Talk:Keir Starmer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

BLP and this page

Users editing this page should be mindful about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - where there is a false/disparaging claim about a person, and very good sources expressly identify the claim as false, we must clearly so state. We don't merely repeat the claim. Neutrality^talk 14:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is what was said has been largely distorted in the media and the hysteria surrounding the remarks. Keir Starmer made the charge that the buck stopped at the man in the top, responding to that hyperbole Johnson pointed out in that case the responsibility for failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville fell on his shoulders. It was a comment not necessarily a false claim, though it has been treated as such by some. The recent incident involving a group of protestors involved was a group of approximately 12 anti-vax protestors, the same group who attacked Michael Gove back in October 2021 [1] also making false claims of protecting paedophiles. The protestors are members of a group led by Piers Corbyn, including members of Momentum and are hardly the right wing thugs portrayed in the media. In addition, the comments linking Starmer and Saville have been circulating for years, it was just another insult to throw about.

I do wonder seriously that the whole section falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS and it would be better to remove it and to let the matter blow over before deciding what to include. In any case at the moment it spends more time talking about the earlier parliamentary incident and barely touches on any details of the incident itself. WCM_email 15:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with "the media" is not material. We follow what the sources say. And we follow WP:BLP (which you are in breach of). Neutrality^talk 15:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "the media" and my distrust, you're deliberately distorting my comment. The thrust of my comment concerned WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM and whether this section should be included at all. The benefit of being an encyclopedia is we can pause and reflect and not give into hysterical coverage of recent events. Whilst we don't generally prohibit the use of newspaper or news media outlets we have to be very careful with the use - especially in cases of WP:BLP. Especially with breaking stories the narrative can be distorted and often hang on the opinion of individual journalists. [2] identifies several of the protestors showing that my comment this was not the right wing group portrayed in early stories. It also confirms the point that the remark has been clarified to make a point about the hyperbole that the buck stops with the man at the top and not a false accusation. At the moment the article isn't neutral, in fact the section recently added is a classic example of a WP:COATRACK. I note you pointedly ignored the point the same group have made exactly the same accusations against others. WCM_email 15:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to add content about the nature of the mob, then I have no objection, assuming it is well-cited and appropriate weight. Neutrality^talk 17:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually suggesting per WP:NOTNEWS to remove the section. I also commented that the section you rewrote doesn't meet our neutrality policy in failing to describe what happened neutrally. WCM_email 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an interesting analysis of why BBC News chose to label Johnson's comment in relation to the failure to prosecute Savile as 'false' in The Spectator here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I read that yesterday, it is bizarre that even after the remark was clarified they are continuing to push the same narrative. Nothing to do with the current government announcement to end the BBC license fee of course. WCM_email 08:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Gossip columns typically are not considered reliable sources. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Not in the sense of supporting the translation of gossip into fact, no. But they can support the writer's opinion, and they can inform talkpage discussion, as here. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but using gossip columns to inform editorial discussions – even if they do not end up used as sources in the article – falls short of good practice. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a gossip column, it's an opinion piece and as such it can't be used for sourcing anything other than the author's opinion. However, yes it can be used to inform editorial discussion. WCM_email 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Your arguments for removing this seem to be based off reliable sources being wrong and yet you haven't provided any evidence of reliable sources stating this, just stated your opinion, which carries no weight. I'm not sure that it merits quite so much coverage as it currently does, but it is definitely DUE to include something about the allegations and the responses. The text here is very similar to what's included in Johnson's article which has received much more attention from editors and so I don't think that there are serious POV issues. I do wonder though whether this would be better dealt with in the DPP section as it relates to that period of Starmer's life. The allegations seem more serious and seem to have attracted more coverage than the incident outside parliament. SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope again my comments about removing this are not based off "reliable sources being wrong", my suggestion for removing it are based on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and why it is often better to wait and see when writing an encyclopedia rather than reporting a developing story as it happens. I'd make the same comment on the Johnson article. The coverage of this incident there and here is POV. The demonstration outside of Parliament were anti-vaxers not sovereign citizens ie left wing in origin led by Pier Corbybn the sources chosen to cite comments exist in one article and were speculation by a reporter not based on hard fact - a classic example of WP:CHERRY. Further, as I've shown were the same group that made exactly the same allegations of paedophilia sympathies against Michael Gove. It has been clarified by a No.10 spokesman that Johnson's remarks weren't so much an accusation, more of a reductio ad absurdum to Starmer's charge that the buck stopped at the top. This needs rewriting but any attempt to do so is being reverted with the comment "its sourced it most go in". WCM_email 16:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Personal life

