its readers; it is unquestionably useful to have the ability to easily and quickly navigate between the holders of a certain office (e.g. to compare their policies etc.), and that is an ability that Wikipedia readers have been able to expect and rely upon for many years. All that removing this information does is to serve as an inconvenience and an annoyance to readers for purely aesthetic reasons; I would ask anyone who supports 'No' on the grounds that "the information takes up too much space" to go and have a look at Winston Churchill's page. Specto73 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Sometimes the best way to decide whether you want to continue to do something is by looking at what other pages are doing. After looking at other articles, I think the answer should be pretty clear. There is no reason to believe that Michael Portillo's article should be treated in any way differently from that of other politicians and I plainly see no plausible reason whatsoever that this should be removed. Personally, I believe it is a waste of everyone's time that one should be debating about this. I mean, looking at Barack Obama's page, doesn't he have his predecessors and successors detailed meticulously on his Wikipedia page? --121.135.151.250 (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. With all due respect, I think Smerus who I think treats this article as some sort of his personal article in which he has complete control over doesn't really get how politician's Wikipedia pages work. Look at any other politicians' Wikipedia page. Theresa May, David Cameron, Gordon Brown they all have predecessors and successors neatly inscribed in their infobox page. With all due respect, why do you, Smerus, think your treatment of this article is just when all of these other articles are doing the exact opposite of what you are doing? In the end though, I don't see the point of making my case because in the end, I think you'll probably override any other arguments that you do not find correct as it seems you have somehow made this article your personal territory of sorts. --Daffy123 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No. If they are at the bottom, no need to repeat this rather not so inportant information at the top. - "Other articles" are no argument. Many don't tell the reader there even essential information such as when and where a person was born and what s/he did to be notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The subject's name is at the top. His date of birth is at the top. Literally everything listed about the man in his infobox is in the article; the argument "it's elsewhere so it shouldn't be repeated" thus fails. What people seem to forget is that we now live in a smartphone age; it is not practical or fair for mobile users to have to scroll all the way down to the bottom to find this information when, on every single other mainstream politician's article, they can find it at the top. As for your comment about infoboxes failing to mention "essential information", I guarantee that every infobox on an article describing a person of similar or greater political importance to Portillo will mention the subject's date of birth – and, where possible, their predecessors and successors. I appreciate your point about "other articles", but it is simply ridiculous to ignore precedent in this case; the "ignore all precedent" rule was designed for incidents involving a handful of past cases – not ones where the past precedent runs to hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles. Specto73 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course what happens on other pages is a matter for those pages. I simply refer all those who want a large info box in this article to the guideline I cited in my response. I have not noted so far any response which demonstrates how adding predecessors and successors here improves the article, or, in particular how this reconciles with the guideline. There is no evidence that readers demand them or need them, and any claims to the contrary seem to be merely WP:OR or WP:ILIKE. What happens on other pages, which also ignore this guideline, is a matter for those pages. But two wrongs, or even 200 wrongs, don't make a right. By the way, prefacing an attack on an editor with the words "With all due respect" does not somehow negate a breach of WP:AGF. Either the expanded userbox is justified or it isn't; speculations as to the motives of other editors are just beside the point, and do not advance the discussion. As always in WP I will go with the consensus. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No unnecessary duplication of text at bottom. Ppp ery 20:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes Having predecessors and successors in the infobox is a handy and useful feature, one that, as a user, I often click. Plus, certainly, it is the standard way to handle politician infoboxes. And rightly so, since it is a highly user friendly feature even when the infoboxes become longish. I'm all about making pages useful to users.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
... by duplicating information already available at the bottom. Ppp ery 21:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

By following our usual format and in order to keep the page convenient and user-friendly (why make readers scroll down a long page?).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No per Gerda, and I'd like to point out that the initiator of this is now canvassing other editors to come and vote "Yes" [3] [4], one of whom already has (User:E.M.Gregory above). Such !votes should probably be considered as such by the closing admin. I have warned Specto73 on their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And furthermore I note that: User:Daffy123 was similarly canvassed; and that editor 121.135.151.250 made their first ever contribution to Wikipedia on the day that Specto73 made the initial post on this thread, and thus developed their expertise on Wikipedia procedures very quickly. Two other candidates, therefore, for disqualification?--Smerus (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No per Smerus. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
No the information at the foot of the article is perfectly adequate. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of the policy on canvassing for votes; I would not have done so if I had realised it was proscribed, and I apologise wholeheartedly for it. I am confident, however, that my actions will not undermine the important case that I have made, as I fear that would only be damaging to our readers. I think it should be pointed out for the sake of balance that Smerus himself canvassed here, which is the only reason I felt it imperative to galvanise the 'Yes' vote (I notified Daffy123 because he had been previously active in the discussion): [5]. This unquestionably counts as 'posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.' Whilst I do not attempt to justify my own canvassing, I would ask that people take that into account before I am universally condemned. I am not sure what point Smerus is making about that particular anonymous user; they have no connection to me whatsoever. Specto73 (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: If the primary concern is that the information should not be included at the top and the bottom of the page, would not an acceptable compromise be to remove the information from the foot of the page and restore the infobox? I am thinking specifically here of mobile and tablet users, for whom a header infobox can be easily read but for whom it is an annoyance to scroll all the way down to the bottom to try and see a template which does not show up well on non-desktop devices. This, surely, would satisfy the duplication condition whilst maintaining convenience for users. What are the objections? Specto73 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

