Talk:Keir Starmer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Views - Israel Palestine

There is a glaring omissions in this article that Starmer supported the right of Israel to cut off water and food to Gaza as a response to Oct 7.

It is common knowledge, and has been repeatedly mentioned since the Nick Ferrari interview in credible media outlets.

Original instance - https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/#:~:text=He%20also%20said%20%E2%80%9CIsrael%20has,from%20Hamas%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20added

Clearly this should be reflected given how pertinent it is within the context of current events and his foreign policy views. Aak1307 (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is practically a whole paragraph about this already? Michaeldble (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a paragraph about the general theme, but the fact he said Israel had the right to cut off food and water should appear in views as opposed to within the body of text within his political career thus far. There were other specific and actually quite unique positions / situations applicable to Starmer, which are pertinent to his leadership of the Labour party and his views on this issue which have also been removed.

It seems, in part, an edit that you made to clean up some duplications actually also remove quite a lot of important information about his views on the issue. His membership of the LFI group and the fact that he has personally received large sums of money Pro-Israel groups for example have been omitted. The current views section, intended or otherwise, minimise just how pro Israel he has actually shown himself to be by removing these items. Aak1307 (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Aak1307, Starmer is pro-Israel, undoubtedly, but you are selectively picking out bits of news to paint him as very pro-Israel. In reality, he said “I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously, everything should be done within international law," when asked by Nick Ferrari "A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power, cutting off water?" He later clarified and added to this: see here. Keep in mind, this was just two weeks after the war in Gaza started and the attack on Oct. 7 was still on everyone's minds.

Its also worth noting that Starmer came out in favor of a ceasefire back in February (see here) and just recently said he would be open to recognizing Palestine (see here). Now it isn't enough but it does indicates he isn't THAT pro-Israel. Which isn't to say he isn't; he definitely is pro-Israel... but so are most establishment politicians. And his party is far from the only one receiving pro-Israel lobby money - he personally can't receive money from any group; that is against the lobbying laws. So there needs to be balance in how we paint his views on this decisive issue. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: none of this is to defend him. Just adding context and pointing out his views on Israel/Palestine are very complex. They aren't as black and white as you're making them to be. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

I agree he has since made revisions to the statement which have suggested a more nuanced view as a matter of record (putting aside any speculation re his motivations for doing so).

I would point out that Starmer is a legal expert and knows international law well, especially human rights law. The idea that he wasn't/isn't aware of the status of such a blockade in international law is a stretch. I laude your giving him benefit of the doubt, but Starmer knows the illegality of it as well as the illegality of the broader siege of Gaza prior to October 7th. I would therefore suggest the position that "it's complex" doesn't apply here, it's something he had significant prior knowledge of and was indeed remanded on repeatedly by prominent members of the legal community (https://tribunemag.co.uk/2022/04/keir-starmer-labour-party-israel-apartheid-palestine-amnesty-report-jewish-chronicle).

Secondly, significant parts of the Labour Party think he is too pro-Israel: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48796-keir-starmer-has-handled-labours-response-on-gaza-badly-say-public-and-labour-voters

Thirdly, whilst yes he has suggested he'd "recognise Palestine", as is also pointed out in the wiki page, he's given Israel an effective veto over it (https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-officially-junks-labours-old-policy-on-palestinian-statehood-r8bs7afe). This is, of course, not support for self-determination at all but does give the appearance of such.

Forthly, he lobbied Lindsay Hoyle to deliberately obstruct a ceasefire vote (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-keir-starmer-ceasefire-vote-gaza-hoyle-protect-image-endanger-mp-security/). I can't find the twitter post anymore, but the LFI director Michael Rubin did post shortly after the debacle thanking Starmer and Lammy for their "continued friendship and support for Israel".

Don't get me wrong, I know he is not the most pro-Israel politician in the country. He is materially more so than the current wiki page shows, and quite probably the most pro-Israel leader the party has ever had.

Aak1307 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Aak1307, hey there. No worries at all, I appreciate your thoughtful response as well. Indeed you are right. He has been more pro-Israel than pro-Palestine since the war in Gaza. I only give him the benefit of the doubt because he's obviously been careful about what to say given the upcoming election (it would have happened sooner or later but definitely this year) on anything really.

