Talk:Michael Portillo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Recent revert[edit]

Can anyone check the diffs between the old version of this page (edited by an anonymous user) and the version I reverted to? I reverted because the changes seemed POV to me; maybe someone with a better understanding of the subject can verify which parts are accurate and add them in. --Ardonik 19:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Happy to help, Ardonik. The changes are not pov, but factual accounts of the influences in Portillo's life which have helped shape him into the person he is today. They are all accurate and have been discussed at length in books and in newsprint.

(please note that user: also appears to be user: and user: While your additons may be fact (and if so, would you care to provide verification that Maurice Cowling is gay, or the comments of Porillos boyfriends?), they are also presented in an extreamly POV and biased way (for example, the passage talking about his boyfriend contracting AIDs, even if true, would appear to have little or no relevance to this article). Iainscott 18:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Missing information?[edit]

If memory serves me correctly, Portillo announced that he would not be standing for parliament just before Michael Howard assumed the leadership of the Conservatives. At the time this seemed to me to be extremely peculiar because here was a prominent Tory who had been right wing but was moving leftwards, who was only too happy to leave the party to someone who was known to be right wing. No one was prepared to stand against Micheal Howard who had somehow managed to stifle all dissent within the party before his leadership challenge, thus avoiding the pointlessly difficult and painful leadership contest rules. The remarkable thing about all this is that the leading challenger, who was known to be exceedingly ambitious, suddenly decided to quit politics altogether. This coup d'etat was so fishy the whole thing stank to high heaven, yet none of us will ever know why Portillo really chose to busy himself with - maybe gardening. I know that at best we have only conjecture, but I feel it is extremely misleading not to at least mention that Portillo's resignation coincided with the rise of Michael Howard. The article, in my opinion, should read something like this: When Michael Howard in (can't remember when) assumed the leadership of the Conservative party, Michael Portillo announced that he would not be standing for re-election to parliament in...

From recollection of those days the order was:
  • Duncan Smith no confidenced
  • Howard launches his candidature
  • Howard offers Portillo a place in the Shadow Cabinet
  • Portillo declines
  • Portillo announces he is leaving the Commons
What I can't recall is where exactly Portillo's accouncement of his support for Howard on This Week fits into the middle, although it was the day before he announced he was leaving the Commons.
At the time Portillo attributed his decision to a desire to move to a career in broadcasting and the like. I suspect he may also have seen the writing on the wall about the Conservatives' chances in 2005 and deduced he would end up like many a promising would be Labour minister in the 1980s who was deemed too old in 1997.
As for the lack of challenge, remember that the main reason Duncan Smith had lasted so long was the desire to avoid another leadership contest. Then the situation got out of control and I think most Conservative MPs realised that they needed a period of order and stabilisation, rather than another round of infighting. Timrollpickering 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC

Recent comments on politics[edit]

If we are to add Portillo's post-Westminster career comments on politics, as User:JRPG seems to think appropriate, we should be consistent, rather than selective. Or else we shouldn't bother to add any at all. I have added a further reported comment in case the one cited by JRPG should seem to be indicative of a particular political position. Or we could delete both - otherwise this will just become a list of comments ad infinitum. What celebs happen to think on issues of the day is not I think automatically Wikipedia material, unless it has a genuine effect on events in its own right. In the meantime I have also corrected JRPG's contribution so that the report reflects more accurately what Portillo actually said, according to the source cited.--Smerus (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Friendly greetings Smerus. FWIW as you probably realise, I am an admirer of MP as an historian and writer and I'm sure he wouldn't want us to ask decent readers to look at Daily Express drivel.
I'm sorry for TM or anyone handed a poisoned chalice and I think her widely reported problems in talking to potentially hostile people reflect her extreme stress. The Telegraph -my favourite source -changed an article overnight -see Talk:Gavin Barwell#Downing Street Chief of Staff making my edit on him both WP:POV and WP:EDITORIALISING. I have a photo of a Google search screen showing it changed from an article about Barwell & the lack of any Conservative party figure being willing to talk about the Grenfell Tower fire to one about Barwell & Portillo. Re accuracy, the current headline still reflects the original article in referencing failure to show humanity. Grenfell is much more than "just an issue of the day" but except for the circumstances described I wouldn't expect MP to be a significant Conservative source -or us to have too many disagreements. Feel free to remove the articles. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'm not entirely easy either about my own intervention. I am concerned however that interpretations circulate the internet like wildfire (can we use that simile after Grenfell?) and that minute misquotations can gain force. In this case I noted that whilst the headline in the source implied that Portillo felt May didn't "show humanity", his actual words were that she didn't "show her humanity." As you'll appreciate that could have a very different implication (e.g. [perhaps] that he knew her to have humanity, but she was not demonstrative about it). He contrasted the demonstrativeness of Corbyn and Khan, but whether their reaction was perceived by MP as more 'favourable' or as more (say) appropriate, is a matter of opinion not substantiated by the source. I share your aversion to the Express btw, just that I couldn't find any other journal which cited that part of the conversation. Bearing in mind WP:BLP I was unhappy that MP might be perceived, in the light of the original version, as attacking May and that this interpretation could be disseminated. In the circumstances, I will accept your kind offer of understanding and will remove the whole shebang.Smerus (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox proposal[edit]

