Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

superfluous sentences

During the same interview, Rees-Mogg admitted that he had never changed a nappy, noting that “I don’t think nanny would approve because I’m sure she’d think I wouldn’t do it properly”. These remarks sparked criticism from other MPs. In September 2017 Labour MP Harriet Harman argued that “Men who don’t change nappies are deadbeat dads – and that includes Jacob Rees-Mogg”.

This is so banal and ridiculous. This has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.232 (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, anyone who is in a 'position of power' within a society and whose understanding of how the world works is, to be generous, a sad parody of something Mary Poppins-esque is so far removed from normality that such a disconnect with society must be recorded in an encyclopedia. What might be laughed at by some is dangerously close to the sort of delusion that could lead to being sectioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.79 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know a single father who has ever admitted this - relationships would normally collapse in a heap if you didn't help out with the changing. The only other class of people I know who have avoided changing have been chronic alcoholics who spent all their time in the pub, particularly after their partners then left them for being wholly unsuitable as a parent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Scuffle

Should we add the attack which occurred yesterday by momentum activists Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems notable. Not sure it was simply "an attack". Rees-Mogg initially seemed to be quite keen to get involved. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw this in the news this morning and it seemed a bit WP:NOTNEWS-ish. Now if JRM had smacked one of the protesters in the chops, that would have been notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, one forum I've seen said "It's like watching Charles Hawtrey wrestling a lettuce." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and here's the interesting back story whch has emerged about the part played by one Paul Townsley (not that this blog is a WP:RS, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Angry Voice doesn’t need to be used as it tends to link to all its sources of information directly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

So the trail leads to skwawkbox.org, which does not even have a WP article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Rees-Mogg has never been a minister

Do we really need a citation for this? If he had been a minister, this article would say so. Richard75 (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a BLP, so yes everything needs a citation Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that his being a minister might be more relevant to his current career than his being circus tightrope walker. My point was that both would require a reliable source. Most people would recognize his lack of ministerial experience as a fact, but without a source here it might be viewed as pointy WP:OR. Even with a source it might be seen, depending on the context, as advancing a certain agenda. I realize we're not going to see him at Cirque du Soleil any time soon. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's true that he has never been a minister; this would be in the infobox and the text and the article if it were true. However, it is easier to source the fact that he has never changed a nappy.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Could that go in the infobox? To many folks that's kind of more informative. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

How about this? [2] Richard75 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, politicalbetting.com, which describes itself as "Britain's most-read political blog - and the best online resource for betting on politics"?? I think we'd have to do a bit better than that (unless this is to support the nappies claim, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, where's the place in the infobox to put "nappy changer"? :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was an optional parameter. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Grade II listed buildings in Somerset

When reading the article as normal, the first category listed before "1969 births" is Category:Grade II listed buildings in Somerset. It is included as a page in the category as normal, but I can't fix this obvious error since the category doesn't seem to be in the page source to remove. Any ideas what's going on here and how to resolve this? –72 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange. I can't find anything in the article to generate this. There are several listed buildings mentioned: Ston Easton Park, the former rectory in Hinton Blewett and Gournay Court, but I can#t see why this is appearing and it is not in "hidden categories".— Rod ^talk

Think I've fixed it the "Listed Building England" template used as ref 138 was generating the error.— Rod ^talk 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted – thanks for looking into it! –72 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Popularity

This is regarding this edit.

The bolded part of this sentence "He attracted support through the social media campaign Moggmentum and due to his party popularity[5] has been touted as a potential successor to Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May.[6]" is a detail which is not supported by the attached source, making it WP:SYNTH. It doesn't mention "moggmentum" or social media, so it's use here is unacceptable. The source explains who, precisely, he is popular with regarding this specific hypothetical outcome, but only within context. The edited sentence is already too vague, since it doesn't clearly explain who is touting him. This is a mild form of WP:WEASEL wording, which is forgivable as a summary, but should not be expanded beyond what's supported. Was he touted because of moggmentum, or was moggmentum a meme that came about because of his popularity? Is there a reliable source that specifically says he is popular because of the social media campaign? If so, let's see it, and we can go from there. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The evidence of his party popularity is a necessary addition to offer context to the him being heralded as a potential successor. The connective 'and' represents a second part to the sentence specifically referring to his ministerial acknowledgement whilst the prior was a relevant factoid denoting his public acclaim. Due to your specific criticism If you believe the sentence would be more factually relevant as two separate sentences without the 'And', then that's an amendment I can agree to. --FactChecked1 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Flinging fish into the Thames

I'm sure this will be useful somehow... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Opposed by anti-fascists for his links with far-right groups"

