Talk:Alok Sharma

Brexit, the ministers, the professor and the spy: how Russia pulls strings in UK
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/brexit-ministers-spy-russia-uk-brexit

"On 25 April 2016, the world had no clue about Papadopoulos, about Trump and Russia, or about the man quickly identified as the “London professor” – a 57-year-old Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud. Reached by journalists, Mifsud confirmed that the US indictment refers to him but denied any knowledge of its claims about links to the Kremlin, or of knowing about “dirt on Hillary” in “thousands of emails”. But what the document does not spell out – and what the Observer has learned – is that both Mifsud and Papadopoulos also had links into the heart of the British government.

We publish evidence today of several confirmed meetings between Mifsud and Alok Sharma, the MP for Reading West and a Foreign Office minister until June this year. It was this relationship between Mifsud and Sharma that put the “London professor” directly into the orbit of the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, two weeks ago – at a fundraising dinner attended by both Johnson and Mifsud, with Mifsud telling a colleague he was returning to London from Rome to “have dinner with Boris Johnson … re Brexit”."

--Wikipietime (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Now appointed COP26 president
The Guardian reports on 2 March 2020 that Alok Sharma was appointed COP26 President two weeks prior, following the very public sacking of Claire O'Neill. A better reference should be found and this information added. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Vital Cop26 climate talks could be derailed by coronavirus

COP26 presidency
, I understand your point that Sharma's role has existed in some form since February 2020, but I think 'President for COP26' should only be in the infobox from when it became a ministerial position on 8 January 2021. 'Presidencies' of one-off summits like this is are not usually given infobox offices, and it is only by virtue of the position being elevated to its current cabinet-attending status that it entered the infobox. Andysmith248 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have now changed the date of the start of the role back. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view, an office term commenced at the moment when the office was taken, not when the moment when it became ministerial or not - a position is a position. Put starkly, it creates confusion when Sharma had already been widely reported as COP26 president before the role turning into a full-time ministerial position but the infobox shows that the term started in January 2021. While I do understand the logic behind, I still can hardly concur with your view. -- NYKTNE (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest using Feb 2020 as term_start date and adding a footnote explaining that the position turned into a full time ministerial role in Jan 2021. -- NYKTNE (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your reply. The GOV.UK pages for Preisdent for COP26 and Alok Sharma both mention 8 January 2021, not February 2020. However, I think your suggestion with a footnote is the best compromise, if for nothing else to avoid confusion. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, too. I will insert the footnote now, but I would like to respectfully draw your attention to COP26 President, which reads "He was previously Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and President for COP 26 between 13 February 2020 and 8 January 2021", and also Alok Sharma was appointed as COP26 President on Thursday 13 February 2020. -- NYKTNE (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see what you have pointed me to (and how it emphasises the earlier date) and thanks for adding the footnote. My argument was that the part-time one-off summit presidency was not significant enough until being upgraded in 2021. Andysmith248 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand, but I just want to reiterate that the term of an office commenced when it was taken but not when it turning relatively significant or not. But as we have reached a consensus, I think it is best that we leave it there. Thanks again, good night to you. -- NYKTNE (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , its initial nature does not pass for significance - you can relate it to how a similar non-ministerial, non-elected role (host of the G7, for example) would not usually warrant an infobox mention either. But I take your points and agree that by now we are wise to leave it with the consensus. Good night! Andysmith248 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)