I do think he was aware that a blockade/siege is against international law which is why he was quick to clear up his answer. I genuinely believe that his answer that day was a gaffe more than anything which came at the worst possible time and it really annoyed me that he ballsed up his answer on an important question that bad. That said, he definitely could be more clear on exactly what his stances are and be more decisive on the matter. So far, he's walking a tightrope in order to not anger either side of the debate in Britain. I think we'll find out more clearly after the election and in the highly likely event he becomes PM. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I would say that while Starmer is definitely up in "most pro-Israel leaders of Labour", I would Clemente Attlee is the most pro-Israel Labour leader and a handful of others have been more pro-Israel, including Tony Blair. Again, my belief is that we'll only find out if and when Starmer becomes PM just how pro-Israel he is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Starmer was replying to a complex question. It's possible he was agreeing to the question of whether or not Israel had a right to defend itself, which is how he later explained his answer. He also said in his answer that everything must be done according to international law. TFD (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, that is very much what happened. Here. ETA: This isn't defending him - I didn't like his initial comment either - but context is important and he has been consistant on humanitarian aid to Gaza since. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Getting ready

I suggest a taskforce is made for getting this page ready for July 5th. Starmer is topped to be the next Bitish PM, if the polls are correct. 2A0A:EF40:E81:7701:C9E4:23A8:8929:A3F7 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. If polls are correct, I suggest the article "Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer" be renamed to "Keir Starmer's tenure as Leader of the Opposition". --150.143.27.147 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be two separate articles for his time in opposition and a 'Premiership of Keir Starmer' article if Labour do win next month. Michaeldble (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sub-article for legal career?

Any chances of there being a sub-article for his legal career? His political career has a sub-article (Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer) so think a lot of the legal career section could be better served in a sub-article. Something along the lines of "Legal career of Keir Starmer". 150.143.27.147 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I've created a draft here: Draft:Legal career of Keir Starmer. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I see it's been done elsewhere for politicians: Legal career of Hillary Clinton and Legal career of Mary Robinson. If there is enough coverage in reliable sources then I have no issue Michaeldble (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. There already looks to be enough coverage of Starmer's legal career in reliable sources as shown in this article, and there is further information about it not featured here that could be featured in a sub-article (such as Boris Johnson bringing up Starmer's time as Director of Public Prosecutions back in 2022). Whilst now predominantly best known as a politician, his legal career is still notable enough for a sub-article, especially as now he looks set to become the next PM as indicated by several opinion polls. Like Hillary Clinton, I think having a sub-article for Starmer's legal career would be for the best. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Keir Starmer: The Biography

A book was written by Tom Baldwin about Starmer earlier this year called Keir Starmer: The Biography. Worth a mention here at all? 150.143.27.147 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's included here in the 'further reading' part. What would you suggest mentioning on this page? It might merit its own article as it did have quite a lot of coverage at the time Michaeldble (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, in that case I'd would recommend the book having its own article as per the coverage, and also as The Starmer Project has its own article. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimming the legal career section

There is a draft article about the Legal career of Keir Starmer. As such, the information about his law career here should be significantly trimmed down. As per Hillary Clinton's article not going too in depth about her law career as a sub-article for it exists. 150.143.27.147 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

As soon as the draft is accepted, it can be trimmed down to be a summary of his legal career. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Length of Labour leadership section constantly being trimmed, when Jeremy Corbyn's article has tons of info about his leadership

Where's the consistency? Go to Jeremy Corbyn's article and you'll find chockablock information about his tenure as Labour leader. Why is the same not true of this page, and whenever I've tried to expand information on his leadership, it's been reverted? Corbyn also has a Labour leadership stub-article but that doesn't stop his main page having a lot more information about his leadership than Starmer's article.

And what's the point of having a foreign affairs section if his views on the middle east conflict aren't included in it? Either include the middle east stuff here, or don't include it at all. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be including chockablock information about anyone: WP:SS. If Corbyn's page has it then it's wrong; just because one page is badly done doesn't mean another has to be. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say chockablock information, whoops. But you still get the idea. That being said I see your point as well as the other editor who's raised this with me. I agree to keeping things the way they are if that is preferable. This being the case, can we start trimming the length of Corbyn's page to match Starmer's? One of my points does still stand though, his views on the middle east conflict are a political position and so should be included in that section. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Look, I get it, but all the polls are pointing to him getting a "new job" soon (whether he gets it by 150 or 350 doesn't matter—even Tory ministers are resigned to it). Soon his Labour/Opposition leadership will no longer be his primary notability. Whatever happens in the election, whether he loses it, Parliament is hung or he gets a "stonking" majority there will be new things to say. I'd save on this until 5 July when we can gauge his place in history a bit more accurately rather than just parroting the news churn. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I've watched this election quite closely and all the polls are indeed pointing to him getting a "new job" soon. Brilliantly put. As a compromise, I've heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments (per David Cameron). And I've added the response to the middle east conflict back to where it works best - in the political positions section. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Tim O'Doherty's comments. Personally, I think less is more when it comes to these types of articles - you don't want to overwhelm readers. I'm not sure the Corbyn article is a great blueprint, I think it's better to only summarise the most important parts on here and go into more detail on the separate articles such as the leadership election, shadow cabinet etc. For example, I don't understand why you've copied and pasted his election results (by-elections, local elections) from the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer page - that article is redundant if both articles contain identical levels of detail and content.