In personal life, the following is mentioned

Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[157] from July 2017

I do not believe this to be the case, I believe Starmer is a pescatarian, which means he eats fish. My sources are as follows:

References

SleepyJoseph (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained edit

@Proxima Centauri, as you didn't provide an edit summary with this edit removing reliably sourced content, could you please explain your reason for it here. I think the context of his remark, as given in the source, will help readers evaluate it.

And perhaps, to save us all time and confusion, could you please do us the courtesy of providing a meaningful summary for every edit you make in future - per WP:ES. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There was non neutral wording. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, thanks. That edit was reverted though, and with an explanatory edit summary, so why didn't you adjust the content rather than removing it again, as suggested in the revert edit summary? As it is necessary context, and from the cited source, how do you suggest it be reworded to be neutral? And bear in mind what the Guardian source actually says: "In his closing pitch [prior to the elections], Starmer tried to move attention on from questions about him drinking a beer with colleagues in April 2021". Was the wording you removed ("In his closing address before the 5 May 2022 local elections, in an attempt to deflect attention from the 'Beergate' questions") that far removed from what the Guardian said? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

'Beergate' section needs to be removed

This section is clearly politically biased and has very likely only been added in an attempt to perpetuate this nonsense non-controverty that's been whipped up by the right-wing press. 2.83.13.2 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There might be an argument to reducing its size per WP:WEIGHT, but there's no justification in removing it entirely. It's sufficiently covered by reliable sources. — Czello 21:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned about WP:WEIGHT here as well. The sheer size of the section seems excessive. AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Also, the text should reflect the sources and say something like, "Conservative cabinet ministers accused Starmer of breaking mask mandates after a story about him appeared in the Conservative newspaper, the Daily Mail." Then we can discuss what happened and what his reply was. TFD (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure we should be accusing Starmer of trying to "deflect" in Wikipedia's voice. AusLondonder (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree the 'Beergate' section should be shortened or removed. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that it’s just been announced that he’ll be officially investigated by the police[3], so expect the section to grow a little bit in the weeks to come. — Czello 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Or even split off into a new article. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Given numerous editors above have expressed concern regarding this section, why would you add more material, regarding what Sadiq Khan thinks about the controversy? Rather than discussing here? AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a new development, relevant, and reliably sourced? Why would we not want to include that? If a consensus develops to shorten the section, then we'd have to decide how best to do that, of course. But either way, the solution is not to prohibit new content. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

And as said above, there is possibly an even bigger development on the way. This discussion is obsolete, I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

So you are the only person who believes the current cruft being placed in this section is appropriate; however you have declared the discussion obsolete and closed? Specifically on the Sadiq Khan content. What is the relevance to Starmer's bio article? AusLondonder (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@AusLondonder, no, I haven't declared anything, unlike others asserting things about a consensus here and in edit summaries on the article, I just gave an opinion, which is, I believe, what the talkpage is for. And no, not based on Khan's thoughts at all. Please re-read above. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I shortened the section drastically and removed material that is duplicated in the Beergate article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not need to be removed. That's like saying the Partygate section on the Boris Johnson should be removed, don't be so silly. Beergate is what Keir Starmer is in the papers and on the news for these days and it is likely to be that way for the foreseeable future. It's not political, it is about reporting facts.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why no article?

