Talk:John Prescott/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Photograph

We need a new photograph as the one that's there gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size. AllanHainey 14:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed - Is there any place where we can post image requests on WP? I know a few articles that could do with some new images. - Hahnchen 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I was going to say Wikipedia:Requested pictures & request a pic for this article, but I see you've got there before me. AllanHainey 08:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

can't you just place them here???

Uploaded a new image, it's under Crown Copyright, but it's better than fair-use at least, and I can't see us getting hold of a completely GFDL-compatible image any time soon. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

One funny guy

I ended up on this article after reading [1]. I was looking for why he had lost his power and it looks like its because of fighting in public. In the course of reading the article, I couldn't help laughing sometime. Like, who would use a car to travel 300 yards? I once saw "The gods must be crazy 2" and there was a dude who delivered a mail from his house to a mail box outside on a car and I thought, this has to be a joke, nobody do that. Now, it looks like I was all wrong.

His sentences construct look like a google translation. Is English his first language or what is the hypothesis behind it? Is it always like that, or is it only when he is under pressure? I am aware this a risky topic for me considering my English skills aren't that good, but ....

He is a (unintentionally) funny guy, actually there's a lot of stuff that isn't on the article yet (Greenpeace camped out on his roof & tried to install a solar panel, various comments & 'Bushisms', his comments to a Welsh journalist, etc). It's hard to believe from his Witham comments but English is his 1st (& only, I believe) language. I think he tends to get worse when he's under pressure but he does make a lot of funny mistakes & misuse of grammer/syntax/words. See wikiquote for a few of these. AllanHainey 09:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

He is also prone to a diminished sensibility in his speech (right?) when he hasn't had it prepared and checked and the lines double spaced. Probably because he is dyslexic or something like that. Rdog 10:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up grammar

“and well known for his habit of speaking in which he often uses a confusing syntax.”

Given that we’re referring to the guy’s dodgy grammar, this needed cleaning up. A habit of speaking? Don’t we all have one of them? Changed it to:

“and is well known for the mangled syntax that he often employs whilst speaking”.

You might find the word ‘mangled’ a bit harsh and slang-like but I thing it’s more appropriate than ‘confusing’. It’s usually clear enough what he’s talking about, even if it looks odd transcribed. Bombot 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Mangled fits best hereAlci12 16:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Morality

• The following quote was added by an anon, but feels like a judgement on Prescott's "morality" which this isn't the place for. Wikiquote? Deizio 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

From John Prescott's 1996 Labour Conference speech:

"Morality is measured in more than just money. It's about right and wrong. We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people. We've had enough lies. Enough sleaze."

How can that be a judgement on Prescott's morality - they are his own words?

New entry

Absolutely 100% Prescott--The Guardian ran an article on this on Thursday April 27. If he didn't want it to be in a public record like wikipedia, he should never have said it. Quotation has been reinstated.

current event

hi all - i removed the current tag because the article really doesn't document a current affair - his affair is really not going to impact the article much whatever the outcome - and it all being forgotten in a day or two is the most likely.... Petesmiles 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I disagree. The papers are having a field day - it's on the front page of at least five (as of today). Also, there is an ongoing investigation into whether or not prezza misused his ministerial allowances... I don't think this one is finished just yet! Oliver Keenan 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

""

Can someone sort out the quoatation marks on the following:

Barrie Williams, 46, currently Miss Temple's partner told the Daily Mirror: "I feel sick. I can't believe the woman I wanted to marry has slept with John Prescott. "I feel sorry for Mr Prescott's wife because, like me, I'm sure she had no idea what was going on he added.I've been betrayed by one of the most powerful men in the UK."

I havn't read the article in the Mirror so i don't know where they are meant to go. Wright123 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

I've punctuated one of his quotes properly. Whilst it does still contain some mangling of grammar, it does actually make a lot more sense with the right punctuation (you'll note I didn't change a letter, just added dots, commas, question marks, brackets and stuff). I don't think removing punctuation from hesistant and broken speech entirely represents it fairly. If there's an audio version available it would be interesting to see where the pauses are, and whether the things that look like questions (rhetorical or not) actually are voiced as such. Morwen - Talk 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

POV tag on affair section

The affair section seems to my reading to conflate unproven rumour with absolute fact, particularly in totting up 'official' counts for the number of Prescott's dalliances etc. Fact is fact, rumour is rumour, we're only interested in the former here. Badgerpatrol 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have taken some steps in this regard, but I note that some of the claims are supported only by links to obviously partisan blogs and the like. These are not suitable sources- not because they are partisan (although neutral sources are always ideal) but rather because they are blogs. Anyone here can post their thoughts on the web- that doesn't make them true. Badgerpatrol 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As the only links now on this matter are to bona-fide news sources, I think the POV tag might be removed. I have also deleted a lot of the lubricous stuff and irrelevancies like the opinions of the secretary's boy-friend.--Smerus 12:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree- I've rm'ed the banner. Badgerpatrol 12:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Two Jags/Two Jabs/Two Shags/Two Shacks/No Jobs

Is it completely inappropriate to have 3 sub-headings covering these? I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't be fun to read. I'll add them and people can remove if they really object. Kayman1uk 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have just removed the "No Jobs" in the "Benefits Controversy" header. The comment is unsourced. If we can find a source we can add it back in. Kayman1uk 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"No Jobs" has miraculously reappeared with no source. I'm taking it out again. Now sourced. Nowhere near as good as the others, but should stay. Has been quoted by the Telegraph and the Mirror.Kayman1uk 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Also adding back in "Two Shags". Dmn said that it "seemed inappropriate" but given that I was positively encouraged to use the word 'f*ck' on the Ian McKellen page (due to wikipedia's No Censorship policy), I really can't see why "Shag" is causing a problem. It's a correctly sourced comment and was mentioned on Have I Got News For You, BBC Question Time and in multiple tabloids.

I feel like taking an unusual moral stand, so I'm going to put "Two Shags" back in. If anyone wants to argue properly against it, feel free. Kayman1uk 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A careless edit (hopefully not mine) has removed the "No Jobs" section so that it doesn't appear as a header. Fixed. Kayman1uk 12:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not Encyclopedic material - and really shouldn't be in here - or, at the very least, treated as trivia. 147.114.226.172 08:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

'No Jobs' added back: Here are just some of the "No jobs" sources: [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] ]32.106.49.60 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Independent source is good enough - I'll add it back when I've finished another edit Im doing. BlueValour 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Its up now. BlueValour 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why the source is so important to you; with a choice from Telegraph, Mirror, BBC, Independent etc. Does it matter?

PM box for the DPM?