Are there any other links than attending a Traditional Britain Group dinner in May 2013, which he denounced after it? [3]. If not, the wording should be changed to be less broad or removed. Also, isn't "critiqued for his attitude to money" a bit silly for the lead? I understand those are there for the balance because he's also called entertaining, but it's like saying he's being opposed by left-wing people for being too right-wing. Well, duh. --Pudeo (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't like "critiqued for his attitude to money". It's vague and far from clear what it actually means. The WP:LEAD deserves better than this clunky phrase.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it means he intends to give away all of his £100m tax-haven fortune to his poorer constituents and send them on all-expenses-paid holidays to the Cayman Islands? Oh no, hang on... I may have got that wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was responsible for adding "critiqued for his attitude to money" when I was tidying up the lede, but I wasn't happy with it at the time and your comments have all just confirmed how bad it is. Let's be rid of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's managed to get back into the article very quickly. What does it mean? We know he's very rich, but what is the critique? Far too woolly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Question - should use of the term "anti-fascist" be in inverted commas as most people would describe themselves as against fascism, whereas many of those who call themselves "anti-fascist" also have far-left leanings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.53.22 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Name of sister in infobox

Shouldn't his sister be named as Annunziata Mary Glanville in the infobox, rather than using her maiden name of Rees-Mogg? Bangalamania (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2018

In the opening paragraph: Change - "A member of the hard right wing of the Conservative Party" To - "A member of the Conservative Party"

In declaring Rees Mogg to be "hard right wing" Wikipedia is departing from provable fact and giving a highly contestable opinion. Windymac (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the Jacob_Rees-Mogg#Political_ideology section, where reference's are given for these claims. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to summarize claims made in the body text. Full sourcing for the summarized claims is given in the body, as is the case here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

??^^Is Russia Today really a good source for anything relating to British politics?

Have to agree with Windymac. I don't believe it's a particularly fair or well cited characterisation. AsyncKomms^talk 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Media appearances section

The article has acquired a "Media appearances" section which is long and has problems with WP:TRIVIA. Most UK politicians have appeared on the The Andrew Marr Show and Daily Politics but we don't have to record it for posterity every time it happens. Other articles about politicians don't do this. I was sorely tempted to remove the whole section but don't want an edit war. Why is this here, and why is it really necessary?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Since no-one has objected, I've removed it. It is not standard practice to do this, eg with Margaret Thatcher it would be a mile long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The article now suggests, misleadingly, that he's appeared on HIGNYF only once? Shouldn't the others be added? Would it not be sensible to at least summarize his appearances on other notable TV politics programmes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't IMDb or the BBC Genome. I'm not an expert on JRM's various media appearances, and an appearance on Have I Got News for You isn't all that notable; it runs into problems with WP:10YT. Another concern is that this list is never going to be complete and will grow like Topsy. Somehow the article has ended up listing his various media appearances exhaustively even though most articles about politicians don't. A random example is that John Prescott had a famous appearance on HIGNFY in 2015 (official non copyright problem video here), but it isn't mentioned in his Wikipedia article. This would need secondary sourcing to establish the notability. Most of the JRM entries don't do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

'Incumbent' section

I don't follow at all the presence of the line 'Sec. of State: David Davis' in the 'Incumbent' section of the biography. Mogg is not part of the government, so he's not a subordinate of David Davis. And there are many secretaries of state in the government. He may or may not share a similar point of view on Brexit as Davis, but that doesn't justify the line in this section. If there is some reason for it that I've missed, please advise. Otherwise I propose to remove it. Tsuchan (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The section heading of that bit of the infobox is Chairman of the European Research Group. Though its article does say the group is part publicly funded, I'm not sure either Prime Minister or SSEEU is relevant to the role. Cavrdg (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Career

It is a downright falsehood that his company has opened an office in Dublin. The source merely say the company has opened a fund. Moreover, he has adressed this very point on air and thoroughly debunked it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMGcEw48AK0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visf (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to match the source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Brexit expansion

That Rees-Mogg stands to amass a huge amount of wealth from the kind of Brexit he advocates (and is actively working) for while the majority of the public, including his constituents, suffer significant economic damage should be reflected in the section "Opposition to membership of the European Union." 85.211.235.108 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I note your comments and I know his firm Somerset Capital moved to Ireland to exploit opportunities created for Ireland by Brexit. That's already been added. We need to be able to cite a respectable newspaper article to say what you're asking for. If you find one & need I'd be delighted to give you any help you need. Contact me on my talk page.
Wp:Suggested sources#Current news is excellent as is The Washington post or New York Times. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

HIGNFY

I believe Rees-Mogg has appeared at least three times on this programme: here, here and here , as well as being the subject of Paul Merton's tea-towel. I'm surprised his involvement is not seen as notable. I think "WigGate" was quite widely reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Most senior politicians have been on Have I Got News for You at some point. However, it isn't necessary to list all of his TV appearances. I'm 50-50 on whether the wig joke is worth mentioning, as the only substantial text source seems to be a story in the Daily Express. It isn't a keynote part of his career.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly not keynote, although I personally found it a high point. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm honestly very surprised at the lack of secondary sources that I can find regarding his HIGNFY appearances. But I don't think that The Express story is an indicator of notability for an off-the-cuff remark on a BLP. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, I still consider the work of the "photoshoping department" at HIGNFY there as a minor triumph. Personally, I can't wait until Jacob "does a Widdecombe" and we see him where he belongs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

wrong Majority details

if you look at the Electoral history on the same page it gives a different percentage of the majority

