Talk:John Prescott/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about John Prescott. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lord Prescott's concerns

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

This article quotes Lord Prescott speaking in the House of Lords thusly: " I get a full page in the Telegraph but what worried me about that they used evidence of all personal factors and when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia. Well they didn't even ask you the question they just pumped it out. Why? Because it was a political action to in a way attack somebody from another political party for decision they have made."

He also tweeted about it about an hour ago.

I hope we can fact check this quickly and make sure there are no lies, repeated in the Telegraph, in the Wikipedia article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hansard has his full remarks in the Lords. These remarks were made January 30th, yesterday, and since he says "within the last 24 hours" he probably means either the Telegraph on the 29th or 30th. If the Telegraph article genuinely contained lies of a personal nature, they may have pulled it from the web already, thus making it more difficult for us to research what went wrong here. I will now look for the Telegraph piece and, failing to find it, will start through the article history and article looking for the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the timing isn't quite right this could be the article. He may mean that the Telegraph told him in the last 24 hours that their story of 22 Jan was sourced to Wikipedia. It is a bit of an absurd article, a laundry list of negative personal claims about speeding tickets and whatnot.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The twitter link seems to be a reference to something on no win no fee cases. Although there are some snide selective quotes (the one to European translators) in the article I can't see anything that we need to worry about. I also imagine it will blow over very quickly --Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, let me step you through this to make sure we both have the same understanding. He's talking lately about no win no fee as a legal principle. He's using an example the Telegraph article, suggesting that if the law is changed it would be hard for him to sue a big media company for libel. He's saying that the Telegraph told lies about him, and that they say they got the lies from Wikipedia. What I want to know is whether or not that's true. So far, I have been researching all the personal claims made by the Telegraph and it does seem that most of them (so far) can be found in Wikipedia. It also does seem that we have sources for all of them, although in some cases I'm not thrilled with the quality of the sources. I'm sure it will blow over quickly, but that's not the standard that I hold for us, particularly not in areas where I edit as a hobby. I want us to get it right, whether anyone else cares or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is quite plausible that a lazy journalist at the Telegraph used Wikipedia as the basis of an article, without really checking sources. However, I find the idea that, when challenged, the Telegraph would admit that Wikipedia was the source to be straining credulity. Anyways, what's needed is to go through this article making sure that all material is solidly sourced, and that the sources are actually saying what we claim, and also that they themselves are not simply repeating hearsay.--82.8.168.135 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I talk to journalists all the time, and for one of them to say that material was found in Wikipedia is not surprising at all. What I'm looking for is material in Wikipedia that is false - you are 100% right about that! I am also extremely sympathetic to Snowded's point below that our article badly needs a cleanup. Repeating every minor allegation and controversy that ever appeared in any tabloid newspaper is not the right way to write a biography!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a clean up of the article is called for, at times it seems to be a catalogue of controversies for their own sake and as I say of them are pretty snide, even if sourced. So if this incident prompts that its good news. I couldn't find a reference on the Telegraph to their use of Wikipedia in that connection. The only recent article was on the Police Commissioner issue per your comment. Now its a fairly common ephithet to suggest that someone is using wikipedia as a source, with the implication that they are lazy; there may not even be a allegation that wikipedia was used, i.e. its a form of speech. I've heard "s/he gets his/her insight from Wikipedia" bandied about in a few common rooms. I half wonder if that is the use? He also says its the Telegraph, but points to a Politics Home web site. Sometimes tweeting gets ahead of the best of people. Looks to me like a series of confusions, especially as I can't see anything on the page about the case he references --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we still aren't understanding each other, but I'm not sure where the confusion lies. I would not expect to see anything about the case he references on this page - that's not what he is talking about. He is saying that in the Telegraph article about him possibly taking on a new role as Police Commissioner, lies are told about him, and that the Telegraph told him that those lies came from Wikipedia. His points to Politics Home because that is where his complaint about the Telegraph article and Wikipedia can be found. (As well as in Hansard.) He doesn't seem confused at all, and his tweet seems very much clear and on-point to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well its too early in the morning and I am jet lagged so I am more than prepared to entertain the possibility that I have misunderstood something. However I think there is some confusion in Prescott;s statements- the dates he claims in Hansard and the date on the Telegraph article itself is one and I doubt the Telegraph would have pulled an article from the web site arising from that alone, or run similar articles in such a short time period.. Also although the Telegraph article is a light weight piece and selective I can't see any outright lies. I also find it difficult to believe that a national newspaper would say they got the facts from Wikipedia even if they did. Politically I am on Prescott's side, think he is generally mistreated and dislike the Telegraph, but there are still times when its best to leave well alone on some of the complaints and statements Prescott makes. Our aim should be the article itself, check the sources and also the balance of the reporting and let that speak for itself--Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know enough journalists at the Telegraph and elsewhere to know that for them to say they got something from Wikipedia is not astonishing to me at all. I think the understanding we can have of the dates he mentions in Hansard is that the Telegraph article appeared and he's been complaining to them, and within the past 24 hours (of his Hansard statements) he was told by the Telegraph that the same information is in Wikipedia. Anyway, that's not so important as you say. What's important is the article.

