Talk:Matt Hancock

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

Untitled[edit]

This appears to have been written by Hancock himself. Vanity, vanity, vanity. Also, needs a disambig page to deal with Matt Hancock page (who's much more notable than this random lobby fodder) Pistachiones (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that reads "Hancock spent £35,000,000 on malteasers in January 2020 to give to people when the Coronavirus as passed" is unsubstantiated.Peter Hughes (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sack incident[edit]

"In July 2014, in an interview for Total Politics magazine, Hancock appeared in a photograph in which - not noticed by him or the photographer - he was standing in front of graffiti that read "Sack Cameron", supposedly in reference to the Prime Minister." Is this really notable? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it seems to have attracted only fleeting attention, hasn't been construed as representing anything about Hancock's intentions and hasn't had any consequences for his career. I've removed it Dtellett (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Matthew Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 February 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Zawl 14:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– The politician formerly known as Matthew Hancock is now known as Matt Hancock, according to Parliament[1], his government department[2], the Conservative party[3], his website[4], eponymous app[5], etc. The current Matt Hancock article covers a fictional character from the Australian soap opera Neighbours, and can be disambiguated as Matt Hancock (Neighbours), like Josh Willis / Josh Willis (Neighbours) and others. Most incoming links can be fixed by a single edit to Template:Neighbours characters. The cabinet minister is the primary topic and should be Matt Hancock, with Matthew Hancock becoming a redirect page. If supported, I believe an adminstrator or page mover would need to do this. AJP (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Does appear to be his common name now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncited Trivia[edit]

Is this uncited sentence under Personal Information really necessary "He also supports Newcastle United, and was presented with a signed shirt for the 2019–20 season.[citation needed]". Is it really an important part of his life story that he might have been given a signed T-shirt? And if he does support Newcastle United and it is deemed of great importance, surely a reliable citation can be found to support that claim.94.139.28.40 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The family live in Queens Park Brent, not the constituency.[edit]

Matt hancock lives in queens park brent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.18.57 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a reliable source to support? Keith D (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/25/matt-hancocks-wife-quietly-dignified-osteopath-descended-baron is indicative

Shredding firm[edit]

At The Independent: "Matt Hancock received shares in family shredding firm that won lucrative NHS contract" - [6]. Also in The Times and BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some nasty rumour invented by The Independent and The Times . Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021[edit]

Hes not in love island 94.234.72.197 (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by SN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021 (2)[edit]

I feel that it is important that both the criticism mr Hancock has directly faced (BLP violation removed)? 82.19.93.60 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The suggested edit fails to adhere to neutrality policy. Living Concrete (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021 (3)[edit]

Update spouse to seperated and add Gina Coladangelo as partner. Been reported by sky they are now together. 37.223.24.54 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error in 'Secretary of State for Health and Social Care'[edit]

Incorrectly says 'and Wales'. Unable to edit the article. 92.11.249.97 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible worthwhile addition[edit]

Most biographical articles make some reference to the notable individual's parents' occupations/ status (particularly of value in politicians' articles, as it illustrates the backgrounds of those in power), so it would seem appropriate here too based on https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/28/matt-hancock-an-ambitious-operator-who-knows-which-levers-to-pull , which states Hancock to have been "Born in 1978 in Cheshire to parents who ran a software firm". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.192.127 (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm a Celebrity" - task and trials[edit]

Hello @Cowlibob: I don't agree with this revert [7] reword to be more encyclopaedic. summarise. This is the text I included [8]:

On 9 November a teaser of I’m a Celebrity showed Hancock crawling through dark, mud-filled tunnels, screaming as bugs and thick liquids were poured on him from above.[1][2] While appearing on the show, Hancock was asked to drink and eat a number of unappetising foods, such as blended meal worms, parts of a camel’s penis, sheep’s vagina and cow’s anus, which he reluctantly did.[3][4] After being voted by the public to take part in a test called "Who wants to look stupid on air?", Hancock was drenched in slime and covered in feathers and custard.[5][6]

This is the text you replaced it with:

Hancock joined the show on 9 November 2022 with comedian Seann Walsh.[7] The public voted for him to take part in a number of trials in the show. Hancock was criticised by his fellow contestants for his actions as Health Secretary during the COVID-19 pandemic including breaking social distancing rules.[8]

IMO having been criticised by contestants for his actions as Health Secretary is almost irrelevant: why do their opinions matter to us? Did they stimulate a new political debate or were they of no consequence?

