Talk:James Cleverly

A Conservative for Britain?
In the article, there is no mention that James Cleverly is a member of Conservatives for Britain - a right-wing group concerned with supporting British sovereignty. And yet, neither he, nor this 'pro-British' group, seem concerned about the proposal to give away UK sovereignty to US Corporations via TTIP Investor State Dispute Settlement arbitrators. To address this, could a section be added to highlight his membership of Conservatives for Britain plus his and their inaction over the Investor State Dispute Settlement proposals?

turning over £550.91 in 2008?
Is this figure correct, or are there some zeroes missing? A company with a turnover of just £550.91 sounds either very unnewsworthy, or a typo. LeicesterChris (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Cleverly's Race
In the last line of the opening Paragraph on this page, Cleverly is described as being the first Black Foreign Secretary. Later on in the Article Cleverly's father is mentioned to be British while his mother is said to be from Sierra Leone. This would make him mixed race not black. FredMcKinley (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Those statements are about his parents' nationality and countries of origin. They tell us nothing about Cleverly's "race". S C Cheese (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

is £550.91significant?
"The following year, he co-founded web publishing company Point and Fire, turning over £550.91 in 2008." This might be something to write home about, but is it significant to mention on a Wikipedia page? 86.4.113.113 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the protection of civilians
Are there any plans for a section on the views of Cleverly concerning the actions of Israel? Does he view the IDF bombing attack on a Refugee Camp to be a human rights outrage or an act of 'self-defense'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.103.52 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

News
Let's avoid too much immediate news here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Stockton
Is there a section on comments on Stockton. 88.97.108.45 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The "Home Secretary" section says: "On 22 November 2023, Cleverly was accused by Labour MP Alex Cunningham of calling Cunningham's Stockton North constituency a "shithole" in response to a question in the Commons; Cleverly denied the allegation, but apologised for using "unparliamentary language", which he said had instead been used to describe Cunningham himself.
 * Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Batshit
Should this be added? Here are some sources: The Guardian, The Independent, Evening Standard and HuffPo. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note the Wiktionary entry for batshit says:
 * "Adjective: batshit (comparative more batshit, superlative most batshit): (slang, vulgar) Extremely irrational or unreasonable, insane, crazy. e.g. "Don't take any courses from that professor. She's completely batshit."

Lord Cameron
@Cambial Yellowing - Can you show me where in the MoS it says that? Because John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, William Hague, Nick Clegg, Alec Douglas-Home, Edward Heath, Tony Benn, Peter Carington, David Owen, Francis Pym, Geoffrey Howe, Rab Butler, Harold Macmillan, Denis Healey, Nicholas True, Natalie Evans, Tina Stowell and hundreds of others all use that style. In fact, all foreign secretaries with peerages have this style used in the IB of their predecessor and successor: we have The Lord Carrington, The Earl of Home, The Viscount Halifax, The Marquess of Reading, The Marquess Curzon, The Marquess of Lansdowne, The Marquess of Salisbury, The Earl of Kimberley, The Earl of Rosebery, The Earl of Iddesleigh, The Earl Granville, The Earl of Derby, The Earl of Clarendon, Lord John Russell, The Earl of Malmesbury, The Viscount Palmerston, The Earl of Aberdeen, The Duke of Wellington, The Earl of Dudley, The Marquess of Londonderry, The Marquess Wellesley, The Earl Bathurst, Viscount Howick, The Lord Mulgrave, The Lord Harrowby, The Lord Hawkesbury, The Lord Grenville, The Marquess of Carmarthen, The Earl Temple and The Lord Grantham, but David Cameron? Bit inconsistent, if you ask me. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of unnecessary redirects and piped links, but hardly surprising given the WP demographic. Ease of reference and clarity of the linked subject, not consistency, is the aim here. With such styles attached to names, as we do with other countries, the practice is to use the article title (and thus obviate the need for a piped link). See e.g. Yura Halim, where the linked monarch is Hassanal Bolkiah, not Hassanal Bolkiah ibni Omar Ali Saifuddien III. If you think the David Cameron article title ought to be changed the thing to do is to propose a move at that article talk page. It's not to use unnecessary and potentially confusing piped links elsewhere that make it more difficult for the reader. You're no doubt aware there is an overwhelming consensus against changing the Cameron article, per WP:COMMONNAME. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh? That wasn't the question. MoS justification or broke. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK - short version: the status quo is that this is not used here, despite your slow-motion edit warring to add it. You need to justify your change, not vice versa. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would still like a link to the MoS page that you vaguely gestured towards in your edit summary. I have justified my change which you brushed aside as "a lot of unnecessary redirects and piped links". Unless, of course, your justification is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I linked to the MOS:BIO page in my first reply to you: it is the first link in that comment. You claim you wish to make things consistent but that isn't an important factor, whereas ease of reference is important. You wikilink 29 different articles where the style is part of the article title, presumably being the usual name used to refer to that person. In this case, the style is not part of the article title, so those links are not relevant. I'll assume your groundless speculation on my motives is a projection of your own reasoning: you like it. Ease of reference is more important than your personal preference. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't speculate on your motives, I was just wondering. As far as I can see, that page has nothing on "The Lord Thingy of Place" being used in the successor/predecessor params. The closest it comes is "the honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that", which isn't the same thing. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You inadvertently neglected to include the relevant part. [my emphasis] <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite the sarcasm marinating in that comment, "adding an honorific title" isn't the same as referring to someone as "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". That would be more like saying "Lord David Cameron", which obviously wouldn't be in an infobox. There is no guideline on using "The Lord Surname of Placename" in succ/predec-essor params because it's standard to refer to them that way. There is absolutely no reason to not have "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" as per the MoS. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The style you want to use is an honorific title just like any other; the manual of style is therefore relevant. The guidance on link clarity is also clear: . At present, it corresponds perfectly. This is also the name by which the article subject is widely known. Given that almost the entirety of my comment was a quote from the MOS, it's unfortunate you perceive it to have marinating sarcasm, whatever that means. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 21:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You can disagree if you like; I disagree with you, so we're in a stalemate. Likewise, link clarity is useful when it's useful but not useful when it's not useful: ie, there is a good reason to have the link displayed differently [comments passim]. Maybe somebody else can break us out of this deadlock: Neveselbert? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Link clarity is part of the guidelines that indicate consensus on how best to write this website. What you believe to be a good reason to ignore the guideline - that following it would be a bit inconsistent - is based on a faulty premise. Before Carington the last foreign secretary to hold a peerage while in office was Alec Douglas-Home. See Rab Butler, which refers to his predecessor neither as Earl of Home nor Baron Home of the Hirsel. Citing other articles that fail to observe the manual of style is a weak argument in any case, but in this instance it falls apart under the tiniest scrutiny.
 * I would think Neveselbert has been around long enough not to engage your blatant canvassing. Let's observe the behavioural guidelines shall we? Seek wider community input to build a consensus - highly unlikely, in my view - from a site noticeboard if it's that important to you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "neither of which refers to their respective successor and predecessor as Earl of Home nor Baron Home of the Hirsel". Selwyn Lloyd has "The Earl of Home".
 * "blatant canvassing": I'm not rising to this. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)