Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 13

Increase/decrease icons in election articles
Hi all. Recently, has been removing the increase and decrease icons (/) from election articles, and replacing them with plus/minus signs (+/-). I have no intention of edit-warring, so I thought I would bring it here to discuss which is the preferred format. I personally prefer the icons, as the colours let you see which parties gained or lost at a glance. Thoughts? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The icons appeared a few years ago at the whim of whoever was editing, and sometimes they stayed, sometimes they didn't. I'm not wedded to either really. If it's clear from first glance, it's good enough for me. I do get Sparkle's point about mobile readers and, because they're red and green, I assume colour blind readers may have problems too. However it's not really a great priority from my end, if the results themselves are accurate then the change in percentage is just an additional extra. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the icons are much nicer. They are differentiated by shape as well as colour, so they're not encoding information only by colour and remain accessibile to colour-blind. Increase and decrease icons also work straightforwardly with screen readers. If there's concern for mobile readers (presumably about line breaks?) then that can be solved using nowraps, surely? Personally I find it a lot easier to quickly parse material from tables with increase/decrease compared to plus and minus icons, so would be keen to see them used more in UK election articles. Ralbegen (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the +/– symbols personally. Number   5  7  12:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * +/- definitely better. They can be understood by people using screen-readers. They can be understood by computers doing natural language processing. While not explicit on this particular choice, I think WP:ICON would oppose using icons. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the icons more distinctive, but I don't want to disadvantage people using screen-readers. However, can't their need be met by using alt tags on the icons? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I tested using Chrome's developer tools screen reader, and is read as "increase". The template already includes alt text, so it should be generally compatible with screen readers, I should hope? Ralbegen (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking the time to test it. That sounds like good news for users of screen-readers. Maybe someone can test that?
 * I think that removes the main objection to the icons. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for testing, . That is reassuring. I remain of the view that this goes against WP:ICON. Or, for another perspective, what do paper encyclopaedias do? Bondegezou (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that we should be cautious about using icons, but I think increase/decrease icons are "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension" here. One aspect I think is the far better vertical alignment with the icons compared to the ASCII: compare icons used here to ASCII used here. I think that's probably the main thing I prefer about them and what makes them faster and easier to read! Ralbegen (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that with the issue of screen readers resolved, we are left with two issues:
 * personal preference between icon and the plus or minus signs, which is subjective
 * usage in reliable sources
 * My personal preference is for the symbols, but on reflection it seems to me that we should be guided by the reliable sources. All the printed, scholarly sources that I know use +/-, but it is arguable that this is a product of the limitations of monochrome printing. Has anyone done an analysis of how online reliable sources present this info? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One's eye is strongly drawn to the icons. They certainly stand out. That is not a good thing. It is rare for a party to get exactly the same vote share in two elections, so there's nearly always a prominent or, but that's not what is informative. A small increase or decrease doesn't matter. It's the digit after the icon that matters. Was there a big increase or decrease? The icons exaggerate the importance of the direction of the change, but it's the magnitude that is important. Bondegezou (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Labour Friends of Israel Zionist?
I'm guessing this has been discussed before, but the article Labour Friends of Israel is in the categories Zionism in the United Kingdom and Zionist organizations, while the category Labour Friends of Israel is in the categories Zionism in the United Kingdom and British Zionists (so anyone in the category Labour Friends of Israel is automatically in the category British Zionists).

The word Zionism does not appear in the article Labour Friends of Israel (until the categories). By WP:V, it should not be in these categories. I can't find a clear WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS that call the group Zionist, although some clearly NPOV sources do. I note the Zionism categories were not present on the article prior to the Corbyn-era divisions within Labour over antisemitism. The Labour Friends of Israel article states that the group "says it supports a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with Israel recognised and secure within its borders, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state." The Zionism article states it "espouses the establishment of, and support for a Jewish state centered in the area roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine on the basis of a long Jewish connection and attachment to that land." It seems to me that support for Israel within its current borders is not necessarily the same as Zionism: this is WP:SYNTH; we need actual reliable secondary sourcing here.