We have a lengthy article on Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Why is there no article on Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because no one hates him enough, or admires him enough, to be bothered to start one? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Local Elections

In the Election Results section there should be a sentence to mention of how Starmer was considered to have underperformed by many on the Labour left and wider public.

My sources for this are this Jacobin article, and this New Statesman article. I'm sure more could be found, but I feel this is enough for it to be relevant as both articles come from reputable left-of-centre British publications, and reflect broader opinion among many on the left and in Labour.

I had added one before but it was a bit irrelevant as I mainly focused on how Lib Dems outperformed in terms of net gains, so I don't think that is necessary, just a sentence explaining how a significant proportion of British people including in Starmer's own party were disappointed by the results.

Apricotjam (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP violations?

Dave souza, for the sake of clarity and knowledge sharing, can you please explain all of the BLP violations that you said this edit removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There have been further edits and clarifications since, that particular edit added context and overcame a couple of BLP problems in the article:

It previously used wiki-voice for the assertion "Starmer and other colleagues stopped work in the local Labour Party office', which was already contested as being a pause rather than a stop.

"At the time, most indoor social gatherings were banned" misses out the point that work events had an exception, so misleading.

"Durham Constabulary said they did not believe it showed evidence of any offence being committed" isn't what they said, and leaves "it" unexplained.

It said "police confirmed that ... they had launched a criminal investigation" but though that's the wording in the particular source cited, the source linked there shows the actual wording which doesn't mention "criminal". Other sources which you'd removed got it right.

In general, the wording was misleading as it lacked context shown in other sources. Think that's enough detail to assist clarity and knowledge sharing. . . dave souza, talk 16:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and there's the reason to keep edits small and provide a good summary for each. I've been called pedantic for some of my edits, but this one would take the biscuit, I think, as some/most of those are quite tenuous indeed, and where they were, marginally, valid, a very small tweak would have saved them. However, I think we might be beginning to understand where each other is coming from now, and I hope we might be able to start dramatically improving the NPOV status of the article quite soon. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

Citation needed for political has been described as on the soft left Mrcitation (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, as this is sourced in the "Political positions" section. The lead section itself doesn't necessarily need its own footnote, per MOS:LEADCITE. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons apology

Just a quick heads up, my edit which includes some basic facts about Mr Starmer’s apology to the Commons for false accusations of lying against Boris Johnson keeps being undone on the grounds that it carries undue weight and may be NPOV. However, considering that the highly charged and emotive “Johnson is a liar“ narrative which originated with his false accusations I think it’s highly relevant. Also,“ I’m a bit unsure as to why there is a charge of NPOV laid against the edit when it’s just reflecting the factual record reflected by numerous reputable sources. Finally, I’m a bit confused as to whether editors want me to re-edit the entry or remove it and if they want it removed (considering the above) why? Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Introducing a whole section based on a single, non-notable incident (with only one citation) is what would be considered WP:UNDUE. Truthfully I don't think it would even warrant a mention at all even in another section as the incident doesn't appear notable. — Czello 09:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It may be relevant to his career (and Johnson's) if Starmer alone started a "Johnson is a liar" narrative with this statement in February 2021, but the source you're offering doesn't say that. And it seems an unusual claim to make, when Johnson was sacked by Michael Howard in 2004 for lying, accused in 2019 of having lied to the Queen, etc. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

