Talk:List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present)

Unreferenced material removed again

See WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. An inline citation for each individual entry on the list is required. You are welcome to perform this task in a sandbox, but there is no reason why uncited information in violation of WP:V and WP:BLPDOB should remain in this article. If editors choose to remove legitimate maintenance templates, then they are responsible for the subsequent removal of policy violating material. WP:V and WP:BLPDOB are not open for negotiation. FDW777 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I accept your points FDW...but we must always use common sense, too. Don't become transfixed or obsessed upon finding citations for each and every line of text. "An inline citation for each individual entry on the list" is simply not true. Simply not true. This is an index or directory leading to individual pages, it does not suggest or claim anything about an individual MP beyond their current job, or their former job. doktorb _words^deeds 06:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Don't become transfixed or obsessed upon finding citations for each and every line of text." - This exactly. Unfortunately, a recently active IP user has become transfixed and obsessed by having citations for every MP's date of birth, and removing any which don't suit his or her reliability criteria. Transparency in public figures is important; they sign up for that when they choose to become MPs. I expect that comment will get me beaten over the head with the old WP:BLPDOB again, which isn't as stringent as some thing. Some editors are getting far too concerned with protecting the dates of birth for MPs, which is fairly standard biographical information. With any luck, it'll be available for most current MPs from a RS soon. However, it may be best for the DOBs to placed in a new article, rather than this one.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If the dates of birth have been challenged, which they have, an inline citation is required. A single link being used as an unchecked blanket citation for every entry is not an acceptable reference. Furthermore what's the significance of the dates of birth to this article anyway? "seniority" doesn't refer to age but to length of time they've been an MP. At no point in the criteria at List of United_Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present)#Criteria are dates of birth mentioned, nor anywhere else in the article. As such, they appear completely unimportant to this article. I've given it nearly a week an no inline citations have been added, I'm removing the unreferenced dates of birth. See WP:V and WP:BLPDOB. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a source here that contains hundreds of DoBs Guyb123321 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant, since dates of birth are of no relevance to this article. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

List of current United States senators, List of current members of the United States House of Representatives - both of these similar articles contain ages, but if you want me to create a new article entitled list of UK MPs to include ages that is fine Guyb123321 (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you just explain the direct relevance to this article? Perhaps because there isn't any? FDW777 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Because age and seniority are often linked, because it is valid to want to see a list of MPs by age, because that is how this style of article has been created in the past. But if you really dont want to include it, I will simply create another article displaying this information, seems an unnecessary duplication though. Guyb123321 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, using this logic, you could argue we should remove the party affiliations from this page too, what is it's direct relevance to seniority? Guyb123321 (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

They aren't linked, which is why this article never mentioned age at all except when the unreferenced dates of birth were included. FDW777 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

And if you want my honest opinion on this article, it's completely and totally pointless. List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election could quite easily cover this entire article by adding an "MP since" or similar column to the table, and the same applies to the three other similar articles. FDW777 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

So, why are we including party affiliation in this article? and why are you editing an article you think is "completely and totally pointless" Guyb123321 (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

While it continues to exist, I will continue to ensure policy is not flouted. FDW777 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, think you missed the question - why are we including party affiliation in this article? Guyb123321 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't miss the question, I simply chose to ignore strawmen. You want to remove party affiliation, go ahead. FDW777 (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah Ok, so you ignored it but saw the question...I've added a new comment to the talk page on List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election

References

David Davis

David Davis is listed as 13th in this list, he should be 148th. Seniority is taken by unbroken service and Davis wasn't a MP between 18 June and 10 July 2008. His unbroken service starts from him return following his by-election. A similar event took place when the Northern Irish MPs resigned in 1986. Unless anyone objects/volunteers I'll make the change but it won't be for a week or so Kalamikid (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Object. The problem is that a formal strict order of "seniority" doesn't actually mean anything in the Commons for all but the handful of MPs at the top of the list. As a result there are rarely clear modern rulings on situations like this because usually the MP in question almost never makes it to being a contender for Father of the House requiring a ruling (and as the only formal role performed by the FotH is in the absence of a Speaker there's a serious problem over who could make the ruling!).