The same is true of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel: it's in Zionism categories, but with nothing in the article saying that. Ditto Conservative Friends of Israel. (Northern Ireland Friends of Israel is in the Zionism in Europe category, but not the other UK Zionism categories.)

In comparison, Friends of Israel in the Parliament of Norway, Christians' Israel Public Action Campaign, Sweden–Israel Friendship Association and Michigan Israel Business Accelerator are in the same category Israel friendship associations as the above UK political articles, but not in any Zionism categories. Even the Australian AIJAC, which was co-founded by the Zionist Federation of Australia, is not in any Zionism categories. It's just UK political friendship associations that are. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure about what the actual rules are around categorising pages, but a quick Google search brings up this article from the director of Labour Friends of Israel. In the article, Michael Rubin describes himself as a 'proud Jewish Zionist'. Not enough to brand the entire organisation as Zionist, though, but might be where some of the thinking comes from. Like you, I can't find any good source that describes LFI as Zionist. Might be better to remove those categories if that is the case? --Gharbhain (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Categories are a bit of a world unto themselves, but basically they still follow the same epistemological principles of WP:V, WP:RS etc. I concur about that citation: I'd see it as sufficient to describe Rubin as a Zionist, but it would be WP:SYNTH to take that as proof that LFI are Zionist. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Leaving this project
Because of the actions of certain people, I am leaving this project. Please remove my name from the roster on the title page within 24 hours. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry to hear this, - I hope that in time you will feel able to return. Regards,  PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Doktorbuk has made a big contribution to this project over many years, and I am sorry to see him leave.
 * For the record, it seems clear that the the actions of certain people to which Doktorbuk refers are my responses to Doktorbuk's comments about the proposed wider use of Compact election box. I repeated challenged Doktorbuk's misrepresentations of the proposal, which falsely described it as change for the point of change, changed for the sake of change, and unnecessary busy-work. The reasons for the proposed change have been set out many times in this discussion, including in reply to Doktorbuk.  They can be summarised as being to display lists of election results in a list format similar to that used by the reliable sources.
 * Any editor is of course free to express their disagreement with any proposed change. However, they should do so in a reasoned and honest manner, to help build WP:Consensus.  Sadly Doktorbuk chose instead to engage in a campaign of systematically misrepresenting this proposal as being made without a desire for improvement.  That misrepresentation is the complete opposite of WP:Civil; it is a hostile act against the editors who make a proposal, by smearing them as irrational.  Aside from the disruption cased by such incivility in souring the atmosphere, it is also disruptive to WP:consensus formation in a second way: because it attempts to deceive other editors about the nature of the proposal and the motivations of the proposers
 * For the sake of transparency, here are some diffs:
 * 21:19, 10 June 2021: Doktorbuk writes Change for the point of change is not an improvement
 * BHG reply: 22:19, 10 June 2021
 * 15:47, 11 June 2021: Doktorbuk writes I really don't want thousands of articles changed for the sake of change
 * BHG's reply: 16:57, 11 June 2021
 * 18:29, 13 June 2021 : Doktorbuk writes It's starting to sound like unnecessary busy-work
 * BHG reply: 19:03, 13 June 2021
 * I am sad that Doktorbuk has chosen to behave this way, and I am particularly sad that he attempts to blame others for his own decision to engage in smear tactics instead of reasoned discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered your behaviour may be to blame? Dealing with you is one of the most unpleasant experiences I regularly encounter on Wikipedia and I have avoided discussions that I see you are involved in becauuse of this. In a recent discussion that I did partake in, I asked you to stop pinging me, so instead you 'thanked' me to draw attention to the fact that you had replied (and as a result are now one of the three editors on my 'ignore' list, which means I no longer get notifications from you). You seem to be completely unable to deal with editors disagreeing with you and instead continue the argument endlessly, well past the point at which it should be dropped. I had hoped the portals debacle would have led to some self-reflection, as a few years ago you didn't used to be like this. Please take this as another hint that you are not very nice to other editors. Number   5  7  21:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Number57, I am sad to see that you don't even attempt to assess the situation at hand, but instead raise an issue from elsewhere.
 * In that other discussion, I accepted your request not to ping you, and AFAICR I clicked the thanks button as acknowledgement. I am sorry if that was the wrong response, but it was intended as act of courtesy.
 * I expect that where there is disagreement, editors are open to reasoned responses, to which they may or may not choose to reply. I am sorry that you dislike that, but since WP:NOTAVOTE applies, don't see how consensus can be built unless disagreements are explored through reasoned discussion.
 * As to being "not very nice", the problem here is that Doktorbuk was engaging in sustained misrepresentation, for which "not very nice" is too mild a description. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is a time for reasoned responses and there is a time to drop a subject. Knowing which is which can be difficult for many of us! However, I am confident that continuing to make these criticisms of Doktorbuk in this subsection where he's announcing his departure from the project is not helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred not to reply. But Doktorbuk chose to blame his departure on others in a way which when combined with a post on a user talk page, made it clear that I was his target.
 * That sort of thing can escalate to ANI, or alternatively remain on the record as a slur. I decided that the least worst thing to do was to set out the facts, so that they are on hand if anyone wants to escalate this episode, or to revisit it in future.  Doktorbuk's disruption appears to have stopped (tho not in way I hoped), and I would be happy to leave the matter there. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that he didn't mention you -- his post was largely just saying he was leaving the project -- so I hardly think it can be called a "slur". — Czello 10:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)