Although the box to show Prescott's leadership dates and the like is a nice addition to the page, it shows him as being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I guess that we need a new, slightly altered template. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a template for MP's details? Each Wikipedia page on an MP seems to have a different custom made box of details. Matthewfelgate 11:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Deputy PM

Moved the mini-essay on the role of the Deputy PM from the intro and then beefed it up a bit. Kayman1uk 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is still lacking in detail about policy

We should aim to include more on his activities on planning permission, since he actually seems to have done quite a lot there. I'll do some research. If that makes the article too long then we can make a sub-article on "Prescott's controversies". Kayman1uk 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit 19:54, 17 June 2006 by 217.44.43.247

I have corrected another spelling mistake in this. The edit contributed no new information; the material added is already in the article. It is a question of whether it is right that the material repeated should be in the article header. I will leave it to others to decide that. Viewfinder 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I have reverted edits by John Hustings who seeks to replace Prescott's picture with another which I feel is not appropriate [6]. Although this seems to be vandalism (see similar changes made by the same user to George Galloway) it is not clear cut enough for me to continuously revert it without violating 3RR. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought John Hustings picture was much better also the old picture gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size. Rastishka

Did you really? Well I am surprised. Nevertheless, the copyright status of the image is uncertain. I have left a note on John's talk page- whatever we think of the image, if it is a potential copyvio then it can't go in. Badgerpatrol 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please - let us keep the lead pictures neutral. They should not be used for the purposes of sneaky POV pushing. The use lower down in articles, with appropriate captions and sources, may not be inappropriate. Viewfinder 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we name the women involved - RW and NW (this abbreviation shouldn't be libellous). Anyone interested can visit the most prominent political blog and find out the names anyway...

Also, the allegations about RW are covered on her entry on WP.

First Secretary of State

I have managed to track down this source which lists John Prescott with the title FSOS in October 2001. If anyone can find the exact date he gained the title, please list it here. Thanks. Road Wizard 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How annoying. I posted the original link to Dod’s Parliamentary Communications (here), which had a really good bio of JP and they've made it one of their subscriber-only articles. I suppose all the controversy made him more valuable to them. In any case, as noted in the article, he must have received the FSOS title when he lost the super-department title in 2001. That would have been in the July 2001 reshuffle, as noted in the select committee research notes attached here.

Incidentally, this link also contains a list of everything JP (supposedly) currently does. Might be useful info for expanding the acticle. Kayman1uk 07:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected some of the details in the article about the ODPM and also removed the phrase that the title FSoS was purely honorific. As he had control of a (very) small department carrying out ministerial functions, his acquisition of the title seems as valid as any other Secretary of State.

As a second point, I have also removed the reference to Dod’s Parliamentary Communications as it now seems to be an advert for a commercial website.

Finally a note of cautioin should be made in using that PDF you linked to as it contains a factual error. At one point it says that the ODPM was created in July 2001, but then goes on to say:

Following the reshuffle of June 2003, the department of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed from the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. John Prescott remained Deputy Prime Minister.

I think this should have probably said June 2001 as that was when the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was split up. Road Wizard 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was May 2002 - Transport, Local Government and the Regions were a department for about a year. I recall the ODPM was created out of the breakup of that one. Timrollpickering 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done some further research since I left my original post, and have identified the correct time line. The ODPM was created from the breakup of the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in June/July 2001. The Environment portfolio went to the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, whilst the Transport and most of the Region portfolios went into the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The ODPM was created as a sub-department of the Cabinet Office with responsibility for the remaining sections of the Regions portfolio. With the breakup of the DTLR in May 2002, the ODPM absorbed the entirety of the Local Government and Regions portfolios and became a separate department independent of the Cabinet Office. John Prescott would have gained the FSoS title in the cabinet reshuffle of June 2001 when he was moved from DETR to ODPM. Road Wizard 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical problems

Rhetorical is more precise than oral:

oral [áwrəl] adj

3. spoken: existing in spoken form as distinct from written form

rhetorical [ri tórrik’l] adj

2. of effective use of language: relating to the skill of using language effectively and persuasively

Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TerriersFan 23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contraray, I was going by the Wikipedia definitions (from Wiktionary):

Retoric

1. The art of using of language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.

Oral

1. Relating to the mouth. 2. Spoken rather than written.

The former is making a judgement on Prescotts ability to persuade, whereas the latter makes the more accurate description of his Oral problems. Matthewfelgate 12:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is making a judgement; that is what the paragraph is all about. As a compromise I have now used the term 'speaking'. TerriersFan 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Good move. Matthewfelgate 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Sex related categories

Re edits by User:Zargulon. OK, "adultery" and "sex scandal" are not exactly the same, but there is considerable overlap. I do not think an adultery category is appropriate. It could capture a vast number of people and, imo, damage public opinion of Wikipedia. Are we going to list Lloyd George and Karl Marx in it? If not, then why John Prescott? If so, then why not create a "sinners" category and a "perverts" category? If adultery becomes a scandal then it will be covered by "sex scandal". I do not want an edit war so I will cool it for now, but I would appreciate comment on this from more experienced Wikipedians. Viewfinder 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with you, it is wholly uencyclopedic to go down the News of the World/Mail on Sunday alley. Philip Cross 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disrespect tabloid journalism as much as you guys, I'm sure. But this is an historically and culturally interesting and valuable category. Of course Lloyd George and Marx should be included (if the affair is documented), but it is a little much to expect me to have put every recorded adulterer in existence in the cat within a few hours of forming it. Sinners and perverts represent a value judgement, whereas adulterers does not. Zargulon 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue goes beyond John Prescott and is best continued, if necessary, on User:Zargulon talk page. Btw it is well documented that Lloyd George and Marx fathered illegitimate children by mistresses outside long term marriages. Viewfinder 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adulterers for ongoing discussion about this issue. Viewfinder 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed article split

I am proposing to split this article, spinning off 'Controversies and incidents' to its own page. The article is now longer than its optimum length. More importantly, though, the 'Controversies and incidents' section (which is both fun and encyclopaedic) is starting to dominate the article making the more 'serious' parts of the biography harder to navigate. May I have any views, please? TerriersFan 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some attention, but I don't think the best approach is to create an article called, "John Prescott: Controversies and incidents" or anything similar. In general "criticism of..." articles are a rather bad idea, they allow all the negative information to be removed from the main article and ultimately tend to prevent us from reaching our ideal, a neutral point of view. A "Controversies and incidents" type article is rather likely to develop along these lines. I advocate the following: first remove the section "Controversies and incidents" and merge the information into the body of the article, specifically into the "Deputy Prime Minister" section in chronological order. Then second, if any section is too long extract it to make a new article (the Tracey Temple affair may merit it's own article, as may the 2001 General Election debacle). Anything that is removed in this way should be replaced with a suitably modified intro section from the new article. Andreww 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these considerative thoughts. I am not enthusiastic about filtering the incidents chronologically into the article since, because the timelines overlap, this could result in a splintering of the accounts. I agree with you on the need for NPOV. However, the present section has that problem. What are needed are some positive incidents to provide balance but I have not found these easy to find. I also agree that 'John Prescott: Controversies and incidents' is not NPOV. I therefore am proposing to call the new article 'John Prescott - specific events'. This will allow the inclusion of 'good news' events. I also intend the preamble: 'John Prescott is a serious politician who has attained a series of high government offices and is a heavyweight figure in Labour Party politics. However, he has been involved in a number of incidents that have caused controversy and widespread public interest.'. TerriersFan 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the controversies and incidents are dominating the article. I agree that they should be split off. Wikipedia is meant to be primarily a source of information, not entertainment. More about the career of Mr Prescott that has not made entertaining tabloid headlines might be a good idea. Viewfinder 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now carried out the split, the new article being John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a split. All it does is "sanitise" the main article. An objective article requires that all the controversies be included here and not hidden away in a separate article. The facts might reflect badly on Prescott but that is for the reader to decide. Lancsalot 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the sadly wasted AfD, I have proposed a re-merge between the two articles. Note that I don't have a serious problem with how the split was done, nor with any of the editors concerned, but I just don't feel that this split is appropriate or presents an improvement to the article. Badgerpatrol 00:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article split is quite useful. One can skim the contentious events in the bulletted list and see any or all by clicking on one of them. Why do you think merging it back into the article would be more advantageous? TransUtopian 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the information is properly transcluded, it will be possible to navigate it in exactly the same way using the contents listing (although for my part I am not sure that it is advisable to list the controversial events in such a stark way- I actually think that this is what has led to some of the current problems). The summary that is currently in John Prescott is not sufficient; bullet points lists are not great stylistically and do not properly articulate the events which they aim to describe. Most importantly, I simply cannot see how splitting the articles can satisfy NPOV. Currently John Prescott contains little information on the kinds of controversies which have come to define his ministerial career, whilst John Prescott: Contentious events is (in style if not in intent) an attack page. Basically, there was no reason for the split; the failings in the page (which were, at the time, manifest but not overwhelming) can only be addressed through careful and well-referenced edits. It is simply not necessary (the article was nowhere near the size where a split was required for length reasons) nor parsimonious to split one mediocre article into two bad ones. There was no proper consensus for the split, and a reasonable majority of those adding to the AfD discussion are in favour of the merge. Badgerpatrol 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge. (Discussion & not a vote, but it helps to summarize. :) Your statement about how it's an attack page in style if not in intent is well taken. While the theory (see the Proposed article split section above) was to include positive events as well, it wasn't leaning that way.

