Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing children[edit]

His children are missing from the article, which is an unusual omission for a Wikipedia biographical article.

Perhaps someone could add them. Their names are:

1) Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius,

2) Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan,

3) Peter Theodore Alphege,

4) Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam,

5) Mary Anne Charlotte Emma,

6) Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher.

See [1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40506109 81.154.4.27 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are deliberately not named in the article, see WP:BLPNAME. This wouldn't add significant value.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the latter point. Those names will be a big enough burden for the brood to bear throughout their lives, without even more people finding them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.78.33 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the children are "deliberately not named in the article", referring to WP:BLPNAME, and that naming them "wouldn't add significant value". Can you explain why it is different for Truss' predecessor as PM, Boris Johnson, whose children are named?

The names of Johnson's children are given in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Relationships) as

1) Lara Lettice,

2) Milo Arthur,

3) Cassia Peaches,

4) Theodore Apollo,

5) Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas,

6) Romy Iris Charlotte.

This is trying to make WP:OTHERCONTENT into a reason for having the names in this article. In line with WP:BLPNAME, it isn't necessary to name children if they are not notable in their own right.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using your justification, please could you explain why the following children of notable politicians are named?

- David Cameron (Ivan Reginald Ian (deceased), Nancy Gwen, Florence Rose Endellion, Arthur Elwen)

- Gordon Brown (John Macaulay, James Fraser)

- Tony Blair (Euan, Nicholas, Kathryn, Leo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.4.27 (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could play this game all day long, but the fact is that WP:BLPNAME discourages including the names of children if they are not independently notable. As it says, "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. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Jacob Rees-Mogg is notable because of his career as a politician, his children aren't.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond. You haven't addressed the question of selective and inconsistent application of the policy that you quoted at all. It's not clear that you even recognised it. I might have misjudged your efforts and you might be on a mission, even now, to apply the same policy elsewhere. Perhaps you have started by removing the names of the children of Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair... Surely you wouldn't show an 'editorial' bias such as would be implicit in only applying the policy to one particular politician, would you? 81.154.4.27 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never really given it much thought until it was raised in this thread. We've both had our say on this, so there needs to be input from other editors to get a WP:CONSENSUS on whether the names of the children are notable enough for inclusion. Personally I think they aren't, but that's just me.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree that the names of his children aren’t notable, and have removed them from the mother-in-law article. KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This example of editorial inconsistency is hilarious: the article on Mogg's father lists his children in great detail, including the subject of this article. One might surmise that the father is unashamed of his children's names and the supporter of the omission of the subject of this article's children is somewhat embarrassed by the, ahem, 'quirky' choice of names which does, to be fair support the subject's pseudo-self-gentrification striving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.135 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for hilarity, try this quote on for size: "it isn't necessary to name children if they are not notable in their own right" (emphasis added)... Jacob Rees-Mogg IS notable in his own right; hence his name is freely usable where applicable. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JR-M's four siblings are named. Are they all "notable in their own rights"? One has her own Wikipedia page, the others don't. Perhaps the latter three should be deleted from the article.
It seems possible that some participants in the discussion, above, might be showing a bias regarding JR-M's children's names. 86.160.228.56 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PC label[edit]

What the basis Векочел for "Only peers get the PC label applied after their name" in your 11:38, 2 November 2023 edit summary in view of Diana Johnson DBE PC MP,[1] Michael Heseltine PC MP,[2] Arthur Henderson, P.C., M.P.[3]? Mcljlm (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Privy Counsellors and Crown Appointments". Debrett's. Archived from the original on 28 May 2016. Retrieved 15 June 2015. In a social style of address for a peer who is a Privy Counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other members of the Privy Council the pre-fix 'Rt Hon' before the name is sufficient identification.
  • "Letters after the name". Debrett's. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017. In a social style of address for a peer who is a privy counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other members of the Privy Council the prefix 'Rt Hon' before the name is sufficient identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKay (talk • contribs) 17:53:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/39298/documents/192829/default/
  2. ^ https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1999-06-11/debates/1ab0c52d-9a4b-4c72-8604-0c292e5ec96e/WrittenAnswers Column 410
  3. ^ https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1928-07-11/debates/4fe09c6d-b8a1-4ccb-8d55-e30762aeef27/WrittenAnswers 1924

Criticism[edit]

I am concerned that criticism of Jacob Rees-Mogg has been removed without explanation, such as here and here. I freely admit I have a strong opinion on JRM, so that's why I think we should have a discussion about whether the removed text was appropriate or not, and also the reasons why. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would also like to see what the reasons were for these removals. The lead section includes the claim that "He amassed a significant fortune: it was estimated in 2016 at between £55 million and £150 million, including his wife's expected inheritance." This needs to be covered in the main body of the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is being wealthy a bad thing then? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether being wealthy is a bad or not is irrelevant. What is a "bad thing" is an article that makes two different claims, one in the lead section and one in the main body? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the heading here is 'criticism', so I wondered if you thought discussing his wealth was criticism of him. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism arises not from him being wealthy as such, but rather from this privilege meaning he has no real idea of how most people live. Either way, the article ought to be accurate. Or perhaps you think £50 million is just an insignificant trifle? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What should the threshold of personal wealth be do you think, that if exceeded we could say that the person could not possibly have any real idea of how most people live? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably less than £150 million. But my personal views are also irrelevant. What are relevant are secondary sources detailing criticism of Rees-Mogg from notable individuals. And even if there were none of these, I'd suggest that his personal wealth should be reported accurately here. Perhaps we need a separate discussion thread on "Personal wealth"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main body currently says just "in excess of £100 million". There seems to be some discrepancy with what appears in the lead section? The Spectator usefully tells us: Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair, 45, born in 1977, is the daughter of famous poet and aristocrat Somerset de Chair and Lady Juliet Tadgell. Lady Tadgell (now aged 88) is heir to the Fitzwilliam fortune and has an estimated net worth of £45 million, all of which Helena stands to inherit as her only surviving child. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacob_Rees-Mogg&oldid=1218357118"