Member of Parliament for North East Somerset Incumbent Assumed office 6 May 2010 Preceded by Constituency created Majority 10,235 (18.9%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8827:B500:2DFE:8A51:A950:E4B2 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018

Can we change the 'Political party' value from the current 'Conservative Party (United Kingdom)' to the canonical reference used for other party members: 'Conservative_Party_(UK)'. This is to make it easier to leverage the structured data. Thank you. 2A00:23C5:318B:E200:C069:B4ED:C36F:4BF8 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a policy change that would have wider implications. Might need a technical discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The article title for the party on Wikipedia is Conservative Party (UK). I think that the edit request is to avoid a WP:PIPE in the infobox, so I changed it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's what they meant. lol Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Family

It occurs to me that Rees-Mogg's mother-in-law is Lord Nicholas Hervey's mother and John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol's stepmother. I can just picture Moggy and the 7th Marquess strolling together through through the grounds of Ickworth House with the latter firing off his shotgun in the air and shouting "fuck off all you poor people". Anyway, I wondered if it was worth a footnote in this article, or is it off-topic? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to add it, although I'd leave out the shouting bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC) p.s. did you know he was also a "sex god"?

Any connections here? https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.187.150 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

How can this website pretend to be neutral with editors making comments like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:38E:150:0:0:1:8E (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That actually depends on what they write (or leave out when writing or editing) on the page that this is the discussion page for. And incidentally, their comments are off-topic, as this page is not for discussing Mr Rees-Mogg, but for discussing how to improve the page that does discuss him as a topic. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

"A member of the Conservative Party, his views have been characterised as socially conservative"

Rees-Mogg's views are not a member of the Conservative Party: he is. Please replace "his views have" with "he has". 208.95.51.53 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, they'd have to be Members (plural). But that sentence makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps your views are being overly pedantic here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TBH I can't see anything enormously wrong with the sentence, but alternative wordings are possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of neo-Conservative pedantry, I've made the suggested change. If Nanny Crook is reading, I do hope she doesn't overly object. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Cease and Desist order

Jacob Rees-Mogg was sent a Cease and Desist order by the long-established publication, The Beano, for infringing their copyright. by “... masquerading as Walter Brown”.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/jacob-reesmogg-accused-of-being-a-big-softy-a3805351.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.112 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A worthy addition, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation required, namely a "period" is missing. And an update required.

Hi guys,

Very minor, but in the Quote from JRM under the sub-heading "May government", the sentence ending: "...and in my view they do not" lacks punctuation. It needs a period (.). It should read: "...and in my view they do not. If..."

AND, in the same section ("May government"), the last paragraph does indeed properly state the case surrounding the attempt by JRM and the ERG to un-seat the PM, and his comments on the matter immediately following that extraordinary vote...

HOWEVER, in the weeks subsequent, he has said that the matter is settled, that Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party, and that she has his "confidence".

I think that a sentence to that effect should be added at the end of that aforementioned paragraph.

All the best,

James 96.30.109.88 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation mark added. In UK English it's called a "full stop." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Question Time comment about concentration camps

I don't see this info as being suitable for the article, as per WP:RECENT. The comment was made 5 days ago and is already out of the news. It was just a comment on a TV discussion programme - politicians are always making comments that other people don't like, it doesn't mean the comments have to appear in their WP articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The whole background context, about John McDonnell's comments on Churchill is missing. The whole historical context of the Boer War is missing. The whole programme context of Rees-Mogg's argument with Grace Blakeley is missing. Yes, Rees-Mogg may be a rich reactionary out-of-touch toff, but I can't actually believe this is one of his most dearly held "personal views". The more ridiculous part of his argument on Question Time was his comparing the Boer War internment camps to life in Glasgow prisons. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

He actually compared the death rate in the camps to that in Glasgow generally, not just the prisons. I don't know the facts of either of those historical circumstances, so cannot comment on whether or not Rees-Mogg was factually accurate, but the question for the article is whether his comments are sufficiently notable within the context of his entire life, and my own view is that they are not, as shown by the rapid quietening of news interest (at least in the UK). And even if interest was continuing, it would still be rather early to gauge their significance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