I agree that integrating them into a timeline would be unwieldy if some events overlap. Having separate sections for each event makes them more coherent. However, I no longer believe that a separate article for the controversies surrounding John Prescott is necessary or preferred to satisfy NPOV, and that the article could be balanced with good editing. It'd be long, but lots of articles about prominent, especially modern politicians are long, accounting for their impact, the amount of easily accessible, verifiable data, and the interest invested in them.

It seems from the short conversation above and the AfD that the split was largely uncontested primarily due to lack of discussion/interest. Hopefully the merge template at the top of the article will persuade more to give their views so it'll be more of a consensus. I'd say the AfD was more "no consensus" than a clear consensus to merge. TransUtopian 03:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I'm genuinely not sure. These are all interesting; but this article on the controversies is, and has to be, longer than the main article. (And this is not just that he's messed up often; it is that these stories need more detail.) These are a lot of little incidents; putting them back might be undue weight. JCScaliger 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate. I see no pressing reason to merge these articles. I understand that they were separated due to the former 'controversies' section dominating the main article, a problem as JCScaliger rightly says is only going to get worse. The hope is that the slimmed down main article might attract an editor who is prepared to do a job of work on it. I think that we should leave things as they are, for the time being, to let the split articles settle down and see if this hope is realised.

I don't buy the 'attack article' approach. Certainly it is no more an attack article than Criticism of Tony Blair, for example. The title allows for some 'good news' stories to be included. If an editor considers that the article is too negative then the opportunity is there to research and include some contentious incidents where Prescott has done well.

If anyone wishes to press the merge then I think a good approach would be to work up a draft in their sandbox to show what it would look like. BlueValour 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Remain as two articles - nothing has changed since I split the article. Both articles need a lot of work but that won't happen until the uncertainty is ended. Since the article split we have had an extended AfD and now the merge proposal. TerriersFan 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And, to reiterate, the AfD strongly supported a merge. The daughter article is, and always will be, inherently POV. There is no escaping it. Badgerpatrol 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tag - this article has had this tag hanging on it for well over 2 months with no sign of a concensus or any real enthusiasm for the merger. BlueValour 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have inititated the semi-protection of this page because of regular IP vandalism. Please leave a message here if you consider, at a future point, that the protection should be lifted. BlueValour 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Retirement Section

The article reads that Prescott will stand down at the same time as Blair. It then says party members want him to stand down at the same time????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxton (talk • contribs)

Fixed, thanks. TerriersFan 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between standing down at the same time as Tony Blair stands down as party leader and at the same time as Tony Blair stands down as Prime Minister, if he stands down at the same time as Tony Blair stands down as Prime Minister then this means that the elections for Leader and Deputy Leader will be held on 2 seperate days adding to the amount of cost, if he stands down as Deputy Leader at the same time as Tony Blair then the elections will be on the same day meaning that they will get sent out in the same envelopes saving Labour money, especially because of a shortage of Labour funds many party members think the 2 elections should be on the same day, he can stand down as Deputy Leader and Deputy Prime Minister on the same day because there is actually no need of a post of Deputy Prime Minister, an incoming Labour PM can appoint someone else other than the Deputy Leader to the role or simply not have such a role, in fact the role of Deputy Prime Minister is unofficial with John Prescott's actual only officially defined role being as First Secretary of State whereas f course the role of PM is vital and normally the party leader is the PM.--Lord of the Isles 09:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

I'm not a Prescott fan, but this article seems to overly emphasize criticism of Prescott. Bwithh 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you consider that the article is too critical then the best way forward is to add some positive material about his successes. I spun off the 'Controversies' section to a separate article because it was dominating too much. If those who want the articles merged have their way then this article really will look critical! However, I don't accept that the article fails NPOV. NPOV requires The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views.; if there are no conflicting views, that is all views are in one direction, then there is no NPOV issue. The fact that this article is critical of Prescott is only a NPOV problem if positive views/events had been ignored or if a sourced positive response to one of his difficulties had not been included. I do not believe this to be the case so I have removed the NPOV tag. As I said at the start, please feel free to add any positive sources that you are aware of that are missing. TerriersFan 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is spurious, I think. So you are saying that in John Prescott's near-decade as one of the most senior figures in one of the (in objective terms) most successful governments of all time he has done nothing positive whatsoever? That is, of course, ludicrous. Statements like "Prescott pursued an integrated public transport policy, with little evident success." (no reference, of course) are blatantly not NPOV. (In fact, that single sentence is the only one relating to Prescott's involvement with transport policy). We have nothing about the environment portfolio whatsoever- one might suspect because much of it (i.e. Kyoto) might actually reflect favourably on Prescott. One would have to blind to suggest that Prescott has been a success as DPM etc- it simply isn't the case- but I think we can do better than parrotting the (often salacious and usually specious) witch hunt perpetrated by elements of the press (I note that 7 out of 9 newspaper references (and we require much more by way of citations in general) are from The Sun, The Telegraph and The Times). I have substituted the NPOV tag for a general clean-up one- regardless of what one's stance on the POV issue, I think that surely nobody can argue against the notion that this article, in its current iteration, is crap, and requires a LOT of work. Badgerpatrol 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete agreement with Badgerpatrol - much of the critisism is based on parrotting gutter headline journalsim of the worst kind. The article split is a good start 147.114.226.172 15:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The way forward, rather than removing sourced material, is to add sourced material that shows Prescott in a good light or illustrates his achievements. TerriersFan 18:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - just because material is 'sourced' does not make it relevant.