 * I'm sorry to hear this,, and hope to see you on other parts of Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see this, seems like there has been a bit of communication breakdown on this topic. --Gharbhain (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear this mate, I do hope it's only temporary. — Czello 10:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Royal Navy to determine if Her Majesty's Naval Service should be merged in
There is currently an RfC which may interest members of this project at Royal Navy to determine if Her Majesty's Naval Service should be merged in to the article. Garuda28 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Lord Palmerston page move
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ministers of State for... and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for... AfD
Hi all. I have created a AfD here for all the specific "Minister of State for..." and "Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for..." articles following a short discussion a couple of months ago. I have made a particular list of the articles concerned there. If you have time, please do contribute. Thank you! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have withdrawn this nomination, after other editors kindly advised me that I had nominated too many articles for nomination at once. Thank you to all who contributed. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for complicating things for you! Let us know when the individual ones are ready to go. I agree some of them seem ripe for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem - thanks for replying! I might put together some sort of systematic calendar in my sandbox, to help me keep on track and give each article the attention that it deserves, before creating the individual AfDs. I am also going to reflect on the comments of @Moondragon21 before creating any more AfDs, whose edits in this area I respect a lot. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Spouses of British prime ministers
Why do the biographies of the spouses of British prime ministers refer to the subjects being "in office" as "spouse of the United Kingdom"? Which authority describes that as an office? And why do these biographies name people as predecessors and successors in that capacity? I could find no sources describing Samantha Cameron and Marina Wheeler as predecessor and successor, respectively, of Philip May in any capacity. Likewise I could not find any source describing Lady Derby and Lady Russell as predecessor and successor, respectively, of Lady Palmerston. So why is Wikipedia using these terms and speaking of these successions? To me this looks like fancruft. Surtsicna (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly fancruft. Just the form of words used on other Wikipedia articles transplanted to these. But I agree. Definitely not any form of "office". Just a person who happens to be married to a person who does hold an office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What bothers me most is the notion of succession of spouses. It does not appear to exist in the world outside Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. It's somewhat farcical to see Carrie Johnson have "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" and "Assumed role 29 May 2021" in her infobox (and even more so to have Marina Wheeler listed as her predecessor). Can we get rid of this? Number   5  7  14:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that we should remove that information from the infobox and the '[u]nofficial roles' box at the bottom of each of the articles. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree that "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" (the title used in the infobox for Philip May) is not a formal role, in contrast to the uncodified by near-universally-acknowledged position of First Lady of the United States. However, it is a widely recognised and commented-on position, and we need some way of describing it. The infobox for Philip currently says "in role", which seems to me to be a satisfactory replacement to the clearly-inappropriate "in office".