I'm going to keep plugging away (as best I can - travel + Wikimedia board meeting this weekend) fact checking this article. But I think more than mere fact-checking is needed, per the discussion above. The article strikes me as having serious BLP issues related to WP:UNDUE - the controversies section mentions a lot of stuff that's really inconsequential (and some stuff that is important). It's a parade of horribles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"During the filming of the programme it was discovered that his great great great grandfather, Thomas Parrish, was the most likely father of the first four children of Parrish's own daughter. Athaliah Parrish"

That was claimed on the programme but no evidence was produced and it was disputed in family history circles. jmb (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that this is problematic, and as this is a BLP I've removed it at least for now. It's a rather extraordinary claim not backed up by DNA evidence as far as I know. It's based on his daughter having 4 children while living with him. But for all we know, that could be a live-in boyfriend, a secret lover, etc. Unless further sources emerge, I think this should be treated as speculation.

Additionally, I very strongly question whether it has any relevance to this biography. I think each of us needs to ask whether whatever our non-notable great-great-great grandfather got up to should in any way be considered encyclopedic. Perhaps if Prescott were to go on to write a historical novel set in that time period as a way of dealing with his personal emotions about this, or some similar fantastic thing we could dream up, then this would be something that we would naturally conclude is important and relevant to the readers understanding of him, his character, and his work. But as it stands, it's just a curious tabloid-y speculation of little value.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Education

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Early life section quotes him saying he "went to school in Wales". However, all the places it says he was educated at are in England. Jim Michael (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

'box of kink' vandalism

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This edit dates back to July 7, so this vandalism stayed in the article for 6 months. I have searched in Google web search and UK Google news archives, and I find absolutely no evidence that there is any truth to the claim at all. The user who added it was blocked back in December for 'abusing multiple accounts'.

I wish we had a system for immediately raising a red flag on edits done in the past by such abusers.

In the meantime, I'm semi-protecting this article and encourage everyone who has helped out so far to continue checking every sentence of the article for accuracy and fairness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my I hadn't got to that section yet. I knew about him going about in his customized "battlebus"[1][2] but I'm amazed that second part stayed in so long. I might add back a brief mention of his battle bus as it was pretty visible and shows his distinct campaigning style etc.RafikiSykes (talk)

Given theres only about 100 edits showing I'm surprised just went through at that users contributions. A few moments looking has found this copyvio [3] in the users userspace copied from a section of this [4].RafikiSykes (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the article itself hasn't been edit-protected for three years (the last edit prot expired 11:27, 23 April 2012), it has come to my attention that this talk page is indefinitely semi-protected, and has been since 10:01, 1 February 2012 - over three years now. Jimbo Wales, is this still necessary? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly the talk page shouldn't be protected at all at this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Following Prescott's resignation from the Privy Council, an IP persists in removing from this article the title "The Right Honourable". According to that article, the title is applied both to members of the Privy Council and to "Barons (including life peers), viscounts and earls, and their wives." Prescott is still a peer, so his title as "Right Honourable" needs to be reinstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:86.135.197.215:

The people who can use the title the Right Honourable are members of the Privy Council, and Barons (including life peers), viscounts and earls, and their wives. He is still a peer, and therefore is still entitled to use the title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You are utterly wrong. You can only use the title the Right Honourable if you are a Privy Counsellor. Think long and hard and ask yourself why not every life peer is refewrred to as the 'the Rt Hon.', their title is the 'noble Lord'. I think you need to brush up on your titles.--86.135.197.215 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Your statement that "You can only use the title the Right Honourable if you are a Privy Counsellor" is simply untrue. No source that you have identified suggests that he will not continue to be called "Rt. Hon.". I'm copying this thread to the article talk page, where any further discussion should take place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is your source for your statement that "In order to differentiate peers who are Privy Counsellors from those who are not, sometimes the suffix PC is added to the title. Not all peers are 'the Rt. Hon.' - only for Privy Counsellors." ? It directly conflicts with the information at the article on The Right Honourable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that some sources like this are now saying that he does lose the title. I'm still not convinced - they may well have got their information from here, and it would be unsurprising if Prescott himself was unaware of the precise rules of etiquette. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this sort of thing, and have no real interest in it all either, but I had always understood that "right honourable" was used only for members of the Privy Council – whether they are also peers, MPs or whatever – not to all peers. I'd be wary of taking what that WP page says on this as being correct. If necessary, that will need to be changed too. N-HH talk/edits 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see it's been restored again, by someone who hasn't even bothered to discuss it. As well as the ITV source cited above, both the Guardian and the Telegraph suggest he will lose the prefix/title. I know there's a risk of the media taking cues from WP pages, and they all tend to speak as a pack anyway, but the consistency does seem to suggest we have this wrong. While I'm here, I'd also query the title "The Lord Prescott". Isn't it just "Lord Prescott", in common usage? N-HH talk/edits 09:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

By amazing coincidence, further research by the magic of Google reveals this blog post from a member of the House of Lords, which appears to answer both questions. Probably not to be taken as the final word, especially for article content, but it does shed some light on the issue. On the second point, I'd also still maintain that, even if formally correct, "The Lord Prescott" is a bit odd and not in common use. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form (the standard guide to titles and forms of address in the UK) states that all barons, viscounts and earls are "Right Honourable". I don't have a copy with me, but I'll try to locate it to provide the exact details. The London Gazette, essentially the government's newspaper, provides plenty of examples of non-Privy Counsellor peers being termed "Right Honourable", most recently "Air Chief Marshal The Right Honourable Graham Eric, Baron STIRRUP, G.C.B., A.F.C., A.D.C." (in his appointment as a Knight of the Garter). Proteus (Talk) 10:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess the conclusion is that he technically still is Rt Hon, on account of his peerage, but that the full title would not usually be used or specified, even in many formal settings (with some exceptions, depending on who's doing the saying). That ties in with what Philip Norton's blog says (cited above) and your evidence. As for what to do on this page, I'd suggest that if we don't use it in the infoboxes for most non-PC peers, we should now lose it for him; equally, if we do tend to use it, we should keep it. The right honourable page also needs amending to reflect the technicalities of the point. N-HH talk/edits 10:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not commonly used even for non-peers. We do normally use it in infoboxes, which generally have the full formal title (including post-nominals) at the top. Obviously it (and the formal title "The Lord Prescott") are not used in running text. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is some time since there has been any contributions to this talk page section, I think it would be a better place to discuss this unresolved issue than article edit summaries. It was stated at [5] that that "his resignation means he will drop the "right honourable" title". Do some editors insist that the Guardian got it wrong? Viewfinder (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian, like most news outlets often get things wrong. As a peer, he is still entitled to the title 'The Right Honourable'. As a response to a far earlier statement, there is no such title of "noble Lord". Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right about news outlets. But we at Wikipedia also get things wrong. As you say, it would appear that as a life peer he is entitled to remain the "right honourable". I reverted myself because I was concerned about being blocked for joining an edit war. You should not have serially reverted your opponents without justifying your reverts here. Viewfinder (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As a general rule of mine 'You don't need to discuss every edit yo make on WP', I only put a note on your talk page to better explain myself, since a quick look of the View History page showed 'some' contention. Until you pointed it out I was unaware this discussion existed, since It really is a clear cut case. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:The Right Honourable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.103.27 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Prescott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070202165036/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/radio4/factual/pip/0b1vp/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/0b1vp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on John Prescott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Prescott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Prescott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Prescott. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060110191522/http://www.number-10.gov.uk:80/output/Page1376.asp to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1376.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)