Regarding the Middle East points, I don't think his comments on LBC and aftermath should be in the political positions section. The most important part of this story is the backlash (resignations etc) which is more relevant to his leadership. His views on Palestine should remain in the political positions section obviously. Michaeldble (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I also agree with his comments, and yours. This is why I've done a compromise edit; I've heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments (per David Cameron). But you can put the comments on LBC and aftermath back in the leadership section if you think it would fit best there. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are going around pages mass removing cited content. Please, please stop. You've been asked multiple times to stop and have yourself agreed. There is no requirement to have pages a certain length. Wiping out cited information benefits no one. Helper201 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This has already been resolved as I've done a compromise edit that has heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments. As for the legal career section, I reduced that as his legal career now has a sub-article (Legal career of Keir Starmer) so no point duplicating the same info here. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Tenure as LOTO

Starmer "served as Leader of the Opposition from 2020 to 2024" No, Starmer is still Leader of the Opposition. This position maintains until he resigns as leader of the Labour Party, as per precedent if you look through previous Labour/Conservative Leader pages. Don’t confuse dissolution dates (sitting as an MP) with the Party leadership dates e.g. Alec Douglas-Home became Leader of the Conservative Party in October 1963 whilst not an MP, he continued as such until becoming an MP in a by election held a few weeks later. Starmer can be reasonably expected to be Leader of the Opposition until at least 5 July 2024, and is still Leader of the Opposition now. 92.40.200.240 (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead in the polls

I have fixed a few problems with the bit dealing with the lead in the polls.^[1] I think the problems were the result of people editing the text without worrying about which citation was for which statement. I propose to remove the following unsupported commentary on the poll lead: often by very wide margins, as the governments under prime ministers Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak were affected by high-profile scandals and issues such as Partygate, the cost of living crisis, the July 2022 government crisis, the September 2022 mini-budget, the October 2022 government crisis, the industrial disputes including National Health Service strikes, railway strikes and postal workers strikes, and a number of scandals involving Conservative MPs. The commentary is a list of things that happened during the period of the poll lead. I think it would be better removed, so that the section concentrates on the topic - the poll lead.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And there was a typo in my edit summary - it should have read: "moved citation about 2023 elections to the sentence about that topic and removed 2022 citations that "supported" a statement about the 2023 elections", not "2022 elections".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Political identification

I think it would be worth pointing out on front page that he still considers himself a socialist. In a recent interview with BBC he said: "I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive" instead of just saying he's a centrist.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-first

Napolen4 (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but it shouldn’t replace centrist Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If it is to be included, it should be attributed to himself, as most people wouldn't consider Starmer as such. I think more could be mentioned of Starmer's current relationship to socialism in the article text, but I don't think it belongs to the lead. Tony Blair described himself as a socialist multiple times, yet we don't include it in the lead of his article as most people wouldn't consider him to be a traditional socialist. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• [2], 2023; "Key members of Starmer's Shadow Cabinet agree with this diagnosis and have advanced similar ideas to reform neoliberalism, embracing a decentralised, communitarian socialism which involves large-scale structural reform."

but you're right, maybe "and he has described himself as a socialist"? If not, than just in the body is fine Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Endorsements

@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter, hello there. Do you think that endorsements fit on Starmer's page? I would say they fit in more in the 2024 United Kingdom general election article. Just a thought. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right in saying they'd fit more on the general election article. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Height

Why does the google search page flag for this article read" "Learn about Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party and the Opposition in the UK Parliament. Find out his personal details, education, political positions, and his height (1.83 m or 6 ft 0 in)."- when the consensus seems to be that he is 5ft 8 ½ (174 cm)? I note there appears to be no mention at all of his height in the article, which is not an issue. Is this merely a google matter? JF42 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan is libertarian, not conservative. --95.24.79.236 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox style

In the infobox, we need to remove "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" or not. Please decide to keep or not. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

He isn't Prime Minister. Writing that would just be factually incorrect. Winning an election doesn't make you PM. He will become PM when Sunak resigns and he is appointed by the King. BSmooner (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh! MAL MALDIVE (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Leader of the Labour Party is not a shadow portfolio as Labour are the governing party

Can this be fixed in the infobox? The Leader of the Labour Party is not a shadow portfolio as Labour are the governing party. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

"This landslide victory was similar to the one achieved by Tony Blair at the 1997 general election, the last time a Labour opposition ousted a Conservative government." 121.99.69.54 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No idea. I've removed it. — Czello ^(music) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (3)

Change:

Starmer, wiht wife Victoria Starmer, arriving at number 10, after election victory

to:

Starmer, with wife Victoria Starmer, arriving at number 10, after election victory

Buckleyc (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done intforce (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Opening Section

Last paragraph, 1st sentence:

In July 2024, Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative rule. He succeeded Sunak as prime minister later that day.

"later that day" has no reference date. Suggest change sentence to:

On 4th July 2024, Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative rule. He succeeded Sunak as prime minister the following day.