I don't object in principle to the use of succession boxes for this, since there is usually a clear succession in these cases. However. it gets messy in the case of Johnson. who had separated from Marina Wheeler before he took office as PM. Describing Wheeler as "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is a form of legal fiction, and I think that the marriages of some of his predecessors may have been similarly de jure rather than de facto.

I think that on balance, it's more helpful to readers to keep the succession boxes, so long as they don't describe PM-spouse as an "office". In the case of Johnson's more complex situation, I suggest amending the box to say that his successor was "Marina Wheeler (de jure)" and "Carrie Symonds (de facto)". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But reliable sources do not speak of those successions, nor do they speak of anyone's "term" as British prime minister's spouse. Therefore we are dealing with original research. The boxes and the talk of succession is very misleading to the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)_
 * I think that a good model to use is the articles of other relatives of Prime Ministers (where they exist), for instance Charlotte Johnson Wahl. While Johnson Wahl's article makes note in several places that she is Boris Johnson's mother, there is no office/role-style boxes anywhere on the page (including in the infobox or at the bottom of the page) and the page includes no dates. It also doesn't make note of any predecessor (Zaidee Mary Brasier) and this is right because the two are completely unrelated and it would be irrelevant information. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually,, there are plenty of such uses in reliable sources, e.g.:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/01/cherieblair.women "Sarah Brown's style has been an unstated contrast with her predecessor"
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-blossoming-of-sarah-brown-928845.html "Her successor, Sarah Brown"
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cherie-s-revenge-explosive-revelations-pile-woe-beleaguered-brown-825937.html "Mrs Blair appeared to confirm that she has a frosty relationship with Mr Brown's wife, Sarah. She said the pair "didn't really socialise" and complained about the level of support her successor receives at No 10"
 * https://www.irishtimes.com/news/behind-the-door-of-number-10-1.1162286 on Dorothy McMillan "Her successor, Elizabeth Home, was out of the same sort of stable"
 * https://www.smh.com.au/national/steadfast-prime-ministers-wife-confounded-the-critics-20050405-gdl2e2.html "Tall, commanding and a much stronger personality than her predecessor at No.10, Mary Wilson, Audrey Callaghan stood by her husband"
 * https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/role-prime-ministers-partner-can-carrie-symonds-bring-calm-now-dominic-cummings-gone-jayne-dowle-3040107 "Her successor, Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon, kept a low profile"
 * So this is not original research. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not an office. It's at the very least, a role. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with, , and  that this is not an office and that we should be careful that a style of formatting boxes on Wikipedia does not reify a sequence of people who are married to someone in an office. As per WP:WEIGHT, RS do not generally talk in terms of a succession akin to the First Lady -- I don't think I've ever seen a list like the one we have on Wikipedia in a history book or press article -- although there are examples of individuals being talked of as a predecessor or successor. I am in favour of removing the succession boxes.
 * I think phrasing like "Marina Wheeler (de jure)" and "Carrie Symonds (de facto)" is potentially OR. You can't be de jure in a role that doesn't exist. There is no jure around "spouse of the British prime minister". I don't see RS using those terms. Bondegezou (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wife" and "partner" would be perfectly sufficient. No need to complicate the issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, it is not difficult to find references to people preceding and succeeding one another in various roles. For example, in The Encyclopedia of Mistresses Lady Castlemaine is called predecessor of Louise de Kérouaille in the sheets of Charles II, and Edward VIII's Lady Furness is frequently said to have preceded Wallis Simpson. Original research is when this information is presented in a way that implies something not found in reliable sources: that the role was official, an office, or a title. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Presentation nuances of sourced facts does not amount to "original research".
 * When the infobox or succession box says "in role" rather than "in office", there is no implication. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a whole section at WP:OR describing just how presentation of sourced facts can amount to original research. To me, the infobox heading "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", along with dates and names of prime minister, predecessor and successor, is an implication - not least because, in the infobox source, it is listed under office, and thus formatted exactly like actual offices in other infoboxes. I also have no idea how we can verify the claim that, say, Norma Major was "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" from 28 November 1990 until 2 May 1997. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox source is a technical artefact. It's not what is presented to readers.