On this particular exchange, see the BBC: Johnson had made a false claim several times, on this occasion he got the number wrong and misleadingly implied it was a current policy, but was right that [in 2017] Starmer had [twice, not four times] spoken in favour of the EMA [pre-implementation of Brexit]. He didn't call Johnson a liar, but did say "the truth escapes him", and after the debate a Labour source said "Keir accepts that, on this occasion, the prime minister was referring to old comments about the European Medicines Agency and Keir admits he was wrong and made a mistake in his response", so the edit was apparently wrong to claim "Starmer publicly apologised in the House of Commons". The central point was Johnson's false claim that that membership of the EMA would have slowed down the UK's vaccine programme; the BBC by then had reported "the idea that Brexit enabled the UK to press ahead and authorise one is not right. It was actually permitted under EU law, a point made by the head of the UK's medicines regulator on Wednesday." Fast UK rollout of the vaccine was a creditable success among other failures, but got messed up with arguments so the main UK contribution failed, and by 7 October 2021 11 European countries had Covid vaccine rates higher than the UK. But never mind the facts, stick with the spin about the UK's 'lightening fast roll-out of its vaccination programme in early 2021". . . dave souza, talk 12:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Political positions

I was wondering about the relevance of citing Starmer's views from his 20s in the opening paragraph of the political positions as it doesn't seem to represent his current views: "Starmer wrote articles for the magazines Socialist Alternatives and Socialist Lawyer as a young man in the 1980s and 1990s. In July 1986, Starmer wrote in the first issue of Socialist Alternatives that trade unions should have had control over the "industry and community". He wrote in Socialist Lawyer that "Karl Marx was, of course, right" in saying it was pointless to believe a change of society could only be achieved by arguing about fundamental rights."

I was wondering if it would be more appropriate to place the first paragraph into the Early life and education section instead and leave the second paragraph of the section in political positions as it seems adequate in summarising his current views in my opinion: "In a January 2020 interview, Starmer described himself as a socialist, and stated in an opinion piece published by The Guardian the same month that his advocacy of socialism is motivated by "a burning desire to tackle inequality and injustice"; however, Starmer refused to characterise himself as a socialist in an interview with the i's Francis Elliott in December 2021. He has been described as being on the soft left, in continuity with former Labour leader Ed Miliband. Gavin Millar, a former legal colleague of Starmer's, has described his politics as "red-green", a characterisation Starmer has agreed with." Michaeldble (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Monarchist?

The article was in he British Monarchists category, I have removed this as because as far as I know he has never expressed that he is a monarchist and has several times been reported to be a Republican. Has anyone got any evidence otherwise? C. 22468 Talk to me 13:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know why the category exists. Presumably anyone who has never advocated a republican is a monarchist by default. TFD (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

References in the lead article

I think there should be references in the lead, specifically the sentence which says others describe him as soft left. This seems potentially contentious (at least to someone not familiar with british politics) and while it is referenced in the main body of the article, this isn't obvious and it would be useful to have the reference in the intro. This would merely assist readers find the source of this statement and wouldn't overly bog down the intro (as per the style guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations). Safes007 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

PC is a Postnominal and should be included in his name and bio box.

PC is a Postnominal and should be included in his name and bio box. 2600:1700:3A00:A0A0:51C:E33:8D0F:97F3 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

As the Leader of the Opposition, (change Starter to Starmer) has had a weekly slot at Prime Minister's Questions which he has used to quiz Conservative Prime Ministers Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak on the issues of the day. 77.98.167.75 (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Already done — hako9 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

‘Election candidate selection controversy’

@DeFacto and @Proxima Centauri , it would be helpful were you to discuss your changes and proposed changes here.

I don’t see why the first paragraph of this section should be included. It’s based on self published sources only and seems to be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.

The third paragraph is based on 1 source. These are also people who aren’t elected MPs — what relevance do they have to Keir Starmer? What reasons are there to include this? I also don’t see what grounds there are to label this a “controversy”. Asperthrow (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an ongoing controversy apparently caused by policies imposed by the party's leader, so is certainly relevant in this article. The section is as yet immature, and I agree that it would benefit from more content and more sources, specifically more secondary ones. Please feel free to provide new sources and to add to the content. Oh, and the source for the first paragraph isn't self-published, it was published by Tribune, a well known, and historically Labour-supporting, magazine. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Tribune isn’t a reliable source, nor do I imagine it’d be considered one in an RfC. The other source for the first paragraph is self-published. In my view, her opinion isn’t relevant to the general biography of Keir Starmer.