PS. Not suggested a change to a locked article, so apologies if this is the wrong format. Alan uk2 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Birthplace on the infobox

I'm not familiar with how UK birth places are supposed to be stylized on the infobox but why isn't it Southwark, London, England or Southwark, London, England? Futuremaineretiree (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It depends how much detail you want. Most people outside the UK have never heard of Southwark. TFD (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Tony Blair under political positions

Is that really needed? 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:6542:B3B6:C1F1:E68B (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Considering the fact Starmer has frequently been compared to Blair, I'd say so. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the party

I'm under the opinion that this should remain. As there's been an overwhelming amount of reliable sources stating that it's a notable part of his term as the Leader of the Labour Party.

There also appeared to be an agreement to include this awhile back. Should it remain? KlayCax (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

since 2024?

The phrase "who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2024" implies that 2024 is in the past, whereas it is not. Nearly six months remain until it will be, so I suggest that the wording here be modified, possibly to: "[...] is a British politician and barrister who was elected as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2024. He has been Leader of the Labour Party since 2020 and served as Leader of the Opposition from 2020 to 2024." Bret Sterling (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't elected prime minister, though. He was appointed prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I now see what you mean. How should my proposal be modified, then? How about "who was appointed as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom following elections in 2024"? Bret Sterling (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Knighted by King or Queen?

The article says Starmer "was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) by Charles, Prince of Wales in the 2014 New Year Honours for services to law and criminal justice." Is this correct?

If you look in the Honours list article, it explicitly says that he was appointed by the Queen. If you check the citation given, it is about honorary doctorates rather than knighthood. Is it possible, that the appointment was by the Queen, but that the actually knighting took place in a ceremony where the then Prince of Wales was presiding? OJH (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@OJH, yes that is possible and, in fact, quite common too. A person being given an honor is officially appointed by the Monarch even if someone else was deputizing for them in the ceremony itself. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia: Meaning that I should go look for sources and edit the passage? Or is the accolade the more important part, while the lists are more of a formality, so that the text is more relevant in its current form? OJH (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There was already a citation to the London Gazette, I reused that one and removed the mention of the Prince. That should solve the issue. OJH (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. I was about to say as much as well. Its more important that he was appointed KCB in the 2014 New Years Honours rather than who oversaw the ceremony. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is what happened. The Knighthood was conferred by Her Majesty the Queen but the actual Knighting Ceremony was performed by the then Charles, Prince of Wales who of course is now King Charles III Nimmo27 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nimmo27 Thanks. Are you OK with the current wording of the article? OJH (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Anglican

Please add that he's loosely from Anglican background so that antisemite can stop making conspiracies. Here's source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/31/the-guardian-view-on-labour-doing-god-faith-communities-can-play-a-part-in-national-renewal 166.181.82.159 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Calls for a ceasefire in the lead

We don't need to mention the fact he previously didn't call for a ceasefire in the lead. It's already mentioned that he didn't call for one in the political positions section on this article, and the sub-article for his political positions offers two paragraphs worth of text about his Gaza views. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarises the key elements on the main body so its naturally going to repeat information. It is definetly notable that he refused to call for a ceasefire for over four months of the war going on. Helper201 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand that, just don't want the lead to get too long is all. I'll make a few tweaks but keep it in the lead. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Half a sentence and a date - or about 9 words - by no means makes the lead too long. Helper201 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, when I said that I meant not wanting the lead to get too long in general. I've added mention of it back, just without "20 February 2024" as the full date doesn't need to be listed in the lead. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Right honourable and Learnerd

Isnt Kier Starmer technically "The Right Honourable and Learned" rather than just "Right Honourable" on the account of him being a barrister and KC? Dbainsford (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is only for oral address in the House, not as a print title. Atchom (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Transgender rights

The transgender rights section under political positions seems kinda POV. I don't think it's needed. 81.78.155.45 (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a consensus as you seem to imply in your edit summaries. The topic in question has received substantial media attention and possibly upset many Labour supporters. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox placement of "Sir"

There are lately two differing conventions on where to place the pre-nominal "Sir" in biographical infoboxes. The first convention (which used to be more prevalent) is to put it in |honorific_prefix=, but a second convention (which has been become more widely used) is to put it immediately before the person's name in |name=. Given that Starmer is probably the most well-known/consequential politician with a knighthood at the moment, this is probably a good time to discuss this in relation to this article's infobox. Personally, I reckon that we should put it in |name=, since I think it looks slightly jarring to have "The Right Honourable" linked but "Sir" unlinked, and it matches the practice of bolding "Sir" in the lead. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I honestly think it just looks better that way. Katechon08 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion on MOS:BIO in 2022. That's probably the place to go, but in terms of general principles, there was not a consensus one direction or another. I think that "Sir", as an honorific prefix, should go in the honorific prefix parameter, and "Keir Starmer", as a name, should go in the name parameter. Ralbegen (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Ralbegen as "Sir" is not part of his name. Besides, the template doc for this family of infoboxes says of the name field: Do not put honorifics or alternative names in this parameter. There are separate parameters for these things, covered below. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Politicians are infinitely more touchy of a subject than, say, Sir Christopher Lee or Sir Christopher Nolan, so officeholders (to be more specific) should not be treated with a more neutral stance. BarntToust (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A knighthood is a name changing honour, so it’s technically part of his name. 2001:8003:E414:7900:700C:38FD:1B8B:6594 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No, Sir is a title. Gammawammallama (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Ravenpuff and Katechon08. His honorific style is The Right Honourable whereas Sir, as a title, becomes part of his name. Hence why it is not considered correct to apply "the Rt Hon" in direct address, only in third person, but it is correct to address him as "Sir Keir". Similar to the reasons why we put Sir before the name in the lead. Not to mention how absolutely atrocious it looks separated from the name in the infobox. Walco1 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for putting it so concisely. Atchom (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