 * And no, there is no synthesis involved.
 * As to Norma Major ... are you serious? Really? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. And yes, I am serious. Concluding from her marriage date (3 October 1970) and his premiership (28 November 1990-2 May 1997) that she held the office/role/position of "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" from 28 November 1990 to 2 May 1997 is a textbook example of synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is blatant rubbish. Unless she was divorced from him or died during the period he was PM (neither of which is true) then she was clearly his spouse throughout his premiership. That's not synthesis. That's just common sense. Sometimes the fabled "rules" can be taken too far. In any case, of course it can be verified. Are you really suggesting that you've no idea how it can be verified that she was his wife when he entered Downing Street and still his wife when he left Downing Street? Of course it can. They were married long before he became PM and are still married today! There is no problem whatsoever in verifying those facts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be proven wrong if a source is cited saying Norma Major held the office/position/title/role of "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" from 28 November 1990 until 2 May 1997. Surtsicna (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All you need for verification is a source that she was John Major's wife when he became PM and a source that she was still his wife when he ceased to be PM. They are both very easily verifiable. Being a spouse is not a role; it's a status. This is, of course, a different issue from whether it should be in a succession box/infobox as an office/position/title/role, but it is simply not true that this information is unverifiable or OR as you claimed. Norma Major was very definitely spouse of the PM for the entire time her husband was PM, and arguing that's in any way unverifiable or OR is bizarre. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." At the very least, the absence of such a source points to the irrelevance of the information. At worst, it is synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nobody is arguing as to whether the gal was married to John Major, when he was prime minister. We're pointing out that she didn't hold any "office" as his wife, while he was prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It appears there is a consensus that the infoboxes should not contain this information, so I have gone ahead and removed it. I have left the succession boxes at the bottom for now because few editors have commented on them. I am in favour of having them removed too. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeating myself, but in case it was missed, I'm in favour of removing the succession boxes too. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also in favour of removing the succession boxes. Thanks for removing the infobox details. Cheers, Number   5  7  11:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also in favour of removing the succession boxes at the bottom of the page. Thanks for removing the information from the infoboxes! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Bondegezou, |Number 57, and FollowTheTortoise. Seeing as that, after seven days of discussion, four out of seven editors are in favour, one against (BrownHairedGirl), and two (GoodDay and Necrothesp) have not expressed an opinion about the boxes but did support removal of the office and related parameters from the infobox, I went ahead and removed to boxes too. Neveselbert has reverted the removals saying that there is no clear consensus. Is the idea that GoodDay and Necrothesp should also express an opinion? Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I personally oppose removing the boxes at the bottom. I think it's a perfectly valid appendix to these articles, most of which would probably not exist were it not for their marriages coinciding with a premiership. It can be useful to know when they were the spouse of the sitting prime minister and who came before and after them. I would however support collapsing them as an alternative to removal. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Eliminate the succession boxes. PS - For that matter, the spouses of all prime ministers. IMHO, such boxes should be limited to heads of state spouses. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW - See how this situation is handled at the bios of of the spouses of Canadian prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of the boxes. Spouse of the Prime Minister just isn't a thing, and we should not try to reify it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The "known for" section in the infoboxes of the spouses of former prime ministers, is confusing. "Former spouse of the prime minister...", reads as though the former prime minister is/was divorced from their spouse. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 14 § File:Jo Grimond.jpg
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 14 § File:Jo Grimond.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