Following the discussion (above) on the infobox, we are still getting sporadic attempts by editors (mostly non-registered) to reinflate the infobox with successors and predecessors. I now suggest that in fact the Infobox/political format is just not appropriate for him.

I point out that Portillo's media career (at 19 years) now equals his years in Parliament, which finished in 2005. He has signed off from politics for 12 years now. He is probably far better known today for his TV documentaries about railways than for anything he did in politics (except maybe for the Portillo moment). I remind everyone that Portillo's political career from 1984-2005 is summarized in the template at the foot of the article. Really his infobox should I think be that of a media person, (with appropriate reference to his early political career). A model might perhaps be the infobox of his contemporary Clive Anderson - or maybe it's not appropriate to have an infobox for a person who doesn't fit into a single category? - or perhaps there are other suggestions? All opinions welcome, of course. I have notified all editors who have contributed to the infobox discussion above (save for one who is now permanently blocked) about this thread via "{{Please see}}". - Smerus (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me in this discussion. I personally disagree with the proposal, primarily because I personally believe in the end, he will be more or less remembered as a politician than as a media figure, considering the offices he held throughout his political career, Defense secretary, Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State for Employment. Sorry about the previous post by the way, I thought I was logged in at Wikipedia and turned out I wasn't, so I am rewriting this with my signature on. --Daffy123 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonable to me, especially since page-bottom nav templates already deal with political "succession" stuff.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  11:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed as you probably gathered from a previous discussion. I'm still at a loss to understand why the Portillo moment is regarded as anything other than trivia. We also need a link to his 1913 podcast page which contains some excellent material. JRPG (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Michael Portillo
Michael Portillo 5937938162.jpg
Born Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo
(1953-05-26) 26 May 1953 (age 65)
Bushey, Hertfordshire, England
Alma mater Peterhouse, Cambridge
  • Politician (1984–2005)
  • Broadcaster (2002–present)
Employer BBC
Political party formerly Conservative Party (UK)
Spouse(s) Carolyn Eadie (1982–present)
  • I think the infobox has gotten out of hand. When there is more detail presented in an infobox than in the lead, then it's probably time to consider trimming the infobox. In Portillo's case, the detail given for each of his offices held far exceeds the summary in the lead; and although the mention of his spouse is reasonable, his married life seems to merit just a single sentence in Early life and career. The solution would be to give a little more detail in the body of an article which is principally a biography. To shorten the infobox, it's probably sensible to move away from {{Infobox officeholder}}, so as a suggestion, I've mocked up a version using just {{Infobox person}}, which I think conveys most of the key facts, although an occupation of "journalist" may be arguable, and one or two other fields are possibilities. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems reasonable, although I'm not convinced |birth_name= needs to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Better, though are the BBC actually his "employer"? I suspect not. Personally, I think his dual nationality is worth including. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think RexxS's proposal is a definite improvement. But BBC should not be down as employer. 'Title' seems wrong - can that be replaced with (e.g.) 'Political positions held'? And perhaps one should somewhere include some of his main broadcasting activities, e.g. Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys and The Moral Maze? - Smerus (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with this broad approach. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