10 July 2024

Thread retitled from "Whitewashing".

How is correcting stating that Starmer has made many pro comments about the LGBT+ community and actually expanding on what he said about transgender rights, whitewashing to you, @Helper201?

Please excuse me, I am studying poltics & I've been keeping an eye on this page over the past few days.

This version was much more stable and better. ShinegemsAD (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Because it removed other information such as him being against self-ID and saying he will continue to block the Gender Reform Bill in Scotland just to paint a more positive picture. This is getting very suspicious that a brand-new account pops up within about an hour of that edit to back up what was done by ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter in the same way an IP with no prior edits also randomly popped up to support one of their edits. Helper201 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm not an editor here. But I am sure others who are will have a say about this and your edit. I think it's silly to suggest making sure it's noted that Starmer wants to strengthen LGBT legislation is whitewashing. ShinegemsAD (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter I see you have made so many edits on this article, would you agree with me that the version I linked was more better? ShinegemsAD (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

To the first commenter, thank you for the explanation I can confirm that I have no relation to the other account or IP adress. I agree that it is suspicious but it has nothing to do with me. To the second commenter, I think my alteration is an improvement as it's a lot shorter. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't shortening articles to the point of excluding notable social policies of Starmer be detrimental to the article? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 Wikipedia is a collaboration; you do not own this page. If someone has added cited content, you shouldn't remove it. Nobody removed your cited content, they expanded on it, which is what Wikipedia is about. You also didn't reply back to concerns on your talk page about this, which I've read is helpful and important here. ShinegemsAD (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

There was cited content removed by ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter. Helper201 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Imo this version was much better, clearly expanding on Starmer's views on the LGBT+ community with good sources, and also expanding on his comments regarding trans rights. ShinegemsAD (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

The edit removed cited content, as ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter has been doing constantly across multiple Wikipedia pages despite repeated discussions. Helper201 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Audio mispronunciation

In the audio of his name it isn't pronounced /ˈkɪər/ but /ˈkɪjə/ Vabadus91 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That is true but according to [3], the name is pronounced kɪə(ɹ). Meaning that the "ɹ" is either pronounced or not. At any rate, it ist not "r". I have the impression that the usual pronunciation is without "ɹ" or "r" - even if in Gaelic that would be pronounced. But Starmer is not Scottish. Anyway, shouldn't we use the most common pronunciation? --Bernardoni (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

R.e. “Sir” for Keir Starmer

From my understanding, including aspects of a title in the lede (not the infobox) does not conform to other articles and thus may lack careful consideration. For example, articles on academics include merely their name (e.g. John Smith) rather than with honorary titles, like: Dr John Smith or John Smith, Ph.D (despite presenting this way in formal reports; Romanos et al., 2017). I am unaware of any guidelines outlining exceptions for Sirs.

Additionally, the placement of the honorific in the infobox is being repeatedly contested in which it is excluded or exchanged between the title and honorific sections. In my opinion, a consensus should be reached upon which an invisible comment in the infobox is added to preclude further issues.

Note that the infobox title is also used to indicate the most colloquial as opposed to formal references to the individual. For example, the Jacksepticeye article.

Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOS has specific guidelines for "Sir" which is bolded in the lede. Moreover there have been prolonged debates about "Sir" in the infobox and consensus is to follow the long-standing MOS style and to have it bolded and part of the name. "Sir" is not the same thing as "Dr" as it is a name-changing title. Atchom (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that Sir is a name-changing title and is Mister also one? TFD (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Children

Why are the names of his children omitted? The information is publicly available via an easily citeable source - the General Register Office Birth Index. 146.200.29.183 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Because "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." and the source you are referring to is a primary source. SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Unless the children are notable, i.e., have their own articles, it provides no meaningful information. TFD (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree not to include the names for privacy reasons. For similar reasons, the names of the daughters of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak are not mentioned on their articles.--ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Starmer's put a lot of effort into not publicly naming his children in order to preserve their privacy. Could we remove the names from this page? https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/03/wednesday-briefing-first-edition-keir-starmer-family-labour 82.18.252.168 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - yes I should have done that from the start. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments at NATO summit on Palestinian statehood

Should Starmer's comments at the NATO summit on Palestinian statehood be added to the article? Support for the recongition of Palestinian statehood in potential opposition to the US and Israel as part of a peace process, as committed to in Labour manifesto, and affirmed as PM at a major international summit seems relevant to the premiership's foreign policy section.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-palestine-israel-usa-american-recognition/

He told journalists at the Nato summit that a ceasefire "needs to be a foot in the door for a process towards a two-state solution, a viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel".