I don’t see grounds for labelling this a controversy, given the BBC makes no mention of that word, nor do I see why this section should remain in the article in its current state. Asperthrow (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asperthrow, there is only one source currently used in the first paragraph, and it is from the Tribune, and that is not self-published by the author of the piece being referenced. And, btw, I've just noticed that the same source had already been cited in the article anyway, and that there is another cite from Tribune also present in the article, so they seem to have already been accepted as reliable. However, if you have a doubt about the reliability of that publication, why not take it the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and get it tested?

What is your definition of the word "controversy"? I think that this public row between different factions of the Labour Party about the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the selection of election candidates would fit the normal definition of one.

If you don't like the state of the section, why not try to help improve it? There are plenty of sources available that cover the subject. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I tidied up the last paragraph to make it more neutral and more encyclopedic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should keep this section but I tidied it up anyway. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, please clarify what you mean by "tidied", and please list the wordings that you thought were not neutral in it. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@DeFacto The same source being cited previously in the article in fact does not mean it has been accepted as reliable, at least by my understanding. Every single article on their website is an opinion piece.

My definition of controversy is irrelevant, as is yours in my view. If sources don’t describe this as a controversy, let alone an ongoing controversy, I don’t think we can or should either. We follow, not lead.

I think the section has no place here until more sources are provided. A single BBC news article covering 3 people hardly warrants a 2-paragraph section purporting it to be a “controversy”. Asperthrow (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asperthrow, as for the Tribune source, it wasn't questioned the two previous times it was used, I was wondering why it is being questioned now. But if you feel strongly that it might not be trusted to reliably host the opinion-piece written by a co-chair of Momentum that it was being used to support, I'm sure we could get WP:RSN to help us decide. Do you support the removal of her opinion, here, with the reason "Schan isn't notable"?

English Wikipedia is written in, err, English, so when, for example, we are describing a controversy a "public discussion and argument about something that many people strongly disagree about, think is bad, or are shocked by",OALD, it's surely quite reasonable and acceptable to call it one, per WP:BLUE.

WP:VER requires that content is verifiable, and the BBC source adequately facilitates that, and I'm not so sure that any more are required, although there are plenty to choose from.

Where do you stand on the advice given in this policy statement, and as flouted in this edit? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly @Proxima Centauri and I agree Tribune and Schan are unreliable and not notable respectively. I support the removal of her opinion as an entire paragraph of this one person’s opinion isn’t relevant to the general biography of Keir Starmer.

Tribune publishes opinion pieces from a left-wing socialist perspective. Are you really suggesting that this in no way compromises its reliability, credibility, or ability to report neutrally?

No, I don’t think it’s reasonable to call this a controversy. You’ve provided a single source detailing allegations by 3 people. Hardly “many people” or a “controversy”. I don’t dispute the veracity of the BBC article; it simply isn’t enough to include this section.

I disagree with the edit. Asperthrow (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asperthrow, it's not enough to just 'agree' though, it'd be better if you could give a policy-based rationale to help us understand, and possibly be brought around to agreeing with, the reasons.

Per WP:BIASED, the fact that a source is biased (and most UK news media is biased) does not mean that it is unreliable. And why should the reporting of left-wing opinions reduce credibility? And The Guardian doesn't report neutrally, would you consider it to be unreliable too?

Okay you need more data to convince you it's a controversy, I'll see what I can do.

At least we agree on that edit though. :-) -- DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My rationale doesn’t need to be based in policy. It’s excessive coverage of one person’s not notable opinion.