For mobile and tablet users, such an approach would force them to scroll all the way through these listings, whether they want to see them or not. It is even more crucial for mobile users that the header box be kept to a manageable size. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Nikkimaria, but ask (again) if the problem couldn't be solved by providing a link from the infobox to the navbox, showing there is one. The same question came up for operas, when the side navboxes at the top (Joseph (opera)) were replaced by bottom navboxes (Don Giovanni). Another solution would be a "Jump to bottom" link for longer articles in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Should be removed from all infoboxes as the information is rarely pertinent to the politician in question and infoboxes have grown to an absurd length over recent years. Infoboxes should be extremely simple summaries of the main points not a repository for irrelevant trivia. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I think Gerda Arendt slightly misses the point in her suggestion. The issue is, whether such trivia should be referred to in the infobox at all; I note that Specto73 and his canvassees ignore the awkward issue of whether predecessors and successors are essential information in any way. If I (or if indeed Specto73) were to attempt to summarize the career of Portillo in a few words, it might be along the lines of: “British politician active 1984-2005, Conservative MP and Cabinet Minister under Thatcher and Major, challenger for party leadership 2000, subsequent career as TV presenter and broadcaster.” I suspect that more people know of Portillo today as a TV presenter than as a past politician – he has been out of office for 20 years and out of Parliament for over 10 years. The infobox which Specto73 promotes as so vital for mobile and tablet users, does not so much as mention his leadership challenge and TV career, two essential items in his biography. Indeed it prevents access to them by making it available to such users only after deluging them with tedious recitations that (e.g.) David Hunt was Portillo’s predecessor as Secretary of State for Employment, and so on – trivia which are hardly likely to enlighten them, and not what they would looked up Portillo for in the first place.

Indeed there is a location in the article which does usefully summarize Portillo’s career as a whole – that is, the lead, to which a large infobox blocks access for mobile and tablet readers, and which distracts users on computer screens. It is exactly for these reasons that the guideline WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE exists. The objective of Wikipedia is to efficiently provide useful information: it is not a competition as to who can construct the longest infobox. --Smerus (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Predecessors and successors are useful information in the sense that they provide historical context. Very little on this page is 'essential' information; if I wanted only 'essential' information, I'd pick up my copy of the 'Penguin Concise Encyclopedia' (3rd edition, 2007) and thumb my way until I found

"Portillo, Michael (Denzil Xavier) (1953-) British Conservative statesman, born in London. He became an MP in 1984 and was appointed minister of state for transport (1988-90) ... [cue list of offices] ... He was defeated in the Conservative leadership contest in 2001, and left politics after the 2005 general election.' Boom. Short, sweet, and to the point. Not even one word on his TV career. Bottom line: People don't come to Wikipedia because they want a concise summary, they come to Wikipedia because they want to get an idea of the broader picture. Specto73 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No. As WP:INFOBOX states "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Here, the infobox is already quite lengthy, no need to add clutter with this additional information. CUA 27 (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Strong Yes. Consistently putting this information in the infobox 1) is consistent with the purpose of infoboxes to put "comparable" information in a consistent place[6], 2) is helpful to the reader for that reason, 3) and is, in fact, consistent with dozens of excellent pages that have suffered no harm for doing so. Summoned by bot (see my talk page). The purpose of infoboxes is not to summarize but to place comparable information in a consistent place, see Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_contain.3F, where the first criterion is: "Comparable. If a lot of different subjects all share a common attribute (for instance, all people have a name and a date of birth), then it is useful to be able to compare these across different pages. This also implies that where possible, material should be presented in a standard format." A broad consensus across a very large number of editors have interpreted the guidance on infoboxes and found it helpful to have predecessor/successor information for major positions in the infobox, even when the information is also in the template at the bottom of the page (which frequently also includes additional, minor offices). I found this to be consistent across the first 40 pages I checked -- the last 10 UK Prime Ministers, the last 10 UK Secretaries of Defense (except, of course, for this page), the last 10 U.S. Presidents, and the last 10 U.S. Secretaries of State. All of these had the information in both place. Why? Because it is much easier to navigate through the office holders from the infobox than the bottom of the page (having just done this, I assure you it is true, but try it yourself and you'll see). Why is the infobox easier? With politicians with long careers, the article and references are long and it takes a lot of scrolling, and occasionally a click-to-show, to get to the template. Unlike many style conventions -- where bold differences may make for a different, but better page -- having this page break the infobox pattern makes it harder for the reader to navigate the holders of an office by finding the links in the expected place.

Example pages that have predecessor information in both the inbox and the bottom template:

U.K. Secretary of State for Defence -- Michael Fallon, Philip Hammond, Liam Fox, Bob Ainsworth, John Hutton, Baron Hutton of Furness, Des Browne, John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan, Geoff Hoon, George Robertson, Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, Malcolm Rifkind

U.S. Secretary of Defense -- Ash Carter, Chuck Hagel, Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, Donald Rumsfeld, William Cohen, William Perry, Les Aspin, William J. Crowe

U.K. Prime Minister -- Theresa May, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, Alec Douglas-Home

U.S. President -- Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy

Setting consistency aside, on the merits, I really don't think the length of these 40 infoboxes interferes with the readability of these pages. I frequently refer to the predecessor/successor information, as context to place the figure in time while I read, as a navigation technique, and as a way of finding new things to learn and read. The inconvenience of the bottom template does not work as well for any of these purposes (I remember nine or ten years ago when pages were shorter and it did, but we're better off now!)