He said: "We don't have either of those at the moment. That is the process that we all should work on, we've been discussing it with colleagues here in bilaterals and recognising Palestine is part of that process.

"And part of that process is important, rather than the end of the process, because this is a right the Palestinian people have, it's not in the gift of anyone.

"And so far as our policy is concerned, I'll determine our policy, not follow anyone else."

SoThisIsPeter (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

Please add to his legal career section the following:

Starmer represented Croatia at the genocide hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 2014, arguing that Serbia wanted to seize a third of Croatian territory during the 1990s war and eradicate the Croatian population. /Ivanovic, Josip (7 March 2014). "Serbia 'Tried to Eradicate Croatian Population'". Balkan Transitional Justice. 

SoupePrimordiale (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (2)

Can you guys format the following text to look more formal, grammatically correct, and easy and quick to read?

"Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB, KC (/ˈkɪər/ ⓘ; born 2 September 1962) is a British politician and is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and has served as Leader of the Labour Party since 2020."

I suggest we change it to this:

Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB, KC (/ˈkɪər/ ⓘ; born 2 September 1962) is a British politician who is currently serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2024 and as Leader of the Labour Party since 2020.

Thank you. Sratcao42 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (4)

Hello,i would like to update the photo of kier starmer as i believe it needs to be updated to a more recent date, this is why to day i am requesting a edit request.

Thank you. buran 1314. BURAN 1314 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is now changed to the official portrait of 2024. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• The lead needs adjusting; at the moment, it repeats itself. Suggest something along the lines of:

  In July 2024, Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative government. He succeeded Rishi Sunak as prime minister on 5 July 2024.

  Also, per MOS:LEADCITE, why are there so many refs in the lead, when all this is cited in the article body? Perhaps ref. the description of 'landslide'—since it's potentially a WP:WTW—but the remainder should either be in the article itself and therefore not need citing here or removed from the lead in its entirety (the stuff about union supporters, 2023 articles etc). 2.28.124.91 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (5)

The current image is nominated for deletion so I request to update the image to File:KeirStarmerOfficialPortrait.jpeg Parabelleum (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

Please change "since 2024" to "following elections in 2024". As previously observed, "since 2024" implies that 2024 was in the past whereas it is not. Bret Sterling (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

Add a link to “Rishi Sunak” to the page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi_Sunak under the “Prime Ministers” section under the heading “Leader of the Opposition” 2A00:23EE:1158:771A:40BF:CB98:3C49:F5F5 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2024

In the section under Jeremy Corbyns leadership, the text mentions Keir Starmers time as Secretary for Brexit, there is an error as ‘Appointed’ is spelt ‘Appinted’. TaiJarrett (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

A toolmaker?

Was his father really a toolmaker? I know it says so and there's a citation. But how are we really to know for sure that his father made tools for a living? 184.148.141.44 (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So true I have never seen him mention it ever PimmA08 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, we can't really know anything for that matter. Bremps... 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

https://skwawkbox.org/2022/09/01/starmer-claims-he-knew-poverty-as-child-his-dad-owned-a-factory/ 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:52:7C1B:64E4:8B63 (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

Add Skills England under domestic policy. Also, remove the random photo of Rishi Sunak under the 2024 election. 2A0A:EF40:EFE:5801:C84D:303:AECF:A0AA (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Controversial tag amid riots

Should we include the controversial tag to this talk page amid the ongoing riots and the criticism over his response to it, or not? ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No facts about the article subject are in dispute in reliable sources. He is not controversial. We don't add templates to national leaders when events occur in the country - that's not the purpose of maintenance templates. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I fully agree with you. Just wanted to see what the consensus was with templates for national leaders when events occur. Thank you for explaining this! --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect tense.

in the first paragraph it says served which is past tense. As he is currently serving as prime minister it should read that he is serving or he serves. Can this be updated? 62.4.58.233 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That's called the "present perfect continuous" tense, and it's correct.