Until the mid 1920s the re-election of ministers meant that many MPs had similarly had mid Parliament by-elections and at least three post 1898 FotHs had been Cabinet ministers who would have automatically vacated their seats during their continuous service (Michael Hicks Beach, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and David Lloyd George although an immediate general election and then a wartime suspension of the rule meant he didn't actually go to the polls in a by-election). In 1971 the FotH or the next available in the line of succession was given the role of presiding over Speaker elections and written into Standing Orders but the wording doesn't cover the situation. (By this stage the FotH's entry postdated re-election of ministers so an MP going back to the electorate mid Parliament was a very exceptional circumstance.)

A lot of this list is original research anyway but I think we should avoid trying to "correct" an MP's service because they had an extra re-election. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dates of birth removed again

See WP:ONUS, While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure this article is the right place for such info, but I do very much support the idea of a separate article listing current MPs with DOBs. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

---

List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) → List of United Kingdom MPs (2019–present) – This article would work best as a list of MPs not only by seniority, but with columns about age, party, etc too (as was the case for almost all of its existence until a few months ago). I therefore think it should be moved to a title better fitting an article with a wide range of information. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom about creating an article listing living former MPs. It’s going online soon I believe. See here. Maybe User:Andrew Gray could help do a separate article for current MPs which is sortable by DOB.—TrottieTrue (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment @Chessrat: this should be withdrawn on the grounds that this article is already nominated for merging to a third destination (see Talk:List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election for the discussion). Having mutilple, concurrent discussions on the future of this article is borderline disruptive. Additionally, there is the fact that people may oppose this because they prefer the merge over the move, but then they support the move IF the merge fails.
SSSB (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination on procedural grounds as mentioned. Good point. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusion

I'm confused by the Prime Minister's placing? Having been elected in 2015 for his current constituency, he was an MP prior to this before coming Mayor of London. Does it not mean his seniority position needs to be one of the first for the parliament that met after the 2015 election? RyanPLB (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

No. seniority is based on when you swear in, according to hansard. Previous roles/service don't matter, unlike for example, the US Senate JamesHawkes0161 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Where do we find the swearing in data so we know this list is accurate? I've looked on Hansard but I'm unable to find it. I've emailed the House of Commons enquiry email to ask whether it is freely available in the hope they can give it to me so I can check myself. However, I wondered whether it is something users on Wikipedia have already? RyanPLB (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sinn Fein MPs

In regards to the article, the MPs for Sinn Fein are listed with numbers as to their place in the seniority list. However, Sinn Fein MPs have never sworn in so I would have thought that those MPs without a number (such as the ones who have recently entered parliament due to winning a by-election, examples include Jill Mortimer, Kim Leadbeater, Louie French and Helen Morgan etc) would have numbers in the list before any of the Sinn Fein MPs would? RyanPLB (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Am I allowed to just change it or will World War III start from editors?! 194.81.144.10 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Given there hasn't been any objection, I'll go ahead and change it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

MPs who are deceased

MPs who are deceased seem to appear on the list (in italics). With all respect to them and the fact they've sadly passed away, why do they appear on this list considering they're deceased? RyanPLB (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Convention has always agreed that it's to show who was elected at the time, as a record of the complete list of MPs as it was at the time. We record when an MP resigns or changes affiliation, and on that basis we record those who are deceased. All gaps in the numbering has to be explained so retaining them is how we do that. doktorb _words^deeds 23:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we change this convention as deceased MPs are no longer sitting because they're dead... 194.81.144.10 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No. That's why they're in italics. It retains the fact they were elected, and shows they are deceased. Removing them would mean we would lose certain constituencies from the list, as replacement MPs would need a footnote to explain why they're not numbered amongst the original MPs.  doktorb _words^deeds 16:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to get rid of their names but to get rid of the number attached to them as there are some MPs at the bottom who've recently been elected in by-elections who, sadly, don't have a number attached to them? RyanPLB (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

They are unnumbered as they were not within the 650 MPs originally elected or sworn in to this Parliament. If they stand and win at the next election, they will be counted within the 650. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)