If the editors of this page think some of the offices listed are not key parts of Portillo's career, then perhaps dropping minor offices from the infobox makes sense. I appreciate calls to be bold and [[Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent], but unlike most editing decisions, consistency across infoboxes is very helpful. It's why they're there. (Or if you are serious about removing them from all politician infoboxes, by all means, make a proposal at the Village Pump, someone could write a bot to do it if there's consensus.) Chris vLS (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment. No one has (yet) talked of dropping any of the offices, although the suggestion to drop minor ones seems to me to be sensible. The issue here is whether to list successors and predecessors. No one has indicated why such information is thought to be relevant to an article subject's career (many of the names are not even mentioned in the body of this article, or the articles to which Chris vLS refers: moreover they are virtually never sourced, either in the infobox itself or in the article body, so there is no quick testing of their accuracy). And no-one has yet suggested in what way such extended listings are consonant with the guidelines at WP:INFOBOX. Either they meet the rules or they fail; because numerous other articles break the rules is not a reason for this one to do so. I'm not interested, as it happens, in articles on politicians in general, but if anyone wants to address Village Pump on this issue I would support them. --Smerus (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my response was long. I thought I did explain why predecessor/successor information is helpful: 1) it helps the reader understand the subject of the article by placing them in history. I can't imagine it not being prominent and important for any monarch, for example. 2) Like including the PM, it helps place the subject in their political context, 3) if you are interested in a policy area, it is very helpful to be able to navigate through office holders in order, which is easier done with the infobox than the footer. Chris vLS (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Duplication of what is only tangentially related to the individual in question is not helpful and only leads to an overly long infobox full of non-core information: "the less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Predecessors and successors are not "key facts". - The Bounder (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I agree entirely with the argument set out by chrisvls. I would point out that the argument in favour of deleting the predecessors and successors rests largely upon the interpretation of WP:INFOBOX and the claim that "other articles break the rules". As Chris vLS pointed out, given that the contributors to the articles of virtually every mainstream politician of past significance deem the predecessors and successors as "key facts", may I gently suggest that Smerus et. al. might themselves have interpreted it incorrectly? The argument that "other articles break the rules" when this article is one of the only, if not the only, article that "follows" them is surely inherently flawed? If people take issue with the policy, or the way that it is being put into practice, that, surely, is a matter to be discussed at the Manual of Style or the Village Pump (or some other appropriate forum for discussion). I find it very revealing that attempts have only been made to change this particular page, whereas, given the significance of the issue at stake, a broader policy discussion might be more appropriate. Specto73 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Neutral leaning no, since we have other, page-bottom, templates for this. That said, it doesn't seem entirely pointless clutter; it is probably fairly frequently-sought information. We regularly use succession/series fields in other infoboxes, e.g. TV seasons, music albums, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a community consensus on this template, changes to it should be argued there. Unless there's something different about this officeholder, shouldn't this change be proposed to be removed from the officeholder template, and applied to all officeholders? The purpose of infoboxes and templates is to have consistent information in a consistent place across all articles of a certain class of subject. If you think that it should be removed from all kings, presidents, etc., then perhaps you should argue it at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Otherwise, why should this article not adhere to the community consensus for Officeholders? (I might add that no one has considered removing succession data for the last ten years of the template's use, as fas as I quick scan revealed, though recently someone suggested removing it for a stub article where it made the infobox longer than the body.) Chris vLS (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If no one has generically discussed successors or predecessors there as a priority issue (and I can't see that they have), then there is in fact no consensus on the matter. Successors and predecessors are amongst the template options, they are not in any way statutory. See in any case WP:FATRAT - "Editors who insist that rules must be followed for their own sake, without explaining how doing it will improve the encyclopedia, are themselves breaking the rules."--Smerus (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Smerus, my friend, I have described in detail, as have other editors, why I think predecessor/successor information improves officeholder articles. Your first response to me claimed that I had not. So I repeated my remarks on why it makes the article better. Your most recent comment claims again that, not only have I not made such an argument, but I am failing to do so in such a way that I have crossed some line and am breaking the rules. This seems a bit rough. Chris vLS (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Smerus: Right, let's just pause a moment and reflect on what we've just learnt. 1) That, contrary to Smerus' assertion, there is a widespread acknowledgement that predecessors and successors can form valuable parts of infoboxes – otherwise they would not be even an "option" in the template. 2) That predecessors and successors have formed part of the community-agreed infobox template for every type of officeholder, and that that template has been adhered to on virtually every other politicians' article. Of course this does not mean that predecessors and successors MUST be included; it does, however, discount and discredit any suggestion that they MUST NOT be included. 3) That Smerus has, at last, conceded that "the rules" specify that predecessors and successors ought to be included - you can't both claim WP:FATRAT and claim that articles which adhere to community guidelines are "breaking the rules". I think that's pretty much a slam-dunk. Specto73 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have made no such concessions, either explicitly or implicitly. What we have learnt is that there are 12.5 nos on this thread, against 5 yeses, three of which were explicitly canvassed. That is the only "slam-dunk" in this thread. The rest is me and the yeses windbagging at each other. Time to close the thread.--Smerus (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Smerus:: Is it not inherently contradictory to chastise Chris vLS for "insist[ing] that rules must be followed for their own sake" and to claim that the inclusion of predecessors and successors aren't in "the rules"? As I'm sure someone of your experience on WP will be aware, closing admins are advised not to base their decision on the sheer number of votes. What matters is the number of people expressing a proper argument, and the validity of those arguments. Sure, we have 11.5 "No" votes, and 5.5 "Yes" votes. One of those yeses was canvassed; a fact for which I have already apologised both here and on my talk page (I notice you haven't apologised for your canvassing on the MOS talk). Of those 11.5 "No" votes, 4 thus can be immediately discounted because their argument is just "per Smerus" or "per arguments above". The key issue is that the "No" case is based on WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE; a policy which I would respectfully suggest you have misunderstood, given the sheer weight of the past consensus and precedent against you (which is reflected by the explicit inclusion of predecessors and successors in the infobox template). Specto73 (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, 'everyone else does' is not a strong argument, especially since he is now probably as well known for work outside his parliamentary career as he is as an 'office holder'. Those wanting to know succession can easily go to the relevant 'office' articles, or scroll down. The other politicians listed above are known almost exclusively for the posts they held. Pincrete (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes as per previous editors noting the importance of infobox consistency (for full disclosure, Specto notififed me on my Talk page, however, his notice was in compliance with our WP:CANVASSING policies; he was aware I had previously expressed an interest in this area and his note was neutrally worded and did not extort a !vote). LavaBaron (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure review (~~apparently~~). Specto73 has told me that has requested a review of this closure on the Administrators' noticeboard. Unfortunately he has not advised me where this challenge is to be found, and I can't see it. It would have been nice to notify on this page, to those who contributed above, where comments might be made.......--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smerus: If we are to descend into snide remarks, which I would really rather not given that you are clearly a very respectable and intelligent individual who has done a lot for the Jewish community, music, and the Conservative Party which we both support, then I would point out that it would have been nice to have notified those who contributed above of the original request for closure. Specto73 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I categorically deny being a respectable individual.--Smerus (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Found it - Request for closure review--Smerus (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest there's not a lot to say there. The closure was basically right, but the decision, such as is was, applies only to this page. There's clearly a case for a wider discussion, but reopening this RFC is not a sensible way to start that process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