Adding more and more rubbish is not going to improve the quality of this article. Perhaps nicknames such as 'Two Jags' or 'Two Jabs' etc is relevant in an article entitled 'John Prescott and the tabloid press' - but not in a serious article like this one *should* be.

Perhaps someone can explain why 'Two Jags' is considered Encyclopedic content?

I don't care about showing 'Prezza' in a good light, a bad light, or whatever - but an Encyclopedia article should present points of serious interest, not make schoolboy jibes, even if they are 'sourced' from the red-tops. 147.114.226.172 08:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

...in comination with judicious editing and pruning to maintain editorial balance and the appropriate style. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Two Shags and Two Jags nicknames certainly have been very much in use by the media and so to mention that these were some of his nicknames would not be NPOV even though they are a negative spin by the media about him, there is an element of truth in that he has admitted an affair with Miss Temple and he certainly does end up using a number of vehicles although in fairness most ministers do and to some extent they are stuck with what the civil service provides. I did see a picture of him once on a bicycle although promoting some kind of scheme to encourage people to take to bicycles, there is no doubt that he has made great efforts in government - Regional Government has had mixed fortunes in that while it still exists he totally failed to move it to the fully elected lines he intended, although it is partly the fault of Tony Blair for not going for a more holistic approach to constitutional reform although it has to be said that constitutional reform in the UK has always been on a somewhat ad-hoc basis, other than this the Strategic Rail Authority is being woundup and the new structure has more to do with his successors, the Integrated Transport Commission though is still going, the yellow buses he brought in are apparently being scrapped although in a sense this is achievements of his being undone after he lost control of responsibility for those areas, so it's certainly been mixed and for Tony Blair and before him John Smith his major use until the last 2 years had always been to persuade Labour rank and file to accept modernisations, he has had more of a party political use for Tony Blair than a directly ministerial use.--Lord of the Isles 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

And of course the claim by Paddy Ashdown (oft repeated since) that John Prescott had said that "The Green Belt is Labour's Greatest achievement and I intend to build on it" - in a sense that was NPOV but it was NPOV by one of his political rivals, a party leader and MP no less so to mention it (I have no idea whether it has been mentioned or not in the past in this article) as being something that had been said of him would be alright although to say it was true would be NPOV, whether it should be mentioned or not is another matter.--Lord of the Isles 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo needed

The powers-that-be on Wikipedia seem to be objecting to official government photos of British politicians being used on Wikipedia as Crown Copyright is not a sufficiently free license. Apparently they are readily replaceable with free images. Not that I can find any. So here's the challenge people. If John Prescott (or one of his colleagues) is going to be in your area and you have a spare minute, grab your digital photos and get snapping! Hopefully we'll get a new photo soon. All efforts appreciated.WJBscribe 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Free image of Prescott found. Will have to do for now, I guess. Clearest view of him in photo is overhead screen. Makes him look like 'Big Brother' from 1984! WJBscribe 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Prezza

Hi. There's an Italian town called "Prezza". On January 28, an editor moved the article about that town to Prezza (Italian town), and made Prezza a redirect to this article. That may have been correct, as it's possible that John Prescott's nickname is much more important than a small town in Italy, but because the move was done without discussion, creating a good handful of broken links, I've started a move request at Talk:Prezza (Italian town), for the purpose of gauging whether the move was appropriate.

Lest anybody get the wrong idea, I'm not supporting the move, nor am I trying to steal Mr. Prescott's nickname. I'm just entirely unfamiliar with the nickname, and want to be sure the Prezza article is as it should be before changing a bunch of links that may have to change back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either should really have preference. I have made Prezza a dab page to both. The vast majority of links to "Prezza" were Italian geographical items. -- Beardo 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Death

Apparently he has died (05 June 2007). Can anyone confirm this?

It was not reported on the BBC 11 p.m. news, so evidently he is still alive. It was reported that he has pneumonia. Viewfinder 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Offices

As he never occupied offices as the "former deputy prime minister" or as the "former first secretary of state" then there is no sense in listing these as his offices in the infobox. Whilst I understand the reasoning behind this edit, the 'dates in office' show that he is a former minister. --MC 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

John Prescott: Contentious events

An editor should please stop removing the summary of this article. If anyone wants to summarise the subsidiary article in a better form that is fine but it must be summarised and that has not been done. I agree that the bulleted form is stylistically poor but the alternative is a more detailed prose summary not its removal. BlueValour 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"The green belt is a Labour achievement; and we intend to build upon it."

I have added a {{Fact}} tag to this quote. He is alleged to have said it, but the reference given in Hansard is to a Conservative MP quoting him as having said it, without any independent verification. All the other references I've found have been of other people saying that he said it, but I've never seen an original source of the quote. Is it a (politically motivated) urban myth? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in his book Prezza he admits to having said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.66.223 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulimia

This BBC News article discusses Prescott's battle with bulimia nervosa, which I can't remember being mentioned in the press or elsewhere before. It refers to an article in today's Sunday Times, which presumably reveals more details. Despite the temptations of WP:BOLD, I would rather somebody else with WP:BLP writing experience add this. Hassocks5489 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his memoirs are going to be serialised in the Sunday Times in May, so more details will be available then. Link to Sunday Times piece. Hassocks5489 (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is too short!

I have just finished reading the Prescott article here and I am disgraced by how short it is. It needs filing out a bit more - unlike the man himself! Furthermore, I feel that his affair and other activities such as the egg-punch incident should be highlighted more as well.

Oh come on! The "two jabs" section is perfectly adequate coverage of what was a two-days wonder. Any expansion would be grossly POV. -- Arwel (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is too short on his actual job, status, history and functions as a government minister. There is ample coverage of his "mistakes" and such, which, in my view, take too much presidence in the article.

Fair point; but is there actually much to say, substance-wise?

Indeed - good point.

---

John - ok, i dont know how to work out this wikipedia discussion thing, but how does this Evans get "floored" as stated from the wikipedia article? from the video, he wasn't even knocked down by John Prescott. In fact, they both traded a punch or two and Evans was choking John Prescott until the Police came and grabbed him. Should that line be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.204.109 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

1938?

His birthdate is 1938? I thought he would be younger. 78.148.194.109 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been an MP for almost 40 years, why would he be younger? (92.14.193.82 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

He, David Owen and David Steel were born within weeks of each other.

Are there any other examples of 'politicians attacking non-politicians' (ie not duels and other 'particular contexts')? Are there enough to create a subsidiary list on the legislative violence page? ('In the context' Prescott was reacting to a perceived threat.) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes

Is it worth mentioning that Prezza is a diabetic? I read it in the UK diabetic magazine. No doubt due to his immense weightage! lol

No, it's not worth mentioning!

