Jump to content

Talk:Keir Starmer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.148.141.44 (talk) at 02:39, 6 July 2024 (→A toolmaker?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is a draft article about the Legal career of Keir Starmer. As such, the information about his law career here should be significantly trimmed down. As per Hillary Clinton's article not going too in depth about her law career as a sub-article for it exists. 150.143.27.147 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the draft is accepted, it can be trimmed down to be a summary of his legal career. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Labour leadership section constantly being trimmed, when Jeremy Corbyn's article has tons of info about his leadership

Where's the consistency? Go to Jeremy Corbyn's article and you'll find chockablock information about his tenure as Labour leader. Why is the same not true of this page, and whenever I've tried to expand information on his leadership, it's been reverted? Corbyn also has a Labour leadership stub-article but that doesn't stop his main page having a lot more information about his leadership than Starmer's article.

And what's the point of having a foreign affairs section if his views on the middle east conflict aren't included in it? Either include the middle east stuff here, or don't include it at all. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be including chockablock information about anyone: WP:SS. If Corbyn's page has it then it's wrong; just because one page is badly done doesn't mean another has to be. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say chockablock information, whoops. But you still get the idea. That being said I see your point as well as the other editor who's raised this with me. I agree to keeping things the way they are if that is preferable. This being the case, can we start trimming the length of Corbyn's page to match Starmer's? One of my points does still stand though, his views on the middle east conflict are a political position and so should be included in that section. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I get it, but all the polls are pointing to him getting a "new job" soon (whether he gets it by 150 or 350 doesn't matter—even Tory ministers are resigned to it). Soon his Labour/Opposition leadership will no longer be his primary notability. Whatever happens in the election, whether he loses it, Parliament is hung or he gets a "stonking" majority there will be new things to say. I'd save on this until 5 July when we can gauge his place in history a bit more accurately rather than just parroting the news churn. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree, I've watched this election quite closely and all the polls are indeed pointing to him getting a "new job" soon. Brilliantly put. As a compromise, I've heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments (per David Cameron). And I've added the response to the middle east conflict back to where it works best - in the political positions section. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Tim O'Doherty's comments. Personally, I think less is more when it comes to these types of articles - you don't want to overwhelm readers. I'm not sure the Corbyn article is a great blueprint, I think it's better to only summarise the most important parts on here and go into more detail on the separate articles such as the leadership election, shadow cabinet etc. For example, I don't understand why you've copied and pasted his election results (by-elections, local elections) from the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer page - that article is redundant if both articles contain identical levels of detail and content.
Regarding the Middle East points, I don't think his comments on LBC and aftermath should be in the political positions section. The most important part of this story is the backlash (resignations etc) which is more relevant to his leadership. His views on Palestine should remain in the political positions section obviously. Michaeldble (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, I also agree with his comments, and yours. This is why I've done a compromise edit; I've heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments (per David Cameron). But you can put the comments on LBC and aftermath back in the leadership section if you think it would fit best there. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are going around pages mass removing cited content. Please, please stop. You've been asked multiple times to stop and have yourself agreed. There is no requirement to have pages a certain length. Wiping out cited information benefits no one. Helper201 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been resolved as I've done a compromise edit that has heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments. As for the legal career section, I reduced that as his legal career now has a sub-article (Legal career of Keir Starmer) so no point duplicating the same info here. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure as LOTO

Starmer "served as Leader of the Opposition from 2020 to 2024" No, Starmer is still Leader of the Opposition. This position maintains until he resigns as leader of the Labour Party, as per precedent if you look through previous Labour/Conservative Leader pages. Don’t confuse dissolution dates (sitting as an MP) with the Party leadership dates e.g. Alec Douglas-Home became Leader of the Conservative Party in October 1963 whilst not an MP, he continued as such until becoming an MP in a by election held a few weeks later. Starmer can be reasonably expected to be Leader of the Opposition until at least 5 July 2024, and is still Leader of the Opposition now. 92.40.200.240 (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox placement of "Sir"