 * 63	Hartlepool (UK Parliament constituency)	113,741	3,669	Unknown	Low
 * 96	Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency)	80,770	2,605	Unknown	Unknown
 * 108	2021 England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections	70,276	2,266	Unknown	Low
 * 142	London mayoral elections	55,127	1,778	Unknown	Unknown
 * 305	Kate Forbes	26,943	869	Stub	Low
 * 9	2021 Scottish Parliament election	598,152	19,295	Start	Low
 * 56	Edwin Poots	125,356	4,043	Start	Unknown
 * 66	Count Binface	110,988	3,580	Start	Low
 * 84	Arthur Conan Doyle	89,262	2,879	Start	Mid
 * 92	Mayor of London	84,790	2,735	Start	Mid

WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely sure what this is about, the formatting seems to be off, but it might be worth remembering that everyone on this Wikiproject is a volunteer who edits Wikipedia in their spare time, with no obligation to do so, just like you. And I think that as a whole we do a pretty good job! So why don't you have a go at improving those articles? Or, failing that, it might be useful for you to explain in what ways those articles are "worst-quality". FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That articles relating to current by-elections are in a poor state is hardly a surprise; the visits reflect the topicality of the news yet the articles are bound to be in a poor state with so many adding to them. The worrying ones in the list are those relating to the London mayor and mayoral elections and the Scottish Parliament, which experienced political editors might usefully review? MapReader (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hope you don't minds but I've added links so people can review them.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! There is a new list of 5 articles in fairly poor shape:--Coin945 (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gammon (insult) (stub)
 * Oliver Dowden (stub)
 * Deputy lieutenant (stub)
 * Joy Morrissey (stub)
 * Countries of the United Kingdom (start)

This is entirely dependent on the class-rating system which can be pretty subjective and often not updated quickly after more is added. I've not looked in-depth at 2021 Scottish Parliament election, but at a glance it's bigger with more readable prose and html and with more references (so you'd hope that meant more relevant information), on each count by a ratio of about 33% over that of the 2016 election article which is rated C-class. Kate Forbes doesn't look Stub class to me, not does Arthur Conan Doyle look like Start class. Crowsus (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD discussion relevant to this project
See Articles for deletion/9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Does a summary of an MP's parliamentary voting record belong on Wikipedia?
One of the most important jobs of an MP is to vote on legislation. It's arguably their most important job as they change the laws of the land. Yet in the articles on most politicians there is little mention of their parliamentary voting record. My questions is this: does a summary of an MP's voting record belong on Wikipedia?

Here is an extract from here:

Although, it doesn't have to be a bulleted list as here.

Website TheyWorkForYou is a secondary source that summarises votes found in primary source Hansard. See discussion on reliability here.

However, adding an MP's voting record runs into the problem of neutrality and cherrypicking. The claim is "if you mention the MP's voting record on X and didn't include their voting record on Y, then it's not neutral". But then if every voting category is included then the list is sometimes far too long to include. This argument can be used to not include any voting record at all. I think that is unfortunate as it misses some of the most important information about an MP. Especially as some MPs publicly say one thing in the media and yet vote differently.

Can anyone suggest a way of maintaining NPOV on voting records?