Welsh

Should he really be introduced as a "Welsh" politician? Although he was born in Wales he moved to Yorkshire when he was four. If we consider him Welsh presumably we also need to consider Alistair Darling an "English" politician as he was born in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem within the British Isles and the United Kingdom. Legally, anyone born in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland has British nationality; but some think it appropriate to emphasise the specifics. There is no consensus within WP as to how British people should be described, and of course it leads to endless warring. There does seem to be a tendency (and it's no higher than that) to label (ugh!) people with the nationality they themselves identify with, such that Sean Connery is Scottish, but Gordon Ramsay is Scottish-born but British. In this case, Prescott does not identify as Welsh (except when it suits him , but that's politics for you), so I would advocate "John Prescott is a British politician born in Wales" against "John Prescott is a Welsh politician" (which he plainly isn't). His accent isn't very Welsh either. Let Hull have him, and give thanks for the lack of Yorkshire separatism. --Rodhullandemu 22:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Prescott was unequivocal about his nationality during the BBC Wales Cymru, Coming Home programme here, saying: "I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.". I've made the changes to the page and added the quote. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually while Prescott may describe himself as Welsh, he is not. He is English, like Tony Blair. Blair was born in Scotland but is English and his wikipedia article does not describe him as a "Scottish" politician. (92.1.163.144 (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

'Welsh-borrn British' is a bit overkill. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Prescott is English, NOT Welsh. (92.1.163.144 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

All opinions on how to improve the article are welcome, including those from IPs (although, whatever Tony Blair may or may not be is not relevant to this article). However, personal opinions are not permitted on the article itself. I do not happen to agree that John Prescott is English, but that is not relevant either. What is relevant is that John Prescott is cited as having explained that he is Welsh. That is verifiable fact. And that is why the article will continue to say that John Prescott is a Welsh politician. Daicaregos (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He might have claimed to be Welsh but he is in fact English. (92.1.163.144 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Introduction

The introductory sentence of the lead has been amended from John Prescott "... is a Welsh Labour politician ..." to "... is a Welsh-born Labour politician ...". The reasons given (in edit summaries) for maintaining this version are: "This seemed to describe Prescott as a member of the Welsh Labour Party and so I have amended it to increase clarity" and " ... we don't assume that every reader is aware of the welsh labour party, mainly because the majority aren't". There are two reasons why this lead should be changed: #1 if one had not heard of the WLP one would not assume that "John Prescott is a Welsh Labour politician ..." meant that he was a member of the Welsh Labour Party (we don't assume that John Smith was a member of the Scottish Labour Party and there is nothing leading us to suppose he was). If one were politically aware enough to have heard of the Welsh Labour Party one would know that John Prescott is not a member. If one had not heard of the Welsh Labour Party one would not be aware there was such a thing and, anyway, the Wikilinks would lead one to Welsh people and Labour Party (UK), rather than to the Welsh Labour Party; #2 "Welsh-born" implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh - in the same way that "Cliff Richard is an Indian born English singer-songwriter ...". This is misleading and, per WP:LEAD, is not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. Daicaregos (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is without '-born' it sounds as if he's a member of the wrong political party. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some separation between Welsh and Labour politician or else it can be read in a number of different ways, wikilinks cannot be used as a reason for not being clear in the text. Keith D (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you support "... is a Welsh, Labour politician ..."? Daicaregos (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought Daicaregos but I'm not sure it's correct. How about something along the lines of '...welsh politician. As a member of the Labour party...'raseaC^{talk to me} 10:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the new version! Good job. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no opinion. Most MP articles have British, but there's been no consensus sought on this. A useful link is Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine as is. The fact that this article is about a political figure probably makes the nationality a little more noteworthy and so unless extreme objection is noted I would propose leaving as is. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Welsh and British are both accurate, but he is notable as a British politician. The context in which Prescott stated that he is Welsh is relevant: a programme by BBC Wales about Welsh ancestry, which is more likely to emphasise Welsh identity and not British. Maybe it should be changed to "British politician from Wales"; this is similar to one of the examples in the essay mentioned by h2g2bob and would also be less misleading in a spoken or printed version of the page. snigbrook (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is the current version misleading? Daicaregos (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I too was somewhat surprised to read "... is a Welsh politician" and was ready to be bold and change that to English or British; until I saw the lengthy discussion here. Even so, the current lede does suggest, certainly to those unfamiliar with Mr Prescott, that he represents a Welsh point-of-view in the House of Commons or that he has at some time sat in the Welsh Assembly or represented Welsh constituants. I'm sure you can come up with an improved lede which makes clear his political affiliations while not sweeping aside his Welsh ancestry (perhaps this will do: "John Leslie Prescott (born 31 May 1938 in Prestatyn, Wales) is a British politician, who has been the Labour Member of Parliament for Hull East since 1970.") Astronaut (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSBIO, we shouldn't put birthplaces in the lead and even so, that is no indication of nationality. To be strictly correct (IMO), and to give this issue appropriate weight, I'd say he should be described in the lead as what he legally is, i.e. British. The "Early life" should mention Prestatyn and then explain that because of this, he considers himself to be Welsh. There's obviously a political dimension here in terms of convenience and currying popularity (ef. "Civis Romanis Sum" and "Ich bin en Berliner"), but I don't think we should elevate a detail into a major issue. Existing attempts to reach a consensus appear to have resulted in unnecessary clumsiness of wording which does our readers (remember them?) no favours. Rodhullandemu 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Prescott seems to put a degree of emphasis on his nationality and that gives it a degree of notability given that he is, legally, British and a British politician. If interested editors want his nationality mentioned in the intro I think the current wording is probably the best way to go. The fact that there has been any discussion suggests there are atleast some interested editors so I guess the question now is whether or not they want it mentioned. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "interested editors" /= "consensus". Technically, and legally, he is a British citizen, by Section 1 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 which is the applicable law in the year he was born. That is also his "nationality", and anything else is icing sugar. Calling a pig a cow does not make it a cow. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicely put (although I tend not to click blue things, especially not irrelevant ones). However, this encyclopedia belongs to the editors and if the editors want it to say 'Welsh', 'Welsh' it shall say. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the quality of the debate in the immediately following section indicates exactly what we are up against here. Assertions are not evidence, let alone proof. If the Gadarene swine wish it so, who are rational, source-citing, good-faith editors trampled under the stampede of the mob, to resist? And of course, as usual, it's those who shout the loudest and the most often who get their own way, while those of us who take a more sanguine view just back off for a while, say hmmm, and leave it to the ill-informed to fight it out amongst themselves. For now. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He's not Welsh at all. (92.3.182.236 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

He is NOT Welsh

Prescott is NOT Welsh. (92.1.163.144 (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Prescott is not Welsh, he is English. The introduction should describe him as either British or English. Tony Blair was born and brough up in Scotland but he is not described as Scottish on this site because he is English. Just like Prescott. (17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.163.144 (talk)

There is no consensus regarding how British citizens should be described. The community generally uses whichever term the subject does, in this case that is Welsh. Also, the above dicussion decided that the lede should read 'Welsh'. You must stop your disruptive edits and discuss the matter here, at the moment your view is that of the minority. THat may change, but until then the lede stays as is. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeat from above: All opinions on how to improve the article are welcome, including those from IPs (although, whatever Tony Blair may or may not be is not relevant to this article). However, personal opinions are not permitted on the article itself. I do not happen to agree that John Prescott is English, but that is not relevant either. What is relevant is that John Prescott is cited as having explained that he is Welsh. That is verifiable fact. And that is why the article will continue to say that John Prescott is a Welsh politician. Daicaregos (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Prescott may have claimed to be Welsh but he clearly isn't. He is in fact English. It would be better just to say he is British. (JackNoseworthy (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Where are your sources for this? Keith D (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Prescott is English, just like Tony Blair, Timothy Dalton and many others. Just because he was born in Wales does not make him Welsh. (JackNoseworthy (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