New, general RfC opened here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_officeholders.27_infoboxes.3F. As suggested by DGG, of admin fame, at the closure review, I have opened a more general Request for Comment concerning the appropriateness of the inclusion of predecessors and successors in the infobox officeholder template and, by extension, in politicians' infoboxes. I intend to notify all those who have participated in this discussion on their user talks, and, given its wiki-wide implications, I will be posting neutral advertisements at the Village Pump and other venues in due course. Best wishes, Specto73 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Portillo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

Following the discussion (above) on the infobox, we are still getting sporadic attempts by editors (mostly non-registered) to reinflate the infobox with successors and predecessors. I now suggest that in fact the Infobox/political format is just not appropriate for him.

I point out that Portillo's media career (at 19 years) now equals his years in Parliament, which finished in 2005. He has signed off from politics for 12 years now. He is probably far better known today for his TV documentaries about railways than for anything he did in politics (except maybe for the Portillo moment). I remind everyone that Portillo's political career from 1984-2005 is summarized in the template at the foot of the article. Really his infobox should I think be that of a media person, (with appropriate reference to his early political career). A model might perhaps be the infobox of his contemporary Clive Anderson - or maybe it's not appropriate to have an infobox for a person who doesn't fit into a single category? - or perhaps there are other suggestions? All opinions welcome, of course. I have notified all editors who have contributed to the infobox discussion above (save for one who is now permanently blocked) about this thread via "{{Please see}}". - Smerus (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me in this discussion. I personally disagree with the proposal, primarily because I personally believe in the end, he will be more or less remembered as a politician than as a media figure, considering the offices he held throughout his political career, Defense secretary, Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State for Employment. Sorry about the previous post by the way, I thought I was logged in at Wikipedia and turned out I wasn't, so I am rewriting this with my signature on. --Daffy123 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, especially since page-bottom nav templates already deal with political "succession" stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 11:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed as you probably gathered from a previous discussion. I'm still at a loss to understand why the Portillo moment is regarded as anything other than trivia. We also need a link to his 1913 podcast page which contains some excellent material. JRPG (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the infobox has gotten out of hand. When there is more detail presented in an infobox than in the lead, then it's probably time to consider trimming the infobox. In Portillo's case, the detail given for each of his offices held far exceeds the summary in the lead; and although the mention of his spouse is reasonable, his married life seems to merit just a single sentence in Early life and career. The solution would be to give a little more detail in the body of an article which is principally a biography. To shorten the infobox, it's probably sensible to move away from {{Infobox officeholder}}, so as a suggestion, I've mocked up a version using just {{Infobox person}}, which I think conveys most of the key facts, although an occupation of "journalist" may be arguable, and one or two other fields are possibilities. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, although I'm not convinced |birth_name= needs to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Better, though are the BBC actually his "employer"? I suspect not. Personally, I think his dual nationality is worth including. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment I think RexxS's proposal is a definite improvement. But BBC should not be down as employer. 'Title' seems wrong - can that be replaced with (e.g.) 'Political positions held'? And perhaps one should somewhere include some of his main broadcasting activities, e.g. Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys and The Moral Maze? - Smerus (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with this broad approach. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

How about the version below, for example? Smerus (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's getting a bit long - one could abbreviate the MP & ministerial roles : MP, Enfield Southgate (1984-1997), Kensington and Chelsea (1999-2005). Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

How about the present version? I've trimmed it; I think it now includes everything major factor relevant to the career, and it's shorter than the present one on the article which is exclusively political.Smerus (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I like both versions here much better than the confusing successions per position. Perhaps you could talk the template into an alternative parameter "Position" for "Title" (or "Political position", or "Office"). I don't like "Spouse(s)" when there is one (said so on the template talk on other occasions), and would not need the name without link. I think we should have his birth name. - Thanks for the invitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've made an enquiry here.....Smerus (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  - I've amended the sandbox for {{Infobox person}} to change the label to "Office" if |office= is used instead of |title=. We'll probably have to wait to see if any objections are raised at Template_talk:Infobox_person #Title.2Fposition before we can amend the main template. --RexxS (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    - Many thanks for this, I would be absolutely satisfied with this version.--Smerus (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
      - This looks great. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
        @Smerus: As nobody has raised any objection to the addition of |office= as an alternate to |title=, I've gone ahead and made the change to {{Infobox person}}. You now have the option to make use of that template in this article, should it become the preferred option. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment Version 2 is far preferable to standard 'political' infobox. Even there, I would put 'MP' before 'Office', certainly before 'shadow' positions. I would have thought that long-term contributor to "This Week" is somewhat more notable than 'one-off' TV series. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment The infobox is too long, but I personally think both proposed infoboxes are unsatisfactory. As was mentioned earlier, Portillo will likely be remembered more for his work in politics than media; the infobox should reflect this. A better way to trim down the infobox is to hide political offices and constituencies in collapsed infobox sections as is done in the Winston Churchill article. ToastButterToast (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Portillo will likely be remembered more for his work in politics than media"; two editors have said this, but that is only WP;OR opinion afai can see. What evidence for it? The reality seems to be that he is better known today as a TV personality than as a politician. What the future might bring is merely speculation.