There are lately two differing conventions on where to place the pre-nominal "Sir" in biographical infoboxes. The first convention (which used to be more prevalent) is to put it in |honorific_prefix=, but a second convention (which has been become more widely used) is to put it immediately before the person's name in |name=. Given that Starmer is probably the most well-known/consequential politician with a knighthood at the moment, this is probably a good time to discuss this in relation to this article's infobox. Personally, I reckon that we should put it in |name=, since I think it looks slightly jarring to have "The Right Honourable" linked but "Sir" unlinked, and it matches the practice of bolding "Sir" in the lead. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I honestly think it just looks better that way. Katechon08 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on MOS:BIO in 2022. That's probably the place to go, but in terms of general principles, there was not a consensus one direction or another. I think that "Sir", as an honorific prefix, should go in the honorific prefix parameter, and "Keir Starmer", as a name, should go in the name parameter. Ralbegen (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ralbegen as "Sir" is not part of his name. Besides, the template doc for this family of infoboxes says of the name field: Do not put honorifics or alternative names in this parameter. There are separate parameters for these things, covered below. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Politicians are infinitely more touchy of a subject than, say, Sir Christopher Lee or Sir Christopher Nolan, so officeholders (to be more specific) should not be treated with a more neutral stance. BarntToust (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead in the polls

I have fixed a few problems with the bit dealing with the lead in the polls.[1] I think the problems were the result of people editing the text without worrying about which citation was for which statement. I propose to remove the following unsupported commentary on the poll lead: often by very wide margins, as the governments under prime ministers Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak were affected by high-profile scandals and issues such as Partygate, the cost of living crisis, the July 2022 government crisis, the September 2022 mini-budget, the October 2022 government crisis, the industrial disputes including National Health Service strikes, railway strikes and postal workers strikes, and a number of scandals involving Conservative MPs. The commentary is a list of things that happened during the period of the poll lead. I think it would be better removed, so that the section concentrates on the topic - the poll lead.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there was a typo in my edit summary - it should have read: "moved citation about 2023 elections to the sentence about that topic and removed 2022 citations that "supported" a statement about the 2023 elections", not "2022 elections".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political identification

I think it would be worth pointing out on front page that he still considers himself a socialist. In a recent interview with BBC he said: "I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive" instead of just saying he's a centrist.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-first

Napolen4 (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree, but it shouldn’t replace centrist Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be included, it should be attributed to himself, as most people wouldn't consider Starmer as such. I think more could be mentioned of Starmer's current relationship to socialism in the article text, but I don't think it belongs to the lead. Tony Blair described himself as a socialist multiple times, yet we don't include it in the lead of his article as most people wouldn't consider him to be a traditional socialist. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2], 2023; "Key members of Starmer's Shadow Cabinet agree with this diagnosis and have advanced similar ideas to reform neoliberalism, embracing a decentralised, communitarian socialism which involves large-scale structural reform."
but you're right, maybe "and he has described himself as a socialist"? If not, than just in the body is fine Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter, hello there. Do you think that endorsements fit on Starmer's page? I would say they fit in more in the 2024 United Kingdom general election article. Just a thought. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right in saying they'd fit more on the general election article. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Height

Why does the google search page flag for this article read" "Learn about Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party and the Opposition in the UK Parliament. Find out his personal details, education, political positions, and his height (1.83 m or 6 ft 0 in)."- when the consensus seems to be that he is 5ft 8 ½ (174 cm)? I note there appears to be no mention at all of his height in the article, which is not an issue. Is this merely a google matter? JF42 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audio mispronunciation

In the audio of his name it isn't pronounced /ˈkɪər/ but /ˈkɪjə/ Vabadus91 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knighted by King or Queen?

The article says Starmer "was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) by Charles, Prince of Wales in the 2014 New Year Honours for services to law and criminal justice.[1]" Is this correct?