(edit conflict):And yet he, and his family, seem to think he is. A case of mass delusion perhaps? The other option is that he is, actually, Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack?raseaC^{talk to me} 17:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

N.B. The sock puppets HughMcHardy and JackNoseworthy have been blocked indefinitely. Daicaregos (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Schooling

Without wanting to re-ignite any controversies over whether Prescott is Welsh, there's an inconsistency here. He claims "I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh" -- and yet the page says he left Wales at the age of four (too young for school(, and went to school in South Yorkshire and Cheshire. Nursery school? A few days at primary school before moving to England? Can anyone explain? Flapdragon (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Ours is not to reason why ... Any speculation on our part would be WP:OR. Daicaregos (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for speculation or OR (and speculation is hardly research, original or otherwise), just hoping that someone might have an explanation. Nothing wrong with that. Flapdragon (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That quotation from Prescott should be removed from the article because it is all lies. Not only is he not Welsh by any definition, he also never went to school in Wales because he didn't start until 1943, when he was living in England. Nursery school didn't even exist then. (92.12.20.228 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

The quote is sourced and therefore correct and shall remain. Thank you for your concern. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote is a lie so it should be removed. Prescott did not start going to school until 1943, when he was living in England. He NEVER went to any school in Wales at all. (92.12.20.228 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

In using the quote we're not assessing the truthfulness of it. He could say he was brought up by eskimos in Greenland if he wanted and we'd probably quote it (afterall, it would be somewhat noteworthy). If you can verify your claim that he never went to school in Wales then maybe you'd find an audience here. Until then I can simply copy and paste the above. So I will: The quote is sourced and therefore correct and shall remain. Thank you for your concern.raseaC^{talk to me} 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just check his own 2008 autobiography "Pulling No Punches", he writes he started school in Yorkshire in September 1943 when he was five. (92.12.20.228 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Maybe he went to some sort of pre-school type thing. I've not got a copy of that book but you could always start a new thread here proposing that something along the lines of 'however, in his 2008 autobiography Prescott claims to have first started school in Yorkshire.' We'd probably need to confirm that he's definitely never attended a school in Wales at any point in his school career before calling foul though. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-school didn't exist at all in the 1940s, especially for people like him. (92.12.20.228 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

There's no way of telling if he attended some sort of educational institution or not while in Wales. Like I said, if you can provide a source for him a) starting school in Yorkshire and b) never being schooled in Wales then it would probably be worth a mention following the quote already in teh text. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a way of telling - education for under-fives simply did not exist then, especially for somebody like him. (92.12.20.228 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

There's no way of confirming that there wasn't someone in his town offering some sort of education to local kids, for instance. Like I said: sources etc. and you've got an argument. Until then the statement is fine. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if we agree that that there's something puzzling there at least. It can't harm to add something to his statement to show that we've noticed and it's not just a mistake. Flapdragon (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to that whatsoever, as long as there is a source. Furthermore, the quote says he 'went to school in Wales'. We would need categoric proof that he never attended any educational establishment whatsoever (even for a matter of months) in Wales in order to draw objection. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well he obviously didn't because he was from the lowest tier of the working classes and his family wouldn't have been able to afford any pre-school lessons (which didn't even exist then). (92.10.198.18 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Please see WP:OR. Thanks raseaC^{talk to me} 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that no working-class children went to school in those days before the age of five. (92.10.198.18 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Another editor may wish to add their view on this situation but the final fact of the matter is that you need WP:SOURCES and to be aware of WP:OR (your above statement is OR). That's all that needs to be said here, anything else will just be going around in circles. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Obesity

Shouldn't the health section mention that Prescott suffers from obesity? (92.12.15.205 (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Only if you can find a reliable source that confirms this as a clinical diagnosis. Rodhullandemu 22:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

92.12.15.205/92.10.198.18/92.12.20.228/JackNoseworthy/HughMcHardy/92.1.163.144/etc. you seem to have a personal vendetta against Prescott, perhaps take some time away from the project (or atleast this page) and come back as a neutral party? raseaC^{talk to me} 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Or preferably not come back at all, as a WP:SOCK of banned User:Harvey Carter. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Welsh politician

Since Prescott is not in any way either Welsh or a Welsh politician, perhaps the introduction should read he is a British politician who was born in Wales? (92.3.182.236 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

I think it's time for you to register and conduct yourself properly or cease editing otherwise very soon you will find yourself on the wrong side of WP:RBI everytime you edit for constant violation of WP:SOCK. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He's found himself on the wrong side of WP:3RR and is currently blocked for 24 hours. Rodhullandemu 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OP That is a rather harsh treatment of the anon user. It is well known that welsh nationalism, like all forms of nationalism scrapes the barrel in terms of stupidity, and it is rearing its ugly head here on Wikipedia yet again.

This misappropriation is even worse than the insistence on using Welsh spelling of place names in Wales, when Welsh spelling was only formalised in the 19th century and was it was deliberately designed to be different from the English, so the English spelling which has centuries more written culture behind it, gets pushed aside in an English language article.

Don't be absurd -- Prescott is a proud Yorkshireman. The demonym "British" would be entirely appropriate for the avoidance of any doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.30 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced. Sadly, without attributing the opinions expressed above to a reliable source, the entire post may well look like a racist, trolling rant to anyone who doesn't recognise a balanced, well made, argument when they see it. Can't wait to see the citations confirming that Welsh was only written in order to be different to English, so I can add it to the Welsh language article. Daicaregos (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming to this article as a neutral party to read about Prescott following his peerage announcement, I have to say that "John Prescott is a Welsh politician" just sounds daft. For a start, such a sentence implies that the subject has been active in politics in the named country, but Prescott has never been involved in Welsh politics.

I don't want to get into a debate about British vs Welsh/English, but I will say that nationality of the constituent countries of the UK is a tricky subject as there is no official way to be Welsh, English, Scottish, etc. Many of the usual rules for determining someone's nationality simply don't apply. Common sense surely has to prevail, and I have to say that no-one who knows John Prescott would call him a Welshman, except in jest or out of pedantry.

In this instance, I do feel "British" would make the most sense, seeing as he was deputy PM of the whole of the UK. In you really must include "Welsh" in the opening, at least say "Welsh-born politician" so as not to imply he was involved in Welsh politics. Maybe "Welsh-born British politician" as a compromise? JRawle (Talk) 23:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are sources where Prescott states he considers himself Welsh which, in the absense of any guidelines on the matter, is enough reason to describe him as Welsh. When we discussed the matter a few months ago I suggested the -born idea but we came to the current arrangement. I want it to read 'Welsh' but have no preference on how it's phrased. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Describe him as Welsh maybe, but as a Welsh politician? I can see why some people may not like "Welsh-born" if they think it dilutes the meaning to just being born in Wales rather than Welsh. The problem is having to include both "Welsh" and "politician" in the first sentence. "John Prescott is a Welshman who..." or "John Prescott is a Welsh former ship's steward who..." wouldn't have the same problem, yet really it needs to say politician. So it's a tricky one! JRawle (Talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and the socks don't make it any easier! The article will be getting a bit of visibility at the moment so I'd be inclined to leave it for a while and see if anyone else chirps in with any suggestion. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Prescott is not Welsh, he's English. And he's certainly not a "Welsh politician" at all. (92.0.131.145 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