In this context I'd also like to ask opinion as to whether the infobox should include the title "Right Honourable". Portillo remains a member of the Privy Council but, now that he is not involved in politics, I cannot identify any situation (outside perhaps of meetings of the Council itself) where he would be identified or addressed as Rt. Hon. If it is not a normal or typical mode of addressing him , then I beleive the infobox shouldn't suggest or imply that it is.Smerus (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How Portillo will be remembered or what he is most notable for can only ever a matter of opinion, it's not right to call it original research. What we're doing here is making a value judgement. I'm of the opinion that his media career is not as notable or significant as his political career. As I said, I would take inspiration from the Winston Churchill article and have most of the political offices in collapsed infobox sections and incorporate some information related to his other work (in the Churchill article it has a section dedicated to his Military Service).
As for "The Right Honourable" prefix, it's irrelevant if Portillo is actively involved in politics or not. That's the correct style of address for members of the Privy Council; Portillo discusses his opinion of the prefix here and is identified as "The Right Honourable Michael Portillo" on the biography section of the official Michael Portillo website. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Rt. Hon." is formally correct. But it is not a form you would use in speaking to its possessor - (as you might, for example, use "Lord" or "Sir") - which its use at the head of an infobox might imply. (The infobox is after all supposed "to summarize...key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.") And as the BBC item you cite says "Today only a handful of members attend the monthly meetings [of the Privy Council] and their business is simply to seek the Queen's formal approval to a number of orders which have already been discussed and approved by ministers." Thus it doesn't seem to be a very active part of Portillo's life, albeit the honour is prized by him. I'd be grateful for other opinions on this. . On the value judgement, I note your opinion but it doesn't seem to be shared by most of the other editors contributing here, and I don't think can be acceptable for -WP purposes unless we can find some appropriate citation(s).....Smerus (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  - I appreciate some other editors here do not share the same opinion on what Portillo is most notable for, that's not an issue, Wikipedia works on consensus and I'm fine being a dissenting opinion.
    As for the Rt. Hon. prefix I completely reject your point. "The Right Honourable xyz" is the correct style of address for non-peer members of the Privy Council, articles for deceased and living members of the Privy Council almost universally contain the prefix. I don't see why Portillo should be the exception to this rule. I actually think the absence of the prefix can be misleading, I added it earlier today because when I came to this page and saw the prefix was missing I began searching to see if Portillo had resigned the Privy Council (such as was done by Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne). ToastButterToast (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In an attempt to be bold, I have now replaced the infobox in the article with the one developed by RexxS, reflecting the consensus in the above conversation. I don't myself see the point in adding the Privy Councillor title to the box but if others are concerned by all means add it in. Smerus (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've put the prefix back in, the consensus across Wikipedia seems to be that honorific prefixes and suffixes should be in the infobox, but usage of honorifics should be dropped in regular usage throughout the article. To leave out the prefix is to create inconsistency across the Wiki. For example, other members of Major's cabinet who left Government in 1997 and are commoners (Peter Lilley, Malcolm Rifkind, Major himself) use this practice. ToastButterToast (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The question of what Portillo will be remembered for is inherently subjective. What I don't think many would deny is that, even if we were to say Portillo's media career was more notable, he still had a very active and noteworthy political career. Portillo held two Cabinet positions, including Secretary of State for Defence (by anyone's standard an important post). He was Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, and Shadow Chancellor – the second-most important job in Opposition. I understood the argument for stripping out the predecessors and successors (although I did protest it vigorously), and I would support Portillo's infobox being collapsed in a Winston Churchill-esque fashion. But Portillo was still for several years an elected public servant and holder of high political office, and that is surely worthy of proper recognition in his infobox (i.e. in the normal officeholder infobox format – a format which, as I have stressed many a time, is used on virtually every other politician's article). I don't accept the Clive Anderson comparison because being a barrister does not equate to being a Member of Parliament and one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. A much better comparison, I'd have thought, would be with Gyles Brandreth who still retains the officeholder format despite having a more notable media than political career. Regards, Specto73 (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not only is Portillo's relative fame for politics or media a subjective evaluation, it is also intertwined, much as (in reverse) Glenda Jackson's disproportionate notability as an MP, was inseperable from her earlier fame outside politics. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- If some of Portillo's infobox was collapsed I think there would be a strong reason to reopen the discussion of successors and predecessors, which I am in favour of. Just a minor correction, Portillo actually held three Cabinet positions, which includes his two tenures as Secretaries of State and his first Cabinet position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  - This information is in the succession boxes at the bottom, which is where it belongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My tally of the above comments indicates 9 editors (including myself) who prefer the revised infobox, without details of political positions, compared to three who want to see all or some of the position details added back to it. I believe that represents a rather clear consensus for the revised version. Smerus (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Images