After the content about his Question Time comments was first submitted in the article by another editor, I then edited the content for what I felt was a more neutral tone. The initial content placed in the article said that Rees-Mogg "supported concentration camps" when the reference actually stated that Rees-Mogg denied he was justifying the use of concentration camps and specifically said: "They are not a good thing". It was clear also from watching the actual programme that he did not "support concentration camps", but when he made the comparison with a Glasgow death rate there was a howl of outrage from another panellist on the programme, Grace Blakeley, who accused him of justifying concentration camps. Rees-Mogg denied that this was the case. My own view is that this was probably a brief storm in a teacup on the programme and you are probably correct PaleCloudedWhite to have removed it as per WP:RECENT. It's important obviously that BLP's should have a neutral, balanced and accurate tone. Whether he's a rich multi-millionaire or has some politically incorrect views is no concern to me. WP:NPOV should apply whether people like him or not and if he's going to be quoted, then it should be done accurately. I agree with Martinevans123 that the whole background context about Churchill to the question was missing and it's probably right to have removed this TV progamme content from the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. In South Africa his comment is still being discussed, six days after he made them, by news media, historians and talk radio. It should absolutely be included in his WP article. MurrayHeymann (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk radio doesn't count as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, and I'm not convinced that sufficient copy has been written elsewhere to make this incident sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. It seems Rees-Mogg has made some basic factual errors - see this piece by a South African history professor - but he hasn't broken any law or been subject to official inquiry, he hasn't (as far as I'm aware) been asked to apologise, and his comments haven't resulted in a diplomatic row. Also, as others have noted, the 'was Churchill a villain?' context of the comments is missing; my understanding is that Rees-Mogg was trying to differentiate between the Boer camps and Hitler's extermination camps, and though it looks certain he got some facts wrong and some people were outraged as a result, should we describe it all in the article? I'm not convinced. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so this may be big news in South Africa, for a while at least. But how significant is it to his image across all English speaking counties? Across the world? How does it figure as a part of his entire "Public image"? Only a tiny amount, I think. What he said was somewhat rushed and seemed ill-prepared. I think he may even have his own regrets about this episode (not that his regrets would be any good reason to exclude, it just seem a bit trivial. The whole argument lasted less about a minute and a half: from about 52.30 onwards). Martinevans123 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Age at General Election in 1997 was actually 27 years. Turned 28 by end of that month. Correction to article requested.

Age at General Election in 1997 was actually 27 years. Turned 28 by end of that month. Correction to article requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.146.86 (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Done: The text of the article said "Rees-Mogg first entered politics at the 1997 general election at which, aged 26, he was selected as the Conservative Party candidate for Central Fife" but this source says "Rees-Mogg was just 27 when he was selected by the Conservatives to contest Central Fife – a traditional Labour seat – at the 1997 general election." This refers to when he became the prospective parliamentary candidate, so it would have been some time prior to the election itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"by"

"Rees-Mogg was born ..., the youngest son of..., by his wife"

Aren't the terms 'by' and 'out of' the language used when talking about breeding horses or dogs, rather than people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.67 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that very intelligent correction; I have amended the text accordingly. The language you criticized belongs, of course, to the 19th century. Methinks the text was created by someone who lives in the same world as Rees-Mogg. As you can read in the "Early life and education" section, Rees-Mogg was brought up by a "nannie", by name Veronica Crook who, having brought dear Jacob to adulcy, thereafter became nannie to Jacob's own progeny. Ms. Crook has "worked for the family for 50 years". Gotta wonder how she feels about World of Warcraft. In such a rarified, if not stulted, domestic environment one might reasonably imagine one is "born of ... by". This arcane language has no place in a modern encyclopedia so thank you for the correction. Please join us, register as an editor, it's quite fun Mark^Dask 23:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Benefit from Brexit"

JRPG recently added to the article the statement that "when interviewed by Channel 4, in March 2019, Rees-Mogg refused to answer suggestions their calculations showed that he stood to benefit by £7M since the Brexit vote", sourced to The Irish Times. However, the source states that "Channel 4 asked a clearly uncomfortable Rees-Mogg if their calculations – that Somerset has set aside £7 million (€8.2 million) for him since the Brexit vote – were correct", which is not the same as Rees-Mogg 'benefitting' from Brexit, as it doesn't prove that the Brexit vote caused this income. So I reverted the edit. If Rees-Mogg has benefitted financially from Brexit, any statement as such in the article would need to have a citation to a source that actually states that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite Firstly, thanks for the explanation, I had thought your objection was due to my incorrect attribution to the Irish Times rather than Channel 4. Having corrected it, I was further surprised to see it reverted with a comment that the source didn't prove the extra dividend had anything to do with Brexit. That's a decision our readers will make given the evidence. This is the link to the Channel 4 report which is much fuller. FWIW, I have personal experience of the caution reliable source newspapers exhibit when writing something potentially libellous. They and their solicitors do check their facts carefully. I'll add this unless you object within a day or so.

Regards JRPG (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be presenting this information because the conclusions being drawn or inferred are not fully supported by the sources given. The Channel 4 report makes several assertions that are all unquantified w.r.t. the effect of the referendum result:

• "one expert said that the fall in the value of the pound since the referendum result has helped SCM’s profits" - but doesn't say by how much (and who is this nameless "expert"?)
• "analysis of [SCM's] accounts shows that in the past two years, the fund has seen profits almost double" - so what?
• "Mr Rees-Mogg owns at least 15% of the firm which according to one financial expert's estimate could have put him in line for a pay-out of around £7m since 2016" - another nameless "expert" making a speculative estimate.