How about the version below, for example? Smerus (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Michael Portillo
Michael Portillo 5937938162.jpg
Born (1953-05-26) 26 May 1953 (age 65)
Bushey, Hertfordshire, England
  • Broadcaster (1998–present)
  • Politician (1984–2005)
Television Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys
Political party formerly Conservative Party (UK)
It's getting a bit long - one could abbreviate the MP & ministerial roles : MP, Enfield Southgate (1984-1997), Kensington and Chelsea (1999-2005). Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
How about the present version? I've trimmed it; I think it now includes everything major factor relevant to the career, and it's shorter than the present one on the article which is exclusively political.Smerus (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I like both versions here much better than the confusing successions per position. Perhaps you could talk the template into an alternative parameter "Position" for "Title" (or "Political position", or "Office"). I don't like "Spouse(s)" when there is one (said so on the template talk on other occasions), and would not need the name without link. I think we should have his birth name. - Thanks for the invitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I've made an enquiry here.....Smerus (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I've amended the sandbox for {{Infobox person}} to change the label to "Office" if |office= is used instead of |title=. We'll probably have to wait to see if any objections are raised at Template_talk:Infobox_person #Title.2Fposition before we can amend the main template. --RexxS (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Many thanks for this, I would be absolutely satisfied with this version.--Smerus (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
          • This looks great. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
            • @Smerus: As nobody has raised any objection to the addition of |office= as an alternate to |title=, I've gone ahead and made the change to {{Infobox person}}. You now have the option to make use of that template in this article, should it become the preferred option. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Version 2 is far preferable to standard 'political' infobox. Even there, I would put 'MP' before 'Office', certainly before 'shadow' positions. I would have thought that long-term contributor to "This Week" is somewhat more notable than 'one-off' TV series. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The infobox is too long, but I personally think both proposed infoboxes are unsatisfactory. As was mentioned earlier, Portillo will likely be remembered more for his work in politics than media; the infobox should reflect this. A better way to trim down the infobox is to hide political offices and constituencies in collapsed infobox sections as is done in the Winston Churchill article. ToastButterToast (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Portillo will likely be remembered more for his work in politics than media"; two editors have said this, but that is only WP;OR opinion afai can see. What evidence for it? The reality seems to be that he is better known today as a TV personality than as a politician. What the future might bring is merely speculation.