I didn’t say the reporting from a left-wing perspective exclusively should compromise credibility; however it will compromise its ability to report neutrally on issues like this. The Guardian, especially Guardian blogs, can indeed be biased on political topics, as stated in WP:RSPSS. Asperthrow (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Angela Rayner is on the soft left and considers herself a socialist. Starmer chose her as deputy leader. Starmer has a broad churh of influencial MP's and only wants to avoid MP's so far left that they are out of touch with the ectorate. i feel the article should reflect this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, it's interesting that you think the article should reflect your personal opinion. Do you consider that alternate opinions to yours are mistaken? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you read the Angela Rayner article you will find evidence that Rayner is soft left and Starmer accepted her as deputy leader. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, so in what way do you think that this view of yours should be incorporated into the "Election candidate selection controversy" section? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

New article?

Given the number of problems, controversies, initiatives, scandals, etc. arising during Keir Starmer's leadership of the Labour Party, I propose we create a new article, "Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer", perhaps, similar to "Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn", to house the details about them, or should we continue to include them in this article, or put them somewhere else? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There’s certainly enough content to be spun off into a separate article. Feel free to create it and start moving things over (or however it works). Asperthrow (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is The National a reliable source?

@Proxima Centauri raised doubts over the reliability of the Scottish daily newspaper, The National, in this edit, reasoning that it has only existed since 2014 and isn't reliable. I couldn't find it flagged in WP:RSP or even mentioned in WP:RSN, or its archives. I did a quick search, and found that articles from the news section of its website are cited in more than 1000 other places in Wikipedia. What do we think? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The National (Scotland) has only existed since 2014 and isn't reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable whatsoever, especially on UK politics. It openly supports Scottish separatism. Asperthrow (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asperthrow, you are confusing reliability and neutrality. We know most news media is biased, but that does not imply that they are also unreliable. Read WP:BIASED to see the that. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If using it to attribute, say, an opinion on Scottish separatism, then maybe. The National is widely regarded as a “mouthpiece” for the SNP and consistently publishes tabloid opinion pieces. I wouldn’t use it for facts.

Even if citing it to demonstrate an opinion, there are likely better sources which could demonstrate it more effectively. Asperthrow (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It is reliable and the writer is an established journalist.[4] If party support was a bar, then we would have to exclude almost all the major UK publications. TFD (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this more encyclopaedic?

Does anyone agree with the edit summary on this edit - that This is more encyclopedic? I'd prefer to see the verbatim quotes for this particular content, per WP:QUOTEUSE. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer the quotes too (not to mention the previous edit was better written). — Czello 13:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer needed in the lead

Would be a helpful inclusion to the lead to have a link to this article, alongside mentions of notable parts of his tenure as Labour leader. The lead for Jeremy Corbyn has this, why doesn't Starmer's? A lot has happened since the 2020 Labour Party leadership election in April, and the lead should reflect that. 79.66.89.173 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why the prime minister, in the infobox?

Why are prime ministers listed in the opposition leader's infobox? The leader of the opposition is not a member of the prime minister's cabinet. I noticed this, throughout all the UK opposition leaders' bios. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's relevant information? I would support including leader of the opposition in the PMs' infoboxes too. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree the leader of the opposition should be added in the PMs' infoboxes too. --79.66.89.173 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Soft left

The lede states that Starmer is "soft left". In the body, the claim is repeated, with citations to a paper by authors I'm unfamiliar with, to The Guardian, and to Labour List. The text doesn't mention whose opinions are being expressed.

It's not clear what the paper's authors would consider "hard right" or "hard left", nor whether they mean "soft left" in Labour terms, or in general. Neither Zoe Williams of The Guardian nor Neal Lawson at Labour List are reporters, they are columnists; they are not therefore [[WP:RS]]. They are also both Labour members, who wouldn't dream of describing their leader as "right wing" just as he's conducting a purge of socialists.

I'd like to simply delete this claim, especially from the lede. It's opinion, not fact.