We have no proof from this whether the referendum result had any measureable impact on SCM's profits, nor how much that effect might be, nor how much - if any - Rees-Mogg took. If there are lawyers somewhere who have advised the sources on what they can say, they've obviously advised them that they can't make an explicit assertion that Rees-Mogg financially benefitted from the referendum result. If the source has to resort to nudge-nudge inference, we shouldn't be using it to do the same thing. And anyway, considering that Rees-Mogg has stated multiple times that Brexit would make people more prosperous, why is this even particularly noteworthy? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite Firstly apologies for the delay in responding due to a family birthday event and thanks for a courteous response. I'm surprised that two editors with a substantial amount of experience are arguing on the level of proof required, I suspect we edit different types of articles. You say the conclusions drawn are not fully supported by the source but they're fully spelt out in a manner which is publicly verifiable. This is all that is required -see verifiability and you haven't shown a good reason for removing my edit. I agree the reference to an anonymous 'expert' isn't useful but it isn't needed either -15% of £47m profit is £7.1m Q.E.D. As for notability, the subject has now been covered by 3 reliable sources including Somersetlive I'd like to reinstate the original text but replacing the subscription Irish Times reference with the Channel 4 report Channel 4 article -as you suggested. Otherwise, I'm happy to go to dispute resolution. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

JRPG, the text that you added to the article stated that Rees-Mogg "stood to benefit by £7M since the Brexit vote" - it is this claim of a specified benefit from the vote that is not verified by the sources cited. He might have received £7M since the Brexit vote (though he might not), but because there is no counterfactual, it isn't possible to state how much of this (if any) is directly attributable to the Brexit vote. All that we can say, from the sources given, is that since the referendum, Rees-Mogg might have received an estimated £7M from a company he partly owns. But seeing as we cannot say whether this might have occurred anyway, without the referendum, this doesn't seem a particularly vital bit of info to have in the article, and it seems to me to be a contravention of WP:BLP to imply that this unverified income is directly attributable to the referendum result. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite I'm quite happy to say his shareholding has entitled him to £7M of dividends since the Brexit vote if that's what you want. Under WP:BLP -that's absolutely all that's required, the reader NOT the editor is required to use judgement given the facts. In fact using an additional article to try and show what is attributable to Brexit -should it happen- is WP:SYNTHESIS though I expect it'll be many years before details are available. As you probably know, hedge funds, unlike any other business, absolutely thrive on uncertainty, which exactly what Mogg has done so much to create through his highly privileged position. I believe that is the cause of the "mirth" referred to in the Irish Times.

• I'd welcome other comments as I feel we've both spent enough time on this. If you are still unhappy I'll start resolution dispute procedures in a day or so. FWIW, these can and should be fairly amicable! Regards JRPG (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I still oppose this addition on the grounds stated above. The only reason it is being proposed being added is to imply something that cannot be proved and may well be wrong. It is not the job of editors to present information in such a way that it suggests things to readers, particularly when the information being presented is unverified and circumstantial. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Perhaps the content in question should be re-written, resourced, and re-worded, making it less controversial. There must be a million and a half such quotes to glean from different sources at the moment, which would stand alone with less interpretation. Mulstev (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Mulstev and thanks for your time and effort.

Unfortunately the Brexit topic is arguably the most controversial in UK politics in the last 60 years & everyone has their views though the issues regarding my request seem really quite straightforward.

• The share register details are public domain legal documents which cannot credibly be disputed. If they were incorrect in any way Mogg himself had the opportunity to respond but chose not to. Why not?
• The topic is notable as it has been the subject of three reliable sources. I can't ATM find any more which are relevant though these 3 suffice.
• It is also important because it is clear Mogg's hedgefund income dwarfs his MP's salary and yet doesn't need to be declared or reported to his constituents. The reader and not editors should decide whether Mogg has a conflict of interest and is exploiting his privileged position as an MP.
• As mentioned earlier Mogg & Brexit has had a huge impact on uncertainty which makes his hedge fund thrive. No wonder the Irish times reported mirth.

At your suggestion & also PaleCloudedWhite's I will rewrite the sentences to make the dispatches program the main source and I expect this to meet Wikipedia rules and to be acceptable to any unbiased editor.

PaleCloudedWhite, unless their are cogent reasons for objections, I intend to insert the following.

however when interviewed by Channel 4, in March 2019, Rees-Mogg refused to answer suggestions that their calculations showed that he stood to benefit by £7M since the referendum. Rees-Mogg pointed out the investment took place before Brexit. The Irish Times noted that his actions caused 'mirth' on both sides of the Irish sea as although the hedge fund warned of Brexit related losses, it still had access to the EU.

JRPG, please provide the full text of what you are proposing - your current proposal begins with "however...". Also please sign your post. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite,Mea Culpa. It was past my bedtime! Herewith the integrated paragraph.