In this context I'd also like to ask opinion as to whether the infobox should include the title "Right Honourable". Portillo remains a member of the Privy Council but, now that he is not involved in politics, I cannot identify any situation (outside perhaps of meetings of the Council itself) where he would be identified or addressed as Rt. Hon. If it is not a normal or typical mode of addressing him , then I beleive the infobox shouldn't suggest or imply that it is.Smerus (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • How Portillo will be remembered or what he is most notable for can only ever a matter of opinion, it's not right to call it original research. What we're doing here is making a value judgement. I'm of the opinion that his media career is not as notable or significant as his political career. As I said, I would take inspiration from the Winston Churchill article and have most of the political offices in collapsed infobox sections and incorporate some information related to his other work (in the Churchill article it has a section dedicated to his Military Service).
    As for "The Right Honourable" prefix, it's irrelevant if Portillo is actively involved in politics or not. That's the correct style of address for members of the Privy Council; Portillo discusses his opinion of the prefix here and is identified as "The Right Honourable Michael Portillo" on the biography section of the official Michael Portillo website. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • "Rt. Hon." is formally correct. But it is not a form you would use in speaking to its possessor - (as you might, for example, use "Lord" or "Sir") - which its use at the head of an infobox might imply. (The infobox is after all supposed "to summarize...key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.") And as the BBC item you cite says "Today only a handful of members attend the monthly meetings [of the Privy Council] and their business is simply to seek the Queen's formal approval to a number of orders which have already been discussed and approved by ministers." Thus it doesn't seem to be a very active part of Portillo's life, albeit the honour is prized by him. I'd be grateful for other opinions on this. . On the value judgement, I note your opinion but it doesn't seem to be shared by most of the other editors contributing here, and I don't think can be acceptable for -WP purposes unless we can find some appropriate citation(s).....Smerus (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I appreciate some other editors here do not share the same opinion on what Portillo is most notable for, that's not an issue, Wikipedia works on consensus and I'm fine being a dissenting opinion.
        As for the Rt. Hon. prefix I completely reject your point. "The Right Honourable xyz" is the correct style of address for non-peer members of the Privy Council, articles for deceased and living members of the Privy Council almost universally contain the prefix. I don't see why Portillo should be the exception to this rule. I actually think the absence of the prefix can be misleading, I added it earlier today because when I came to this page and saw the prefix was missing I began searching to see if Portillo had resigned the Privy Council (such as was done by Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne). ToastButterToast (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In an attempt to be bold, I have now replaced the infobox in the article with the one developed by RexxS, reflecting the consensus in the above conversation. I don't myself see the point in adding the Privy Councillor title to the box but if others are concerned by all means add it in. Smerus (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I've put the prefix back in, the consensus across Wikipedia seems to be that honorific prefixes and suffixes should be in the infobox, but usage of honorifics should be dropped in regular usage throughout the article. To leave out the prefix is to create inconsistency across the Wiki. For example, other members of Major's cabinet who left Government in 1997 and are commoners (Peter Lilley, Malcolm Rifkind, Major himself) use this practice. ToastButterToast (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The question of what Portillo will be remembered for is inherently subjective. What I don't think many would deny is that, even if we were to say Portillo's media career was more notable, he still had a very active and noteworthy political career. Portillo held two Cabinet positions, including Secretary of State for Defence (by anyone's standard an important post). He was Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, and Shadow Chancellor – the second-most important job in Opposition. I understood the argument for stripping out the predecessors and successors (although I did protest it vigorously), and I would support Portillo's infobox being collapsed in a Winston Churchill-esque fashion. But Portillo was still for several years an elected public servant and holder of high political office, and that is surely worthy of proper recognition in his infobox (i.e. in the normal officeholder infobox format – a format which, as I have stressed many a time, is used on virtually every other politician's article). I don't accept the Clive Anderson comparison because being a barrister does not equate to being a Member of Parliament and one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. A much better comparison, I'd have thought, would be with Gyles Brandreth who still retains the officeholder format despite having a more notable media than political career. Regards, Specto73 (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Not only is Portillo's relative fame for politics or media a subjective evaluation, it is also intertwined, much as (in reverse) Glenda Jackson's disproportionate notability as an MP, was inseperable from her earlier fame outside politics. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • If some of Portillo's infobox was collapsed I think there would be a strong reason to reopen the discussion of successors and predecessors, which I am in favour of. Just a minor correction, Portillo actually held three Cabinet positions, which includes his two tenures as Secretaries of State and his first Cabinet position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
      • This information is in the succession boxes at the bottom, which is where it belongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My tally of the above comments indicates 9 editors (including myself) who prefer the revised infobox, without details of political positions, compared to three who want to see all or some of the position details added back to it. I believe that represents a rather clear consensus for the revised version. Smerus (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