"We use the present perfect continuous for a single activity that began at a point in the past and is still continuing"

See this short video:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/english/features/tenses_with_georgie/ep-240216

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Religious background

May you please add that he came from an Anglican family background. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/31/the-guardian-view-on-labour-doing-god-faith-communities-can-play-a-part-in-national-renewal 164.119.5.58 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The article actually says that Starmer says he is "loosely" from an Anglican background, but is not religious. That is both too imprecise and insignificant for inclusion. The Anglican Church is after all the established church in England and Wales. It's slightly more significant than saying he grew up speaking English. TFD (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, "Unlike the Church of England, the Church in Wales is not an established church. Disestablishment took place in 1920 under the Welsh Church Act 1914." (from Church in Wales). Ham II (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

60 out of the last 100 edits are by one user

One anonymous user ought not to control the article about the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia61.68.79.145 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have a problem with anything that User:ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter is writing about Keir Starmer, you or any other user can edit it or bring up any problems with the content here. This user has not made an illegitimate claim to WP:OWN the article and has merely just been very busy with it recently. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Starmer´s writing

There is nothing about his writing, as e.g. The three pillars of liberty: political rights and freedoms in the United Kingdom: by Francesca Klug, Keir Starmer, and Stuart Weir. published 1996. It is said to challange "the notion that the UK and its legal and political systems are unimpeachably virtuous. The authors have identified 44 violations of internationally laid down standards". And from the article about the Birmingham six, under: Freedom of speech: "In December 1987, the Court of Appeal granted an injunction which prevented Channel 4 from re-enacting portions of a hearing in the litigation, as it was "likely to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice" if shown during the appeal, in violation of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In their book The Three Pillars of Liberty (1996) Keir Starmer, Francesca Klug, and Stuart Weir said the decision had had a "chilling effect" on other news and current affairs programmes." - And nothing about his book: European human rights law: The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, published 1999. 2A01:6F02:333:35F1:B420:76B1:BAF3:B36 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Post Office Scandal

This important aspect of the work of the Crown Prosecution Service which continued under the control of Keir Starmer is not discussed. truthordare (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Only ten cases taken by the CPS in relation to the scandal resulted in a conviction. Of those, just three happened whilst Starmer was DPP. There were over four million cases handled by the CPS during Starmer's tenure. None of those three cases passed over his desk and there is almost zero chance he knew of them at the time: even if he did there is little reason or explanation as to why he would have thought of them as miscarriages of justice. Why would dedicating a bit to the scandal in this biographical article be at all due? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of reliably cited content

Tim O'Doherty, what you stated here is factually incorrect. Neither The National nor Yahoo News are tabloids. There is also zero evidence for your claim that this is "outdated" (it happened in July 2024). Your claims of irrelevancy and that the content is "inconsequential" are purely your own personal opinions. By no means does it give you the right to remove correctly cited content from reliable sources. Your whole disrespectful attitude of "spare us the moral outrage" is clearly going against good faith behaviour. Notability guidelines also do not apply to content within articles. Helper201 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The National engages fully in tabloid journalism: it's a very odd and easily disprovable thing to deny. The source is outdated: he was not prime minister then and the actions of his government carry more weight than something said during an election campaign and to JK Rowling of all people. What is the long-lasting notability and significance of that statement? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The National is nowhere cited on its page as a tabloid, so your claim is completely original research. Plus, even if it were to be the case that doesn't necessarily in-of-itself mean everything the source says is inaccurate if it’s a tabloid or "engages in tabloid journalism". It was also cited by another source as well as The National, as stated above. There is absolutely no requirement that we only state information post when he became Prime Minister. And again, there is no notability requirement for content within articles. Helper201 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

This sentence was recently added to the lead: Starmer has said the first budget under his premiership will be in October 2024 will be "painful", while promising "national renewal".
I genuinely don't think an out-of-context quote, mentioned only once in the article, is WP:DUE for the lead, especially as it doesn't tell much about what the budget plan will actually be. Furthermore, quotes and promises about future policies are usually not fit for an article lead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I understand where you are coming from and I'll remove it from the lede. Perhaps we could reach a consensus to include reference to the October budget in the lede once it has been presented, given the first budget under Starmer will signal the direction of his government. Please could others share their views? TheHandofFear (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"2TK" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2TK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 28 § 2TK until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Domestic policy

This section is already ridiculously bloated at barely eighty days in. Also, I cannot see how "Acceptance of gifts" and "Resignation of Rosie Duffield" are part of Starmer's "domestic policy", unless I somehow missed that in the manifesto. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, this could definitely be trimmed down Michaeldble (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Two categories missing from this page

The categories "Labour Party prime ministers of the United Kingdom" and "21st century prime ministers of the United Kingdom" used to be on this article, but have now been removed. Why is this? 150.143.27.224 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They are not missing, they are inherited via the category Category:Keir Starmer which this article is in. See WP:SUBCAT for the reasoning. Perhaps the category strategy here needs to be reviewed. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC Content restoration

Can this content be restored to the page?