In 2018, Somerset Capital opened an investment fund in Dublin. The new business prospectus listed Brexit as one of the risks, as it could cause "considerable uncertainty". Rees-Mogg, a partner of the business who does not make investment decisions, defended the move, stating: "The decision to launch the fund was nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit." However when interviewed by Channel 4 in March 2019, Rees-Mogg refused to answer suggestions that their calculations showed that he stood to benefit by £7M in the period since the referendum. though he pointed out the investment took place before Brexit. The Irish Times whilst agreeing that the fund had warned of Brexit risks, noted that his actions caused 'mirth' on both sides of the Irish sea as it still had access to the EU.

JRPG (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Cherwell quote

Ylee, you recently added a quote from Cherwell magazine, printed in the FT, which you transcribed as "We more need we say?" [4] This doesn't make sense. Can you check that you have transcribed it accurately - I would do so myself, though the source is behind a paywall. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry; typo fixed. Thanks for pointing me to it. Ylee (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Rees Mogg is now a Right Honourable

Jacob Rees Mogg is now a "Right Honourable" rather than "Honourable" given that he's the leader of the house of commons and president of the council.

The same applies to new cabinet ministers.

Correct. I changed this, and it was reverted. I have changed it again to reflect his honorific as Lord President. Ecbrown (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Deputy PM

In the absence of a designated deputy PM don't these new posts make JRM the de facto deputy PM? Cassandra

The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a bit of a weird title with limited practical effect. Nobody has held the post since 2015, and Theresa May did not appoint one either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The closest equivalent in Boris's cabinet is the First Secretary of State, Dominic Raab

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019

In the honours section change 'giving Him the Honorific Title' to all lowercase. Thereafter capitalize 'honorific title' correctly, i.e. not at all. 2A02:A311:240:E680:823:F7EC:364C:E916 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done A few adjustments needed there, I think. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford (talk · contribs) 14:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is a minefield, with structural issues; notably honours have been placed as a sub-set of ones private life, this is certainly the general view, nor would coats of arms be regarded as a mater on ones private life. There is inconsistent use of British and American English, often within the same sentence. It is regularly made ambiguous by the excessive quoting and "micro-quoting." This is worsened by an unsatisfactory level of grammar.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article does not appear to have regard for the Manual of Style.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	While I may be mistaken, I do not believe this to be the case. See the criticisms stated below, while they exist it is hard to determine the true nature of the overall citation and to attribute the gap to one single point. As such I have attributed a neutral status to point 2 (a), this is because until the article is sourced fully it is unclear. As I stated at the beginning I have strong reasons (The lack of citation in crucial areas, and the call for more reliable sources on the page being just two) to believe that this article is insufficiently sourced, with that in mind there are some 211 source. I feel that some of these if used properly would cover some of the gaps in citation. I therefore conclude that point 2.a on its own is not a major problem, only when added to 2.b, 2.c and or 2.d does it become a serious concern.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	While some of the sources are reputable, many are not, to the extent that much of this article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; this fact is highlighted by the call throughout the article for more sources, or better sources. This is amplified by the repetitive use of self published sources among others, and sentences using a source which does not relate to contentious material.
	2c. it contains no original research.	While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial speculation and areas lacking reliable sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial plagiarism and copyright violations or speculation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article sufficiently addresses the main aspects of Mr Rees-Moggs life and career.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is a clear lack of cohesion within the article, which undermines the content as many of the same points are repeated three or four times, which has resulted in the article being longer than necessary, furthermore the way it has been outlined is detrimental to the subject as it further exasperates these issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	With the citation in such disarray to attempt to objectively determine the neutrality of the article would be foolish.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article does not currently appear stable, I am aware that at the moment one would expect greater activity then many, although reading through the history, shows much to and throwing, I am also aware that there is currently a partial protection on the article. While it may not get better, I am of the opinion that it would be stable in the long term.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The photographs are tagged as required
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The relevance of some of the photos is unclear, there are remarkably few containing Mr Rees-Mogg. The captions are accurate and informative in each given case.
	7. Overall assessment.	At this time, the article requires too many amendments to be brought to a state that would qualify as a good article. I wish you luck in your future endeavours, and hope to see this article back here, when these have been rectified.

Environment & Climate

The reference to Chat Politics is selective and doesn't really mean anything. What does "thinks solutions that do not hinder technological progress should be sought" mean? It is probably code for hydraulic fracturing = a solution to climate change. It is both code and highly dubious. He makes other more transparent assertions on Chat Politics such as it is not worth mitigating climate change and we are better off adapting to it and also misrepresents the IPCC regarding modelling and time scales. Chat Politics is no longer on line and there is no transcript, although the video resource is on YouTube.com

The reference to the Independent article is about environmental regulations rather than climate change per se, the article just repeats what is said in the Treasury Committee which is the primary source.

The most transparent statement on Rees-Mogg's views on climate is from an interview he gave with the Timsbury Community (in his constituency) which presents a neutral science based assessment in the context of the then Conservative manifesto, it is fully referenced and offers no political judgement:

Rees-Mogg's views in this document reflect his stated views in both lectures and other interviews. Cunomaglus (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Error in blazon of heraldic shield?