He's English, not Welsh

John Prescott is a Yorkshireman, he's not Welsh at all. (92.13.136.19 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

He could choose either - best to find something in which he self-declares if nothing then British is a compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DFTT raseaC^{talk to me} 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Troll or not its a valid point - I've never seen Prescott identity as Welsh and spending your first four years of life in Prestatyn is not enough on its own to qualify ... --Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you haven't looked. Daicaregos (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick google search on Prescott + Welsh and nothing decisive came up (so I did look), the reference you found is however enough unless there is a counter. --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though he claimed to be Welsh for political reasons - and lied about going to school in Wales - Prescott is actually English and should certainly not be described as a "Welsh politician" because he's not and never was. (92.3.178.177 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

There are two verifiable facts here, which both need to be taken into account. One is that he is known for his involvement in British politics, at UK level, and has represented an English area - he has never been involved in specifically Welsh politics. The other is that he has stated (here): "I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country." The issue for this article is not whether or not he "is" Welsh - he was born in Wales and has described himself as Welsh - but whether describing him in the lede as a "Welsh politician" gives undue weight to that statement, given that his notability (particularly when seen from the rest of the world, outside the UK) is as a British politician. Personally, I'd favour "British politician born in Wales", which in my view gives an appropriate balance - and with his quotes about his ancestry mentioned specifically in the main article, after the first sentence of "Early life". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"British politician born in Wales" does not adequately describe his ethnicity nationality i.e. Welsh. "Born in Wales" implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh. Christian Bale and Michael Howard were "born in Wales", but are not Welsh. Joanna Lumley and Cliff Richard were born in India, but are not Indians. There are probably some people born in places like Essex who are not English. "Born in Wales” is misleading and is not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. The suggestion was made above "John Prescott is a Welsh former ship's steward who...", which I would support. Daicaregos (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept that "British politician born in Wales" "does not adequately describe his ethnicity". But it isn't meant to - it is meant to describe the main reason for his notability, in a balanced way. Per WP:MOSBIO: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Stating that he is a "British politician born in Wales" covers that more than adequately, in my view. In addition, I suggest adding, as further explanation in the section "early life", after "...Prescott was born in Prestatyn (now in Denbighshire), Wales", words such as: "He has described himself as Welsh, and "very proud of Wales and being Welsh."" - with the Walesonline ref. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Welsh is not John Prescott's previous nationality. It is his current nationality, as he says: "I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country." It is all present tense. As I say, the suggestion was made above "John Prescott is a Welsh former ship's steward who...", which I would support. His rise from lowly beginnings is often mentioned, and it would solve the 'Welsh politician' issue. Does anyone have a view on that? Daicaregos (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He is not notable for being a "former ship's steward"; he is notable for being a politician, and as a politician he has been active in the British parliament rather than in Welsh politics. I certainly didn't suggest that Welsh was his "previous nationality" - but I haven't seen any response to the other, more relevant, guidance that I quoted, i.e. "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly.... the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless ... relevant to the subject's notability." Again, I'd like to see other views, in the light of what appears to be fairly clear (though obviously contentious) guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Manual of Style (biographies) provides that the opening paragraph of a biographical article should state the person's "nationality". It isn't optional. My understanding of the caveat "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." is that if the subject is white, black, Asian etc, straight or gay, that is not relevant in itself. Btw If no discussion is wanted on a particular issue then please don't waste people's time by mentioning it. Daicaregos (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In law, his "nationality" is British, and I've seen no evidence that he's said otherwise. He's said "I'm Welsh... it's my country", but he has not said (so far as I know) "My nationality is Welsh" (perhaps because he is aware of the legal position). "Ethnicity" does not simply mean "white, black, Asian etc" - "An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance." If anything, he seems to be saying that his ethnicity is Welsh, as he identifies as sharing a Welsh heritage. But his ethnicity (like his sexuality) is not relevant to the opening sentence - his nationality is. In my view, the option least likely to confuse readers and most likely to provide clarification would be to define him as a British politician born in Wales, and to cite his statement about being Welsh in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Ethnicity" does not simply mean "white, black, Asian etc". However, in the context of the caveat to opening paragraph my understanding is that it does. More importantly, though, do you truly believe there is no Welsh nationality? Daicaregos (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I simply think that the article should be revised to reflect more closely the WP guidance I've set out, while also explaining in the text that he describes himself as Welsh. In my view, the least confusing use here of the debatable word "nationality" is to use it in the way which is both legally precise and most widely understood, certainly outside the UK. The note to which you've linked, under "Nationality and ethnicity", says: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy to answer my question: do you truly believe there is no Welsh nationality? Daicaregos (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wales is a nation, and a country, according to reliable sources and WP guidance. The question here is whether Prescott is most usefully described, in the first sentence of the article, as a "Welsh politician". The word "nationality" can be interpreted in different ways, but one very widely used definition is the legal definition, under which he is unequivocally "British". Using the word "British" in the opening sentence would also overcome any difficulty arising from the juxtaposition of the words "Welsh" and "politician", which could lead some readers to assume that his notability was as a politician within Wales, which is not the case. Whether or not I have any personal views over whether I "believe there is no Welsh nationality" is a complete red herring, as even if I were to have any personal views they would be completely irrelevant to my thoughts about the most appropriate wording for the first sentence of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, there is a general convention that people's nationality within the UK is based on how they declare it, not the legal nationality. That is actually covered by the guidelines. Lloyd George for example is the first Welsh Prime Minister, its notable. Other politicians are generally "labeled" according to their claims. The ethnicity is a complete red herring, we have established elsewhere that Welsh, Scottish etc relation to nationality not just ethnicity. The only issue here is his claim and its weight --Snowded ^TALK 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this essay. Prescott is first and foremost a politician, and that should be mentioned in the opening sentence. He is also Welsh, by self-description, and British, by legal nationality (which may or may not be relevant). I only mentioned the question of ethnicity to point out that the guidance differentiates between nationality and ethnicity, and to make clear that, in my view, it is fair to describe his ethnicity as Welsh. But that's not the point. The problem is that the term "Welsh politician" is, in my view and that of several others who have commented on this page (not counting sockpuppets or even IPs), potentially misleading and partial in a way that "British politician born in Wales" - with additional refs in the text to set out what he has said about his Welshness - is not. My involvement here is simply to take the side of the interested and not necessarily well-informed reader, who may be misled by the term "Welsh politician" into thinking that his activities as a politician have taken place in Wales, when clearly they predominantly have not. The debate we are having is whether his statements (in a single interview, so far as I know) that "I'm Welsh... it's my country" justify wording in the first sentence here which could be confusing and misleading to readers, and whether an alternative form of words would be clearer and less confusing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a long held convention that if the subject of a biography has expressed his/her views on their nationality, then we should accept their wishes and describe them according to that view. You say it is fair to describe his ethnicity as Welsh. However, you have also stated that in your opinion, the concept of "ethnic group" is "highly contentious, divisive and flawed". So why you would use that as part of your argument is rather strange, to say the least. And anyway, it is utter nonsense to assume that Prescott was describing his ethnicity as opposed to his nationality. Prescott considers himself Welsh and we are required to state that nationality. It is up to us to devise suitable wording to describe him in a way that is not "potentially misleading". Daicaregos (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your statement that "it is utter nonsense to assume that Prescott was describing his ethnicity as opposed to his nationality"? As I stated earlier, I haven't seen anything to the effect that he stated that his nationality is Welsh. He didn't. He said "I'm Welsh". That could refer to his ethnicity - his sense of belonging to a shared cultural or genetic heritage, etc. - or to his nationality - except that his legal nationality is British and I'm sure he would be aware of that. I don't see that what I've said in an unrelated discussion somewhere else in the past is relevant in any way - I'm content here to use the WP definition of "ethnicity", which, as we agree, isn't relevant to the first sentence of the article anyway. Can we get back to what wording would be most helpful to readers? The words "Welsh politician" are ambiguous, and therefore unhelpful. We should strive to be more helpful and less ambiguous. Recognising that his notability is as a politician rather than as anything else, how do you think that the wording can be improved? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest: "John Prescott … is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Secretary of State of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Prescott represented Hull East as the Labour Member of Parliament between 1970 and 2010, when he stood down from parliament." it is as DPM that he is most notable. Daicaregos (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that is an improvement on the current wording, but I would tweak it as follows: "John Prescott... is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. He represented Hull East as the Labour Member of Parliament between 1970 and 2010, when he stood down from Parliament." (As I understand it, the post of First Secretary of State is a Government post not a Parliamentary post.) In the longer term I would still prefer "British" in the opening sentence, but I would support the above wording for the time being as an improvement on the current wording. I would also suggest adding, after "...Prestatyn (now in Denbighshire), Wales" in "Early life", words such as: "In 2009, he said: "I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh...I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country." I think that goes a long way towards explaining the use of "Welsh" in the lede. We should also try to take the other ref out of the opening line - it isn't really needed there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just one comment: we have one reference that quotes Prescott as saying he's Welsh, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't also describe himself as British. I think we need evidence of a consistent description of someone's nationality in order to take that into account for something as prominent as the opening. (Any comments the subject has made can of course be included somewhere in the article.) As for the heading of this debate, Prescott did famously say, "There is no such nationality as English", so he should most definitely not be described as such! JRawle (Talk) 16:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to deal with what has been said, rather than speculate on other possibilities. Daicaregos (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The critical thing in all these issues (and it affects many many pages) is self-identification. Ideally we would have more than one reference, but the one is good enough for the proposed revised wording. --Snowded ^TALK 05:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but any guidelines should recognise that adjectives form phrases which can have unintended connotations. That is, for many readers, the words "Welsh politician" imply that the person was active in politics in Wales, whereas "Welsh singer" (or "Welsh former DPM of the UK") does not have the same connotation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they should. Perhaps they shouldn't. But they don't. This page is not the arena to discuss guidelines. Anyway, back to discussing improvements to this article. Are there any objections to Ghmyrtle's suggested amendment to the introduction? I support. Daicaregos (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to forestall further trolling (see below), I've been bold and done it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Welsh???