I removed some of the images added by User:Johnbod on the grounds that we shouldn't overload with images (WP:IDD) and that they didn't seem notably pertinent to the article in any sense of adding information or context (MOS:PERTINENCE). Opinions welcome of course.Smerus (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing some images was definitely a good idea. I'm more agnostic as to which should be removed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't at all agree that there were too many images, and if there were, the wrong ones were removed. Currently, after two of my additions were removed, there are only four images, and long imageless spaces. Unfortunately none of the photos we have are really hi-res and good quality, as with most politician & media people bios, which are typically badly llustrated. Of the 6 there before, the Regents Park portrait (2008) is much the best in technical quality and probably the most attractive, apart from the fan ambush. The current boat lead (2011) has him looking distinctly uncomfortable, if not actually in pain, his face in shadow etc. But the jacket is nice. The Regents Park would be a better lead pic. Apart from the early passport pic, much the worst is the blurry 37K one with Nic Robinson - if we only have 4, that should go. The fan ambush is I think a good, attractive and recent pic, and highly MOS:PERTINENT, in terms of his latter-day popularity with a wider non-Tory public; also a good jacket. I'm sure other survivors from the Thatcher cabinets - Norman Fowler or Gummer, say - are rarely accosted as seems to have happened here. Whereas Nick Robinson will talk to any of them. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thee are six images of MP in Wikimedia. I would rule out the one which Johnbod calls 'fan ambush' which seems more about the fan than MP. I would have no problems about replacing the infobox picture with the Regent's college photo if other editors are in agreement; the 'trademark' clothing is evident in the Chippenham photo. The Nick Robinson photo is the only one of MP qua politician and therefore should be retained. The 1995 photo is I agree poor, adds nothing, and should also be dumped. The overall answer to Johnbod's points is to get better pictures, not to shove in anything that might be available. Smerus (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the fan ambush is inappropriate. The 1995 photo is dreadful. The rest are in principle usable. I prefer the current lead photo to the Regents Park alternative, but wouldn't object to the change. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to add another voice to what others have already said, the fan ambush image is clearly inappropriate as far as I am concerned. It is more suited for uploaded to a social media website than an online encyclopedia. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, wierd, but there we are. The 1995 photo should certainly be kept until a better early one is found - apart from the dreadful one with Robinson, it is the only one from a time during his actual political career. I will swop the lead pics, adding the boat one lower down. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no great obection to swopping the lead pics, but the above discussion doesn't suggest that the boat one should reamin in the article as well. And other editors share dislike for the 'facebook' style photo. Enough is enough, I think.Smerus (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a crop of the Chippenham image might work? There are a number of historic images in the image gallery at his Official Website. Perhaps he could be persuaded to release one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎213.205.251.225 (talk • contribs)

As it happens I have already written asking whether any of these images can be used. I will keep editors informed.Smerus (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Good - we should do more of this, but the problem usually is that it is the photographer or employing agency/paper who owns the copyright. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

I've replaced the infobox photo with one which is recent and doesn't show flashlight glare, etc. Also has him wearing one of his 'trademark' jackets'.--Smerus (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBT Studies

I have deleted the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies header from this page. The purpose of the WP LBGT project is to "improve Wikipedia's coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and Queer studies topics." The article on Portillo does not deal with these topics. I believe that the use of this header is WP:UNDUE in this talk page, and does not take heed of the principles of WP:BLP. The 'justification' given for its inclusion was "his gay past was reported by the mainstream media and is considered by many to have been a factor in him being eliminated from the Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2001". Aside for any considerations of the questionable use of the words 'his gay past' (about which no evidence is available, except for the admission by MP, mentioned in the article and cited, of having had homosexual experiences in his youth), the issue concerned may be relevant for an article on UK politics, but is not eligible to be highlighted on the talk page of the biographical article relating to the individual concerned. The fact that MP had homosexual experiences does not make him automatically a subject of LGBT studies (which otherwise would cover virtually every biographic article in WP). Editors may be aware of consistent attempts over the years by various editors to highlight or exaggerate references to MP's sexual past in the article, all of which have been deleted under WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Drawing disproportionate attention to the matter by making MP an LGTB 'topic' is equally inappropriate.--Smerus (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The sections Return to Parliament and 2001 leadership election clearly state that Portillo's homosexual past was brought up by the media and by other prominent Conservative MPs (including Norman Tebbit and Kenneth Clarke) and that it was a major factor in him being eliminated from the leadership election. To claim that the article doesn't deal with LGBT topics is therefore clearly false. Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The article does not deal with an LGBT topic, let alone topics in the plural. It seeks to be an account of Portillo's life which is consonant with the standards of WP:BLP. Incidentally I have removed the sources you have cited in your comment above, since they depend on the allegations of a single person, are not otherwise verifiable, and have not been commented on by Portillo himself. I will remind you that WP:BLP explicitly states that "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced" - one-off allegations do not meet this standard. Tebbit did indeed bring up Portillo's confession of early homosexual experiences during the leadership election; Clarke did not (as you claim he did), but commented after the event (as the cite in the article makes clear) that Portillo's past had affected his leadership bid. Portillo himself seems not to have made any statements about LGBT himself, having only once referred to his own personal experiences. To claim that this incident, which is more than adequately covered in two sentences in the article, makes the article an LGBT subject, is about as reasonable as to claim that David Miliband should be included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink because of his banana-eating- with this difference: in Miliband's case WP:BLP would not be compromised, in the present case, it is.--Smerus (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

All those refs you deleted are from mainstream media sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Herald Scotland and The Independent - if they were libellous the articles wouldn't still exist over a decade later. They're not a BLP vio, and Portillo not having replied makes no difference to the fact that they were reported and affected his career. Many WP articles include things which are about an allegation. It is relevant, properly weighted and reliably sourced. How can you regard it as not being an LGBT issue, when it was publicised by the national, mainstream media and affected his career?