There is a Crescent Sable in the image of the Escutcheon (shield) which does not appear in the blazon. Other images of the shield in Google show either no Crescent or a Crescent Or (i.e. golden). Errando (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Moggmentum into Jacob_Rees-Mogg. I do not think that Moggmentum alone meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY but think its content would be a much better fit into this main article. -Ethanmayersweet 22nd Feb 2019

Except that this main article is already 125,000+ bytes long. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My own view is that the Moggmentum article probably does meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. In the lead section for that article, a reference from The Guardian states: Comparisons between Moggmentum and the US Tea Party movement have been made with regard to their supporting "rightwing ideas, grassroots activism and shaking up the conservative establishment". The article goes on to say that as well as in the British media, Moggmentum also featured in a number of articles in foreign media, in Belgium, America and Poland. For those reasons, I feel the Moggmentum article could stay in its current form for a while longer. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, for two main reasons: (1) Moggmentum has received substantial coverage from reliable sources and is notable in its own right; (2) Moggmentum, perhaps strangely, is independent of Rees-Mogg, and not under his control, so in itself it is not an aspect of his biography. Moonraker (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose; this "thing" is of itself a phenomenon, whatever the merits. Also there is sufficient, (too much) reference to it on Rees-Mogg's page already, any more would seem irrelevant. Mark^Dask 21:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Moggmentum is not notable enough to warrant its own article, and the information on that page would be much better-suited to be merged into the article on Jacob Rees-Mogg. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Fails WP:GNG. The majority of citations are trivial per the example given in the policy, and several of the citations do not actually mention "Moggmentum". The "Moggmentum" article is an example of a frustrating tendency whereby every event/cause/organisation no matter how marginal or transient receives its own article so long as it is mentioned in a few RS articles. Endymion.12 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - lack of sustained coverage of Moggmentum. Tacyarg (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I agree, there has been a lack of sustained coverage of Moggmentum Jono1011 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the two items are clearly linked and most MP articles would have an extra sentence if there was a suggestion -however flimsy -that they were fit for leadership. JRPG (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the move for now. Similar movements such as Milifandom and Corbynmania have articles of their own, and Moggmentum seems as notable, if not more so, than these similar campaigns. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - two possible arguments apply here: WP:LASTING and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The sources, while more active recently, have been in good detail for more than long enough to void LASTING as a viable argument. REDUNDANTFORK is on better ground, but I believe the primary JRM is in sufficient detail/length already and the Moggmentum page is self-standing enough to warrant retention. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Per WP:LASTING, all but 5 sources in the "Moggmentum" article date from between January and September 2017, and none of those 5 more recent articles refer to "Moggmentum". Endymion.12 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: - if we take the article lead paragraph to explain what it's about, I think we do see that it's lasting. A claim could be made for a name change, although what timescale is needed is always disputed - certainly WP:PERSISTENCE would be satisfied with a Jan-Sept timescale. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: It is just so obvious to me that this ought to be a small section of the main article. Maintaining a separate article which discusses such an inconsequential phenomenon, simply because we can find it mentioned in several newspaper articles, seems to be such a perversion of the intent of policies you are citing, and of WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which is why we're ultimately here. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support not notable enough to warrant its own article. We cannot have articles on every minor topic such as like this. Ecpiandy (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support this does not deserve its own article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Barely noteworthy in an of itself. Both articles would benefit from a merger. 92.22.82.138 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that would be WP:UNDUE to merge because there is more to JRM than this group that holds him in high regard. There are also several 3rd party sources from a wide range of opinions that I am failing to see a reason for merging because I think this article is like Milifandom which itself is separate from the Ed Miliband article yet is similar length to Moggmentum. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose They aren'tt eh same thing. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This needs closing now. I won't as I just voted but there is clearly no consensus so I will remove the tags. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Image Change

Image currently in use

Proposed image

The file "Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg" should be used as the image in the main infobox over the current "Jacob Rees-Mogg MP.jpg", as I believe the latter looks less formal and is badly lit. Moreover, "Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg" is the official portrait of Mr. Rees-Mogg that is even the preferred image of use by the website of The House of Commons themselves.