Failing that, I'd like the claim to be accompanied by the names of the writers whose opinion is being cited; whether he's "soft left" or not is an opinion, not a fact, and it matters whose opinion. By naming the opinion-holders, we can also express the claim in the active voice, rather than the passive and weak "has been described" terms that currently appear. [Edit] E.g. we could say something like "Zoe Williams of The Guardian has said that Starmer is soft left". That would be a lot more encyclopaedic. But I'd want to delete that too, on the principle of "So what?"

With regard to the paper, none of the authors seem to have wikipedia entries, so I don't think their opinions are notable. So I think this reference should be deleted anyway.

MrDemeanour (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Authors of academic sources having Wikipedia entries is not a requirement for references on Wikipedia. We should avoid using opinion columns as sources as the main references for material, but I don't think there's a problem with using academic sources. It's not the only description of Starmer in academic sources, but we should be looking to add more to contextualise rather than removing adequately sourced material altogether. Ralbegen (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Francis Elliott

His quote from the i says: "...and ensure that you know, we give people both opportunity and support as they needed."

I think the quote is vacuous and insubstantial verbiage, and not worth wasting reader's time. Also, Starmer is careful with words; the quote is ungrammatical, and I imagine Starmer actually said "...as they need it". Or maybe "...as they're needed". At any rate, I don't see the point in including a quote that can't be parsed.

I think the paragraph depending on that article should be deleted.

MrDemeanour (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph gives undue prominence to a newspaper interview. Cutting it off after "socialist" and adding it to the end of the preceding paragraph which is already about Starmer's identification with socialism would be one way of cutting it down. Ralbegen (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

IPA of First Name

Is the IPA transcription /kɪər/ of his first name correct? I've always heard it pronounced /kiːr/ on the news etc.

78.144.121.49 (talk) 78.144.121.49 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. The current one is wrong. Will change it now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It was correct before. The IPA a) has to match Help:IPA/English (which uses /ɪər/ for "NEAR") and b) is intended to be a broad phonemic representation. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You're correct, my mistake. I was reading ɪ and ə individually and hadn't noticed the ɪər. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong

Balance again

In the third paragraph of the Leadership of the Labour Party section of this article, I think a lot of this para is WP:UNDUE. For context:

Starmer's leadership has been controversial within the party; it has been charged with the allegedly unfair treatment of leftist Labour members, including the blocking of leftist candidates in local elections. The Labour Party lost almost 100,000 members during 2021, which The Independent stated "coincides with growing discomfort with Keir Starmer’s leadership among the left wing of the party". He has also been criticised for allegedly failing to respond to anti-black racism and Islamophobia within the party, as identified in the 2020 Forde Report commissioned by Starmer and conducted by Martin Forde KC. It accused the party of operating "a hierarchy of racism or of discrimination" in which certain forms of racism and abuse were not taken as seriously as others. The Starmer leadership officially published the report in 2022. Black Labour MPs have condemned the party's response to the problems raised in the report.

I was under the impression that this section of the article was meant to serve as a summary of his leadership, including only the most important parts, with the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer picking up on the more niche issues. Although this para is verifiable, it is already covered (in great depth) on Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer. Clearly none of these issues are 'front page' issues or have dominated his leadership. I believe we are giving undue weight to most of these issues. What are people's thoughts? Michaeldble (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Not a vegetarian

Keir Starmer is not a vegetarian and has never been vegetarian (he has always eaten fish). The source on the article that claims Starmer is vegetarian is from 2017 [5]. There are more recent and reliable sources describing Starmer's breakfast preference for fish [6], [7] and a reference describing him as a pescetarian [8]. I believe the incorrect 2017 source should be removed from the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with this rationale to exclude. Just because a lot of people (still, and incorrectly) use the term "vegetarian" when describing pescetarians doesn't mean we should in Wikivoice. I would support including the pescetarian claim with reference if others think this is worthy of inclusion. – GnocchiFan (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)