I didn't say that Clarke brought up the matter during the leadership election, I said that two sections of the article state that the issue was brought up by him and Tebbit - I didn't state when they did so.

Everyone eats food, so no-one would claim that is sufficient to make someone relevant to the Food and drink project. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

TV shows in infobox

The infobox listed two TV shows with Portillo, British Railway Journeys and Continental Railway Journeys. An editor has sought to add American Railway Journeys. The issue here is that the infobox is not a list; if it were there is a great number of additional programmes which could be added - they are mentioned in the article. The infobox should not seek to contain the entire article so there has to be some summary, in favour of the most notable issues concerned. Editors' opinions and comments are sought. --Smerus (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Great American Railroad Journeys is as notable as the two which are currently in the infobox. Moreover, it follows on from the other two. It makes no sense to omit the third in a trilogy of TV shows, each of which have roughly the same number of viewers and which are all broadcast by the BBC. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a tight limit on the number of TV shows listed in the infobox: one or two is best, three is just about OK; four would clearly be too many. But if we are going to select shows on grounds of notability we need some (reliable third party) evidence that one show is more notable than another. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's clear that all three are of similar notability and popularity and that they are closely related. Each of the three is basically the same show made in different parts of the world. Jim Michael (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that a fourth show is being made as we speak, based in India [7]. Fortunately we don't have to face that fact immediately! For the moment I can see an argument for cutting down to the first show on the grounds that all later shows are in some sense derivative of that. What I really can't see is an argument for keeping the first two but not the third. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I expect that if there was a consensus to include the first two (GBRJ & GCRJ), it would have been before GARJ was broadcast. Jim Michael (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

OK my proposal based on the above is to include the following three shows as an indication of the variety involved: Great British Railway Journeys, This Week and Portillo's State Secrets, all of which are mentioned in the article. To simply list two, three (or four) of the Railways series misleads as to the scope of his work. Comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with Great British Railway Journeys and This Week, which are indeed representative of the range of his broadcasting. I can't see grounds for including Portillo's State Secrets which seems much less notable than the other two. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

OK I'd also be happy with just Great British Railway Journeys and This Week, can we get a consensus on that?--Smerus (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This Week (BBC TV series) is important enough to include, and it shows that Portillo has done notable work in political TV. Portillo's State Secrets shouldn't be included while it doesn't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That looks like consensus to me so I have implemented it. Thanks all, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert

Can anyone check the diffs between the old version of this page (edited by an anonymous user) and the version I reverted to? I reverted because the changes seemed POV to me; maybe someone with a better understanding of the subject can verify which parts are accurate and add them in. --Ardonik 19:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Happy to help, Ardonik. The changes are not pov, but factual accounts of the influences in Portillo's life which have helped shape him into the person he is today. They are all accurate and have been discussed at length in books and in newsprint.

(please note that user:195.92.198.72 also appears to be user:195.92.198.74 and user:195.92.198.75) While your additons may be fact (and if so, would you care to provide verification that Maurice Cowling is gay, or the comments of Porillos boyfriends?), they are also presented in an extreamly POV and biased way (for example, the passage talking about his boyfriend contracting AIDs, even if true, would appear to have little or no relevance to this article). Iainscott 18:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Missing information?

If memory serves me correctly, Portillo announced that he would not be standing for parliament just before Michael Howard assumed the leadership of the Conservatives. At the time this seemed to me to be extremely peculiar because here was a prominent Tory who had been right wing but was moving leftwards, who was only too happy to leave the party to someone who was known to be right wing. No one was prepared to stand against Micheal Howard who had somehow managed to stifle all dissent within the party before his leadership challenge, thus avoiding the pointlessly difficult and painful leadership contest rules. The remarkable thing about all this is that the leading challenger, who was known to be exceedingly ambitious, suddenly decided to quit politics altogether. This coup d'etat was so fishy the whole thing stank to high heaven, yet none of us will ever know why Portillo really chose to busy himself with - maybe gardening. I know that at best we have only conjecture, but I feel it is extremely misleading not to at least mention that Portillo's resignation coincided with the rise of Michael Howard. The article, in my opinion, should read something like this: When Michael Howard in (can't remember when) assumed the leadership of the Conservative party, Michael Portillo announced that he would not be standing for re-election to parliament in... 83.5.192.222

From recollection of those days the order was:

Duncan Smith no confidenced
Howard launches his candidature
Howard offers Portillo a place in the Shadow Cabinet
Portillo declines
Portillo announces he is leaving the Commons

What I can't recall is where exactly Portillo's accouncement of his support for Howard on This Week fits into the middle, although it was the day before he announced he was leaving the Commons.

At the time Portillo attributed his decision to a desire to move to a career in broadcasting and the like. I suspect he may also have seen the writing on the wall about the Conservatives' chances in 2005 and deduced he would end up like many a promising would be Labour minister in the 1980s who was deemed too old in 1997.