As a possible approach for deciding inclusion:
 * include: MP voted consistently 20-0 in favour of X (clear position)
 * exclude: MP voted 5-5 for/against X (no clear position)
 * exclude: MP voted 1-0 for X (not enough data to describe a trend)

Any thoughts? 92.10.136.188 (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the voting record should only be mentioned if it has been reported in secondary sources that it is unusual, like they have not voted at all or the voting is of note for some reason. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not really consider it a secondary source it just summarises probably automatically a summary based on voting records. From memory I believe a discussion was held WP:RSN, with the result being that voting records just be included if outlined in secondary RSs in confirm to WP:WEIGHT.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I really, really dislike TheyWorkForYou. They cut out all nuance from votes, with no note of whether an MP voted against something due to (for example) a poison pill amendment, and there's no transparency regarding how things are defined. These issues are often tied together. As an example, the website states that 'Jeremy Corbyn generally voted against encouraging occupational pensions'. Is this because he was against people receiving higher pensions? Did he want fewer people to receive pensions? Or is it more likely because the bill to promote occupational pensions was tied to a clause which accelerated the increase of the state pension age? I'd be in favour of stripping TheyWorkForYou out of all articles entirely, but that's not the question being asked here. In this instance, I'm in favour of limiting its use as much as possible. Domeditrix (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * TheyWorkForYou is cited by some reputable news sources: The Guardian, The Independent:,  The Financial Times: (paywall),  The Times , BBC News:  92.10.136.188 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As others, I would not see TheyWorkForYou as a secondary source. It has no editorial input. It is collating primary source records. We should not use it, because it's not what an encyclopaedia would do. We should note MPs' voting records when actual secondary sources draw attention to them. Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm largely against it, unless it's determined that it's notable that a certain politician voted a particular way. I think going out of our way to mention their voting record -- when it's not widely covered in media -- is not only a bit WP:UNDUE, but more importantly I think it's asking for trouble. I think you'd turn most MPs' articles into potential battlegrounds where editors with an agenda will want to list every policy an MP voted on in order to turn the article into an attack page. Even now we get it where some editors will want to list every time an MP voted to cut X or reducing funding for Y, even though it's not being covered by other sources. In short, I can't see much benefit from it (again, unless it's notable someone votes a certain way). — Czello 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think TheyWorkForYou and Public Whip both provide useful statistics to include in an External links section, just as for a sportsperson there would be a link to one or more statistical databases recording their activities. Pam  D  15:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * TheyWorkForYou statistics aren't useful to include, and nor are nominally secondary sources that regurtitate TWFY stuff. In general I'd support including how an MP has voted only where there a secondary source covers how that particular MP voted rather than listing fors and against for a bill, not least so that we can write some decent prose about it! Ralbegen (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * TheyWorkForYou is one of the links in : I've put a note about this discussion at Template talk:UK MP links. Pam  D  08:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is TheyWorkForYou a reliable source?
I'm not sure why doubt is being cast on TheyWorkForYou being a good secondary source. There was a previous discussion on the reliable source noticeboard here. I did link to it in my question. Is there any reason to doubt the results of this discussion? 92.10.136.188 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see anybody here saying that their records of how people voted on specific votes are inaccurate. What people are instead arguing is where they make more editorial statements, they fail to put things into context, which hugely undermines their utility as a single source for a sweeping statement like "X usually voted against increasing police funding"[theyworkforyou]. Also, that's not an RfC and therefore there are no conclusions contained within it. Domeditrix (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the opinion was in favour, even if not procedurally correct for an RfC. 92.10.136.188 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone is saying pretty much the same things on TheyWorkForYou to you! The views of the editing community are pretty clear. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you read the comments above? "As others, I would not see TheyWorkForYou as a secondary source."  "I would not really consider it a secondary source" 92.10.136.188 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

In my field, the most reliable sources of information are systematic reviews. They analyse and summarise findings using transparent, repeatable analytical methods. I like that TheyWorkForYou appears to be doing something similar.. For describing important matters, I don't favour ad hoc opinions, nuance and bias as they distract from the truth. The truth is an MP voted for something X times and against the same thing Y times, regardless how they got there.92.10.136.188 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to prefer whatever sources you prefer. However, Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources that provide an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)