Why does the article say Prescott is a Welsh politician when he's English? (GerryLongfellow (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

I suggest you read discussions above on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So you keep saying. No one listens to you so you may as well just stick to a single IP/user name, it's just more work for you to keep creating accounts! raseaC^{talk to me} 18:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're addressing GerryLongfellow - aren't you? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I've been reading and paying attention to your posts!raseaC^{talk to me} 18:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No probs - indents can be confusing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not a sock, I only encountered this article todaya nd was surprised to read that Prescott is described as a Welsh politician when he is actually 100% English, like his parents. (GerryLongfellow (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

We're supposed to WP:AGF but on this occasion I'm not going to, I'll wait until the results of your IP check. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Read his own words: "People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country." And please note that the article wording has now been clarified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what lies he's said. He might have been born in Wales but that doesn't make him Welsh. And he obviously never went to school there if he left when he was four. Prescott is not Welsh, he is ENGLISH. (GerryLongfellow (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

You've done it again! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a 'G' and I reply!!raseaC^{talk to me} 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Peerage

The article needs to be updated to mention the recent announcemnt of his peerage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Expenses claims response

It's not an official source, but prescott did reply to the claims on his expenses on Have I got News For You episode 9, season 39 claiming that the Parliamentary Expenses Commission cleared his name for the toilet seat and restoration expenses. Perhaps this article needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.163.53 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is true, he also denied any "offical" communication regarding the peerage offer. This article is out of date. --86.179.177.240 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia publishes facts not truth. If you have a source of greater reliability than a comedy TV show then please provide it. Road Wizard (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is no longer true to say that he has not responded to his expenses claims. (92.0.49.64 (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Title

As the BBC and other sources are reporting Prescott's introduction in the House of Lords, people will be looking to add his title to the article. The Lords Business Paper for today shows that he is introduced as Lord Prescott, meaning that his title is Baron Prescott. [7] The territorial designation on his Letters Patent will be "of Kingston upon Hull in the East Riding of Yorkshire" or something similar. This is not part of his title, and we'll have to wait for Hansard or the London Gazette to publish it to know the correct form (unless anyone happened to be watching the introduction on Democracy Live). JRawle (Talk) 10:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just watched the video of the introduction here [8] and the Letters Patent state "Baron Prescott, of Kingston-upon-Hull in Our County of East Yorkshire". JRawle (Talk) 11:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to the rules on these sorts of things as I rarely edit on Wikipedia, but should there not be a redirect from Lord Prescott and/or Baron Prescott as he will increasingly be referred to by these titles. I also don't know whether there are rules on the inclusion of a section of the different titles that a person has held and the years that they were known by that title, as I have seen pages of ex MPs and now Lords both with and without them. I don't feel that I should have to register, I only wish to make a few small alterations that myself and other would benefit from, but I don't know how to go about and make these changes, that is why I have raised the issue here, in the hope that someone could either point me in the right direction or decide that ny suggestion is worth acting on. 213.208.117.140 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Why not register and create the pages? It doesn't matter that you don't edit much. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to register to make changes to the article (as long as it doesn't become locked) so go ahead and make whatever changes you think necessary (WP:BOLD). There is generally no expectation of consistency on WP and so if you think this article should have information about titles held by JP then go ahead and add them, check out Wikipedia:Tutorial for information on how to make edits to this article. The reason I suggested registering is because (I think) you need to be registered in order to create pages, which is what will need to happen in order to create a redirect from 'Lord Prescott', for instance, to this article. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lord Prescott seems a plausible redirect, so I've created it. Rodhullandemu 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Prescott has responded to expenses claims

You only have to watch his appearance on Have I Got News for You to see he has indeed publicly defended his expenses claims, asserting they were all legitimate. (92.4.54.170 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Reliable sources please. Active Banana (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

His comments in a comedy show are not good enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are. He was challenged about his expense claims and gave a length reply. And it is a political show, not a comedy show. (92.4.54.170 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

No, they are not. Sources need a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, comments made during a comedy show 1) are primary sources 2) not known for being particularly accurate. Active Banana (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This BBC site and this Daily Telegraph page both quote him as saying: "Every expense was within the rules of the House of Commons on claiming expenses at the time." Whether or not that's a "defence" is another matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good sources BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)