When asked by J. K. Rowling in July 2024 whether transgender women with a gender recognition certificate have the right to use women-only spaces, Starmer replied, "No. They don't have that right. They shouldn't". Helper201 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Please see the section above this one titled "Removal of reliably cited content" for more information. Helper201 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (bot-summoned) I'd not be inclined to support this for the following reasons: (1) The origin of the statement is not referenced; at the very least, the original interview needs to be available for verification. (2) The Yahoo News links do not work for me, so I cannot verify that source. (3) This BBC piece gives a detailed elaboration of Stamer's (and Labour's) position, which does not exactly accord with the text above. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Goldsztajn Here is the origin of the statement. You can read an achieved copy without being subscribed to the times - here. In Regards to Yahoo News, this link should work. Other sources on the matter can be seen here and here. Helper201 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    Starmer's reply speaks of "biological women's spaces", not "women's spaces". Whatever one thinks of the qualifier, he has not answered Rowling's question directly; so I do not support the text. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    The Times, per the link above, says that Rowling asked Labour on X: "Do biological males with gender recognition certificates have the right to enter women-only spaces? It’s a simple yes/no question." They go on to say that Starmer answered: "No. They don’t have that right. They shouldn’t. That’s why I’ve always said biological women's spaces need to be protected."

    Isn't that a direct "no" in answer to Rowling's question? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    The answer is equivocal, ambiguous. Is he affirming... "existing government guidance [that] allows for single-sex spaces, such as restrooms and changing rooms, to be restricted based on sex when deemed necessary."? ("Who is Britain’s new prime minister Keir Starmer and what's his LGBTQ+ rights record?" The Advocate) I think the sourcing indicates his position has shifted (ie more equivocal) over the years on the issue of trans rights in general (The Advocate, BBC, Pink News) but on the basis of current sourcing I do not think Wikipedia voice should be used to state Stamer uneqivocally believes "transwomen do not have the right to access women-only spaces". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    It's not our job to analyse the answer, but we can allow readers to form their own interpretations by giving the question and answer in the voices of the questioner and the answerer. These get weight from the secondary sources that support them, and are clearly verifiable from the primary sources.

    The only valid question I can see is whether it is relevant to the subject of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

    But the removed text was an analysis of the answer in Wikipedia voice and elided Starmer's qualified, full response. I don't in principle have any problem in including text on Starmer's changed position regarding trans rights, the sources clearly indicate he has moved from one of broad support to equivocal support. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, it needs to be worded appropriately with respect to the sources and to the Wiki policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Goldsztajn It doesnt say he "uneqivocally believes transwomen do not have the right to access women-only spaces". It said that he responded "No. They don't have that right. They shouldn't" in july 2024 when asked by jk rowling. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for the ping, but I'm not sure I can add anything that I've not already said. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. A reliable source for it (the times) has been provided; so why not?

A Socialist Trans Girl 10:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Do not restore Per Balancing aspects, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject." Based on the sources used, this story lacks weight for inclusion, considering the coverage Starmer has received on numerous stories, of which only the most significant belong.

Due to the scant coverage of Starmer's comment and the lack of context, we don't know what he actually meant. One editor suggested we add his quote and allow the reader to decide, but the reader requires context and preferrably the opinions of informed observers in order to make this call.

It may be that the story becomes significant, Starmer is asked to clarify his comments and political supporters and opponent weigh in. In that case it may be due for inclusion.

For background, the extreme right has recently become obsessed with what bathrooms transexuals are allowed to use and have little interest in getting their facts right. But the mainstream has mostly ignored the issue.

TFD (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems that this is a well-sourced comment. I disagree that the topic is a minor aspect of the views of the Prime Minister of a nation, particularly a western-democracy where discussions about transgender topic are increasingly common, and yes, even in "mainstream" sources. In the past year, BBC has reported on issues regarding transgender individuals and bathrooms no less than seventy-six times. 151 times for The Guardian. Increased reports of anti-trans hate crimes (rose by 11% in 2023, pushing level to the highest they've been since 2012) have also brought the issue into increased political relevance.

All to say, this factual, and well-cited, short sentence on a world leader's position on a modern and pressing political issue is appropriate for this article. Jcgaylor (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Quote magnets add a lot of clutter in some political pages and in principle we should not cover every quote or opinion on an issue unless it has been picked up by enough sources. I am honestly asking if this quote has been picked up by more than two sources because that would help us understand if it is right for this page. If it is included we do not need like a dozen sources on the actual article page but I am asking for the sake of this talk page. Jorahm (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Strange phrasing in Director of Public Prosecutions section

"that Starmer was personally responsible for allowing to proceed the prosecution of Paul Chambers"

Doesn't that sound at best awkward, at worst ungrammatical? I suggest:

that Starmer was personally responsible for allowing the prosecution of Paul Chambers to proceed 86.21.234.75 (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Alarics (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite protections

​​​ Why in royalty's name is the page both indefinitely WP:SEMI and WP:PC?197.244.75.233 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

PC was needed when the article was ec protected for a finite duration; it is not needed now. I removed the pc, leaving the indefinite semi in place. Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate links to Rishi Sunak

We don't need three links to Rishi Sunak in the infobox. Only one is needed. 150.143.27.224 (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:REPEATLINK, infoboxes, tables etc are exempt from the overlink rule. This is because they are not intended to be read from end to end like a paragraph or section. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, REPEATLINK reads: Other mentions may be linked if helpful, such as in infoboxes. Clearly, linking Sunak three times in the infobox is not helpful. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)