I removed some of the images added by User:Johnbod on the grounds that we shouldn't overload with images (WP:IDD) and that they didn't seem notably pertinent to the article in any sense of adding information or context (MOS:PERTINENCE). Opinions welcome of course.Smerus (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing some images was definitely a good idea. I'm more agnostic as to which should be removed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't at all agree that there were too many images, and if there were, the wrong ones were removed. Currently, after two of my additions were removed, there are only four images, and long imageless spaces. Unfortunately none of the photos we have are really hi-res and good quality, as with most politician & media people bios, which are typically badly llustrated. Of the 6 there before, the Regents Park portrait (2008) is much the best in technical quality and probably the most attractive, apart from the fan ambush. The current boat lead (2011) has him looking distinctly uncomfortable, if not actually in pain, his face in shadow etc. But the jacket is nice. The Regents Park would be a better lead pic. Apart from the early passport pic, much the worst is the blurry 37K one with Nic Robinson - if we only have 4, that should go. The fan ambush is I think a good, attractive and recent pic, and highly MOS:PERTINENT, in terms of his latter-day popularity with a wider non-Tory public; also a good jacket. I'm sure other survivors from the Thatcher cabinets - Norman Fowler or Gummer, say - are rarely accosted as seems to have happened here. Whereas Nick Robinson will talk to any of them. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thee are six images of MP in Wikimedia. I would rule out the one which Johnbod calls 'fan ambush' which seems more about the fan than MP. I would have no problems about replacing the infobox picture with the Regent's college photo if other editors are in agreement; the 'trademark' clothing is evident in the Chippenham photo. The Nick Robinson photo is the only one of MP qua politician and therefore should be retained. The 1995 photo is I agree poor, adds nothing, and should also be dumped. The overall answer to Johnbod's points is to get better pictures, not to shove in anything that might be available. Smerus (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the fan ambush is inappropriate. The 1995 photo is dreadful. The rest are in principle usable. I prefer the current lead photo to the Regents Park alternative, but wouldn't object to the change. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to add another voice to what others have already said, the fan ambush image is clearly inappropriate as far as I am concerned. It is more suited for uploaded to a social media website than an online encyclopedia. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, wierd, but there we are. The 1995 photo should certainly be kept until a better early one is found - apart from the dreadful one with Robinson, it is the only one from a time during his actual political career. I will swop the lead pics, adding the boat one lower down. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no great obection to swopping the lead pics, but the above discussion doesn't suggest that the boat one should reamin in the article as well. And other editors share dislike for the 'facebook' style photo. Enough is enough, I think.Smerus (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a crop of the Chippenham image might work? There are a number of historic images in the image gallery at his Official Website. Perhaps he could be persuaded to release one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ (talkcontribs)

As it happens I have already written asking whether any of these images can be used. I will keep editors informed.Smerus (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Good - we should do more of this, but the problem usually is that it is the photographer or employing agency/paper who owns the copyright. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

I've replaced the infobox photo with one which is recent and doesn't show flashlight glare, etc. Also has him wearing one of his 'trademark' jackets'.--Smerus (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBT Studies[edit]

I have deleted the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies header from this page. The purpose of the WP LBGT project is to "improve Wikipedia's coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and Queer studies topics." The article on Portillo does not deal with these topics. I believe that the use of this header is WP:UNDUE in this talk page, and does not take heed of the principles of WP:BLP. The 'justification' given for its inclusion was "his gay past was reported by the mainstream media and is considered by many to have been a factor in him being eliminated from the Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2001". Aside for any considerations of the questionable use of the words 'his gay past' (about which no evidence is available, except for the admission by MP, mentioned in the article and cited, of having had homosexual experiences in his youth), the issue concerned may be relevant for an article on UK politics, but is not eligible to be highlighted on the talk page of the biographical article relating to the individual concerned. The fact that MP had homosexual experiences does not make him automatically a subject of LGBT studies (which otherwise would cover virtually every biographic article in WP). Editors may be aware of consistent attempts over the years by various editors to highlight or exaggerate references to MP's sexual past in the article, all of which have been deleted under WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Drawing disproportionate attention to the matter by making MP an LGTB 'topic' is equally inappropriate.--Smerus (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The sections Return to Parliament and 2001 leadership election clearly state that Portillo's homosexual past was brought up by the media and by other prominent Conservative MPs (including Norman Tebbit and Kenneth Clarke) and that it was a major factor in him being eliminated from the leadership election. To claim that the article doesn't deal with LGBT topics is therefore clearly false. Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The article does not deal with an LGBT topic, let alone topics in the plural. It seeks to be an account of Portillo's life which is consonant with the standards of WP:BLP. Incidentally I have removed the sources you have cited in your comment above, since they depend on the allegations of a single person, are not otherwise verifiable, and have not been commented on by Portillo himself. I will remind you that WP:BLP explicitly states that "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced" - one-off allegations do not meet this standard. Tebbit did indeed bring up Portillo's confession of early homosexual experiences during the leadership election; Clarke did not (as you claim he did), but commented after the event (as the cite in the article makes clear) that Portillo's past had affected his leadership bid. Portillo himself seems not to have made any statements about LGBT himself, having only once referred to his own personal experiences. To claim that this incident, which is more than adequately covered in two sentences in the article, makes the article an LGBT subject, is about as reasonable as to claim that David Miliband should be included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink because of his banana-eating- with this difference: in Miliband's case WP:BLP would not be compromised, in the present case, it is.--Smerus (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
All those refs you deleted are from mainstream media sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Herald Scotland and The Independent - if they were libellous the articles wouldn't still exist over a decade later. They're not a BLP vio, and Portillo not having replied makes no difference to the fact that they were reported and affected his career. Many WP articles include things which are about an allegation. It is relevant, properly weighted and reliably sourced. How can you regard it as not being an LGBT issue, when it was publicised by the national, mainstream media and affected his career?
I didn't say that Clarke brought up the matter during the leadership election, I said that two sections of the article state that the issue was brought up by him and Tebbit - I didn't state when they did so.
Everyone eats food, so no-one would claim that is sufficient to make someone relevant to the Food and drink project. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