I had changed the infobox image to the proposed image in an edit but it was reverted for the one already in use being more up to date. While I concede that the image in question is the more recent one, I believe that the more formal looking image should take precedence, strengthened by the fact that it used by the House of Commons themselves and that Mr. Rees-Mogg doesn't noticeably different in the proposed image compared to the current image. --Anirudhgiri (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the current image - although not perfectly lit, it is not badly lit, and has more natural flesh tones. Mr Rees-Mogg's face also occupies a greater area of the image, so is easier to see. In my view it is the proposed image that is badly lit - the subject's face is overexposed on his left side (our right side), giving a slightly 'bleached' look to the skin tones. So, I oppose the proposed change. [N.B. Note that the proposed image actually was the infobox image until July last year]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox images need a WP:CONSENSUS. I don't hugely like the lighting in either of these images, but out of the two, Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg is the better one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg is the image that screams "Formal", "Official", and "Authority". I believe that such an image should be employed to be the main image of the article - particularly for a person who is the leader of the House of Commons and is known to be the embodiment of formality and tradition. The image currently in use, while it does have natural flesh tones, looks very informal with the awkward smile and the shadow in the background. These official portraits are also used in the articles of other well known MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn, Peter Bone, Anna Soubry and the Speaker of the House himself - Sir Lindsay Hoyle. For these reasons, I support the proposed change.-Anirudhgiri (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tweaked the image to remove the overbrightness on the face. You may have to refresh the page or clear the browser cache to see this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose changing the image. The one being used now is more up to date and the lighting about on par with proposed image. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Far Right"?

He's characterised as "Far right", with the cited authority being an opinion article in The Guardian...? Really?? Has Wikipedia become this silly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.72.223 (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not silly, merely using reliable sources. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but a bit silly. The source says "Rees-Mogg’s politics sit to the far right of the Conservative party – if Cameron was a moderniser and May a traditionalist, Moggism would see us dragged back to the days of Downton Abbey and before." Jacob Rees-Mogg has not advocated invading Poland, although his views may not be to everyone's tastes. The source, perhaps inevitably The Guardian, has a long history of regarding anyone on the right as sexist, racist, homophobic etc. It's rather like the Daily Mail deciding that all Labour politicians are loony left, EU sellout traitors etc. This is routine journalistic posturing designed to appeal to the newspaper's core readership.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Far-right is a reasonable description of the policies he advocates. He isn't a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word (in the sense that Angela Merkel is a conservative). His party includes a wing that could be described as conservative (e.g. David Cameron), and a wing that is clearly far-right, and to which he belongs. Of course, far-right people nowadays often claim to be "conservatives", as is also the case in the US, even though they spend most of their time demonizing actual conservatives, like Merkel. --Tataral (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Even the Guardian doesn't say that he is far right, which is why I changed the wording in this edit to reflect the sourcing more accurately. Terms like "far right" and "far left" are often used to depict people in a negative way, and should be used with caution on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Far-right is silly, especially when the claim is supported with/plagiarised from an opinion article. If someone can find large numbers of articles from WP:RS sources which refer to his views as "far-right", the claim is justified. As it stands, one opinion article does not justify referring to his views are "far-right" in the opening paragraph of the article. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Are there any academic reliable sources produced by professional political scientists (or those in related fields) who describe him as "far right"? If there is not, and the only source available is a single article in one centre-left newspaper (and it looks like an op-ed at that), then I would not advise referring to Rees-Mogg as "far-right" in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Endymion.12 and Midnightblueowl. The description is from a single opinion article / comment piece by a Guardian journalist. If someone can find a number of other articles from reliable sources which descibe him as "far-right", then the claim carries more weight. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I definitely don't regard myself as a supporter of Rees-Mogg but far-right is a term I'd reserve for the EDL, BNP and its derivatives etc. particularly those who advocate violence. JRPG (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating far-right politics with right wing extremism. A right wing extremist is certainly far-right, but you can be far-right without being extremist. Rees-Mogg has revisionist elements in his views (just ask the historians which reviewed his book on the Victorians), is strongly nationalist and considers scientific and academic research subordinate to his ideology. In no way is that a moderate attitude. --2A02:810C:3C0:2734:BCAC:6DAA:29CB:58E4 (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian article sub-head reads "Mogg-mentum must be stopped before it becomes a disastrous reality". It's clearly a "hit-piece". That his one of his opponents has characterised his views a far-right would be worth including somewhere in the article, but not in the second sentence of the lede. Compare with the article on Jeremy Corbyn. Tigerboy1966  08:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why a low profile during the 2019 election Campaign?

Did Rees-Mogg hold a low profile because he had said something stupid about the Grenfell Tower fire or because he was reclining on the bench of House of Commons during a debate about the Brexit? In the article both claims are made. Creuzbourg (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Over reliance on Labour MP David Lammy

Not sure why David Lammy was used for sourcing when talking about JHM's political beliefs. Have removed for obvious reasons as he's a direct political opponent. Simply using the main stream media to quote what David Lammy said isn't the same as sourcing a main stream media who endorses those opinions. Both occassions have been removed for partisan reasons. We're not going to ask a rabbit for his opinion on a fox or a Jew for his opinion on Palistine and present them as neutralAlexandre8 (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Electoral History- 2019 Needs updated

Under the 2019 Election result for North East Somerset, the turnout box is empty. Under electoral history. The change of majority also needs to be updated there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.33.131 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Social Issues

Can a confirmed user update the section on Social Issues to reflect Rees-Mogg's views on funding charities designed to to help feed children. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNICEF#Funding_of_UK_food_charities Thanks 86.135.135.51 (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)