If you look in the Honours list article, it explicitly says that he was appointed by the Queen. If you check the citation given, it is about honorary doctorates rather than knighthood. Is it possible, that the appointment was by the Queen, but that the actually knighting took place in a ceremony where the then Prince of Wales was presiding? OJH (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OJH, yes that is possible and, in fact, quite common too. A person being given an honor is officially appointed by the Monarch even if someone else was deputizing for them in the ceremony itself. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Meaning that I should go look for sources and edit the passage? Or is the accolade the more important part, while the lists are more of a formality, so that the text is more relevant in its current form? OJH (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was already a citation to the London Gazette, I reused that one and removed the mention of the Prince. That should solve the issue. OJH (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works. I was about to say as much as well. Its more important that he was appointed KCB in the 2014 New Years Honours rather than who oversaw the ceremony. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is what happened. The Knighthood was conferred by Her Majesty the Queen but the actual Knighting Ceremony was performed by the then Charles, Prince of Wales who of course is now King Charles III Nimmo27 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Atwal, Kay (19 November 2013). "Keir Starmer QC, awarded honorary doctorate by east London university". Newham Recorder. Archived from the original on 16 July 2019. Retrieved 15 May 2019.

Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan is libertarian, not conservative. --95.24.79.236 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox style

In the infobox, we need to remove "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" or not. Please decide to keep or not. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't Prime Minister. Writing that would just be factually incorrect. Winning an election doesn't make you PM. He will become PM when Sunak resigns and he is appointed by the King. BSmooner (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! MAL MALDIVE (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

Please add to his legal career section the following: 

Starmer represented Croatia at the genocide hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 2014, arguing that Serbia wanted to seize a third of Croatian territory during the 1990s war and eradicate the Croatian population. /Ivanovic, Josip (7 March 2014). "Serbia 'Tried to Eradicate Croatian Population'". Balkan Transitional Justice.

SoupePrimordiale (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Labour Party is not a shadow portfolio as Labour are the governing party

Can this be fixed in the infobox? The Leader of the Labour Party is not a shadow portfolio as Labour are the governing party. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (2)

Can you guys format the following text to look more formal, grammatically correct, and easy and quick to read?

"Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB, KC (/ˈkɪər/ ⓘ; born 2 September 1962) is a British politician and is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and has served as Leader of the Labour Party since 2020."

I suggest we change it to this:

Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB, KC (/ˈkɪər/ ⓘ; born 2 September 1962) is a British politician who is currently serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2024 and as Leader of the Labour Party since 2020.

Thank you. Sratcao42 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean?

"This landslide victory was similar to the one achieved by Tony Blair at the 1997 general election, the last time a Labour opposition ousted a Conservative government." 121.99.69.54 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I've removed it. — Czello (music) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (3)

Change:

Starmer, wiht wife Victoria Starmer, arriving at number 10, after election victory

to:

Starmer, with wife Victoria Starmer, arriving at number 10, after election victory

Buckleyc (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done intforce (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Section

Last paragraph, 1st sentence:

In July 2024, Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative rule. He succeeded Sunak as prime minister later that day.

"later that day" has no reference date. Suggest change sentence to:

On 4th July 2024, Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative rule. He succeeded Sunak as prime minister the following day.

PS. Not suggested a change to a locked article, so apologies if this is the wrong format. Alan uk2 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (4)

Hello,i would like to update the photo of kier starmer as i believe it needs to be updated to a more recent date, this is why to day i am requesting a edit request.

Thank you. buran 1314. BURAN 1314 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is now changed to the official portrait of 2024. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs adjusting; at the moment, it repeats itself. Suggest something along the lines of:

    In July 2024, Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative government. He succeeded Rishi Sunak as prime minister on 5 July 2024.

    Also, per MOS:LEADCITE, why are there so many refs in the lead, when all this is cited in the article body? Perhaps ref. the description of 'landslide'—since it's potentially a WP:WTW—but the remainder should either be in the article itself and therefore not need citing here or removed from the lead in its entirety (the stuff about union supporters, 2023 articles etc). 2.28.124.91 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Children

Why are the names of his children omitted? Son = Toby Alexander Starmer; daughter = Lara Alexandra Starmer. The information is publicly available via an easily citeable source - the General Register Office Birth Index. 146.200.29.183 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." and the source you are referring to is a primary source. SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (5)

The current image is nominated for deletion so I request to update the image to File:KeirStarmerOfficialPortrait.jpeg Parabelleum (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A toolmaker?

Was his father really a toolmaker? I know it says so and there's a citation. But how are we really to know for sure that his father made tools for a living? 184.148.141.44 (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keir_Starmer&oldid=1232876716"