As for the lack of challenge, remember that the main reason Duncan Smith had lasted so long was the desire to avoid another leadership contest. Then the situation got out of control and I think most Conservative MPs realised that they needed a period of order and stabilisation, rather than another round of infighting. Timrollpickering 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC

Infobox proposal #2

Just throwing this out there. It's a mix of the current infobox and the one used on Churchill's article, as suggested above. I feel it does a good job of acknowledging Portillo's political career, without making it too prominent. APM (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

[EDIT: Have hidden infobox - appears there is an error within, which is screwing it up. A bit beyond my thinking, hope it can be resolved soon. APM (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)]

consensus on the present infobox was reached after extensive discussion. Is there consensus for starting this again? Smerus (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Astonishingly little on policy positions

I have reverted the tagging of the lead with cn for him being a Eurosceptic, but actually there is astonishingly little below the lead on his (pretty consistent) policy positions on anything. Now that we have sorted out what colour jacket he should wear in the infobox, I hope some of the passionate voices here will turn to improving the actual text of the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

His Brexit credentials are indeed anyway referred to in the article, (and I've added to them) so thanks for reverting the tag. I think the colour of jacket debate has exhausted me temporarily from adding much to the rest of the article :-) --Smerus (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The Enemy Files

User:SquisherDa has sought to provide a commentary/analysis on this programme with details of its arguments. Such details belong in an article about the programme, not in an article on the biography of its presenter. I have therefore removed his analysis. If we had details of every programme MP has presented the article would be absurdly unbalanced. The best course therefore is I think to leave such details to appropriate articles. If someone wants to start an article The Enemy Files, then User:SquisherDa's comments would be appropriate there, and it could be linked from this biographical article. Discussion of course is invited.--Smerus (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for setting up this Talk-page section, Smerus. My aim was, yes, to provide commentary / analysis on the programme - but really only to try to reconcile two earlier versions which were (to my eye) shockingly selective.

It seemed to me very necessary to include either both or neither.

I favoured both. They are both interesting and valuable points. And in combination they cast valuable light on this interesting man and the depth of his political and historical thinking.

For that reason I thought you and @Johnbod, in particular, might welcome a fairly high level of detail - because of the point he made a while back about the article’s lack of coverage of Portillo’s policies. (You too seemed to feel more would be better though energy was currently lacking?) You’re obviously right tht any similar level of detail across the range of programes Portillo has presented would overwhelm the article in a thoroughly bizarre way - but (eg) the railway stuff offers no great window to the workings of his political mind. (And the Irish Times is a mighty handy source on Enemy Files.)

My conclusion: Enemy Files is worth fairly close attention - but in the context of Portillo, and therefore here, within this article.

I may have overdone it a bit, here, mind. And I’ve nothing against a “see main article” type of approach.

So, as I see it

the earlier versions, each noting the Irish Times source very selectively, are unacceptable;
your version, mentioning Enemy Files but saying little about it, is OK but . .
. . misses an opportunity; and
maybe I’ve overshot in the other direction and we should perhaps seek consensus on some intermediate level of detail?
An Enemy Files article may be a good idea - I’ve no strong view on that.

-07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I really believe the best answer is a separate article, with (as at the present version) no commentary on the MP page. Otherwise we open the gates to floods of analyses/comments on all the other programmes; and that is I think clearly overkill. I would have thought you could perhaps create an article, even if it's just a stub, on the basis of your version, which could give a link. There is a need maybe to say more in the article about MP's policies - but his views on the Easter Rising, whilst illustrative, are not I think core to this topic.--Smerus (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Easter Rising itself is obviously hugely important, and I trust it’s already well covered. But I have doubts whether this particular programme about it is notable enough for an article? (And I don’t know how widely it was reviewed? Would we be trying to build an article on a single source? When I suggested a “see main article” approach I hadn’t really thought about this.)

Anyway, for me the aim was to clear the POV problem in the Portillo article - the alternate highly-selective quotes underrepresenting his sympathy for the complexities. And I don’t think I’d engage effectively with the new-article process, so I don’t plan to go with that idea myself, even at stub level. I’d be happy for you to do that, of course, if you think it can be tried. Back on Portillo, though, the need I was seeing is now met.

But I would have preferred to keep a bit more of other people’s work. You’ve given us the ‘neither’ option . . I’d prefer the ‘both’.

Your point about floodgates is a good one. If the various programmes mentioned in the article began to attract detailed comment the article would become incoherent. Worse - any attempt in that situation, to pull all those comments together into a coherent whole, would be OR. But do you think we could agree on an intermediate level of detail for Enemy Files? Something tht doesn’t invite a flood but does capture both those POVs? - and thus, but *tacitly*, conveys the complexity of Portillo’s thinking?

- SquisherDa (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

My best suggestion would to include something about the programme in the 'Legacy' section of the Easter Rising article, and give a reference to that section (Easter_Rising#Legacy) in the Portillo article. The fact remains that any analysis of the programme is not relevant (or is WP:UNDUE) to MP's biography, which is what this article is about.--Smerus (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Great Australian Railway Journeys

This article mentions how, following "Great British Railway Journeys" and "Great Continental Railway Journeys", Portillo has presented programmes about railway journeys in other countries, such as "Great American Railroad Journeys". It could also mention that, in October 2019, he presented a programme called "Great Australian Railway Journeys". Vorbee (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC) OK I see that is mentioned now. Vorbee (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Could someone who knows for sure add a note on how to pronounce his name? A British person with a father from Spain leaves no clue for the uninformed as to whether he uses the Spanish or an Anglicized pronunciation. Half an hour on YouTube yielded no examples of him saying his own name, though it may be there somewhere. Other speakers using his name mostly used the Anglicized, but not always. Kalimac (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is the Anglicised form (unless he is making fun of himself). Unfortunately I cannot cite third-party evidence of this, unless someone has a way of citing the BBC or Times Radio announcements of his programmes.--Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There are videos of the announcement of the results of Enfield Southgate in the 1997 general election such as this one on youtube. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs to be concise and should not contain info or comments which are not in the article. I've therefore adjusted Alex B4's recent revision in this respect. If there is any source re antagonism between Hague and Portillo, then this info should be in the article and cited, although it is not imo of suffcient significance to be in the lead, as it seems to have had no further consequences. --Smerus (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)