TV shows in infobox[edit]

The infobox listed two TV shows with Portillo, British Railway Journeys and Continental Railway Journeys. An editor has sought to add American Railway Journeys. The issue here is that the infobox is not a list; if it were there is a great number of additional programmes which could be added - they are mentioned in the article. The infobox should not seek to contain the entire article so there has to be some summary, in favour of the most notable issues concerned. Editors' opinions and comments are sought. --Smerus (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Great American Railroad Journeys is as notable as the two which are currently in the infobox. Moreover, it follows on from the other two. It makes no sense to omit the third in a trilogy of TV shows, each of which have roughly the same number of viewers and which are all broadcast by the BBC. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a tight limit on the number of TV shows listed in the infobox: one or two is best, three is just about OK; four would clearly be too many. But if we are going to select shows on grounds of notability we need some (reliable third party) evidence that one show is more notable than another. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It's clear that all three are of similar notability and popularity and that they are closely related. Each of the three is basically the same show made in different parts of the world. Jim Michael (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that a fourth show is being made as we speak, based in India [1]. Fortunately we don't have to face that fact immediately! For the moment I can see an argument for cutting down to the first show on the grounds that all later shows are in some sense derivative of that. What I really can't see is an argument for keeping the first two but not the third. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I expect that if there was a consensus to include the first two (GBRJ & GCRJ), it would have been before GARJ was broadcast. Jim Michael (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
OK my proposal based on the above is to include the following three shows as an indication of the variety involved: Great British Railway Journeys, This Week and Portillo's State Secrets, all of which are mentioned in the article. To simply list two, three (or four) of the Railways series misleads as to the scope of his work. Comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with Great British Railway Journeys and This Week, which are indeed representative of the range of his broadcasting. I can't see grounds for including Portillo's State Secrets which seems much less notable than the other two. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
OK I'd also be happy with just Great British Railway Journeys and This Week, can we get a consensus on that?--Smerus (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This Week (BBC TV series) is important enough to include, and it shows that Portillo has done notable work in political TV. Portillo's State Secrets shouldn't be included while it doesn't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
That looks like consensus to me so I have implemented it. Thanks all, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox proposal #2[edit]

Just throwing this out there. It's a mix of the current infobox and the one used on Churchill's article, as suggested above. I feel it does a good job of acknowledging Portillo's political career, without making it too prominent. APM (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

[EDIT: Have hidden infobox - appears there is an error within, which is screwing it up. A bit beyond my thinking, hope it can be resolved soon. APM (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)]
  • consensus on the present infobox was reached after extensive discussion. Is there consensus for starting this again? Smerus (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Astonishingly little on policy positions[edit]

I have reverted the tagging of the lead with cn for him being a Eurosceptic, but actually there is astonishingly little below the lead on his (pretty consistent) policy positions on anything. Now that we have sorted out what colour jacket he should wear in the infobox, I hope some of the passionate voices here will turn to improving the actual text of the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

His Brexit credentials are indeed anyway referred to in the article, (and I've added to them) so thanks for reverting the tag. I think the colour of jacket debate has exhausted me temporarily from adding much to the rest of the article :-) --Smerus (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)