On the other hand, the tasks performed by the former Health Secretary are quite remarkable and have been met with much debate across the public. WP:RECENTISM is always a risk to be taken into account, but I believe this content is encyclopedic: it is not often you see a former minister covered in feathers, except after a revolution. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group opposed Hancock appearing on a reality TV show during the Covid inquiry, they stated "If he had any respect for bereaved families, he would be sharing his private emails with the Covid Inquiry, not eating bugs on TV."[9]" See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Hancock&type=revision&diff=1122034402&oldid=1122022887. DeFacto reverted part of it saying "avoid banalities". I put back "The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group opposed Hancock appearing on a reality TV show during the Covid inquiry, they stated "If he had any respect for bereaved families, he would be sharing his private emails with the Covid Inquiry." rather than being on TV." See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Hancock&type=revision&diff=1122056012&oldid=1122055300. I don't understand how the views of families who lost someone to Covid can be considered banal. DeFacto [reverted it again] I think it belongs in the page. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"crawling through dark, mud-filled tunnels, screaming as bugs and thick liquids were poured on him from above" this bit reads a bit like a novel / history text rather than encyclopedia, I guess because it's too designed to generate imagery in the readers mind. Perhaps something more like "a number of unpleasant challenges" and get a wikilink to the show? It feels sort of like too much detail that is more designed to enjoy the suffering / degradation of hancock or at least make one aware of it rather than report facts. If you could find things about people's responses and impressions that would sort of demonstrate notability? Talpedia (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the text might be reworded and a more sober formulation might be found. However, such formulation should express the extraordinary nature of the tasks performed on the show - so IMHO some details will be necessary after all. With regard to public responses that help us establish notability (and also the adequate WP:BALANCE), the following are significant:
  • Guardian Sunak also suggested he was uncomfortable with the level of degradation Hancock was putting himself through on the show as an elected politician;
  • Independent Matt Hancock’s sixth trial in I’m a Celeb has divided his constituents -with some claiming he has made the town a “laughing stock” while others insist “he’s been punished enough”;
  • Anti-hero Hancock revels in shameless jungle game, The Independent, November 15, 2022: Matt Hancock's jungle turn has been variously described as the most incredible celebrity TV booking quite possibly of all time
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would prefer some of this metacommentary with cites to expressing things through details or linguistic device, mostly because the interpretation is then explicit, verifiable and attributable to third parties. Instead of "crawling through dark" we might say, "Media sources commented on the degrading nature of some of the tasks in the gameshow [1][2][3]" Talpedia (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right and more restrained, less descriptive language would be advisable here. Let's see what other editors think about this. But how about an intermediate wording such as "Media sources commented on the degrading nature of some of the tasks in the gameshow (footnotes) such as being covered in bugs, eating repulsive foods and being drenched in slime, custard and feathers (footnotes)"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this wording provided the sources talk about these things as being degrading or quite close to talking about degradingness. Talpedia (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ McTaggart, India (2022-11-09). "Watch: Matt Hancock is covered in bugs during I'm a Celebrity debut". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  2. ^ "Matt Hancock covered with bugs and sludge in I'm a Celebrity preview". the Guardian. 2022-11-09. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  3. ^ Media, P. A. (2022-11-12). "Jeremy Hunt: eating testicles in jungle is 'only job worse than being chancellor'". the Guardian. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  4. ^ "Watch Matt Hancock Munch On Camel Penis And Cow Anus In 'Disgusting' I'm A Celebrity Trial". HuffPost UK. 2022-11-12. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  5. ^ Media, P. A. (2022-11-12). "Matt Hancock covered in slime and feathers in I'm a Celebrity trial". the Guardian. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  6. ^ "Matt Hancock drenched in slime and pelted with feathers during latest I'm A Celebrity trial". Sky News. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  7. ^ "Matt Hancock enters the jungle, and his fellow I'm a Celebrities are unimpressed". ITV News. 9 November 2022.
  8. ^ Jobling, Phoebe (11 November 2022). "ITV I'm A Celebrity viewers applaud Chris Moyles as Matt Hancock breaks down and admits 'real reason' for joining show". Manchester Evening News.
  9. ^ Matt Hancock: Why is ex-health secretary a controversial figure? BBC

I’m a Celeb reactions[edit]

User:DeFacto, how has Hancock’s appearance in the show not received generally negative reactions? There isn’t a single positive or even mixed reaction in that section in the article. I also can’t find anything online besides Twitter nobodies. Asperthrow (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Asperthrow, the lead should be a neutral summary of the most important points that are already covered in the article body, and nothing more. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section contains plenty of criticism. Simply including notable criticism isn’t a breach of impartiality. Maybe we should discuss whether it’s relevant enough to include in the lede? Asperthrow (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity[edit]

This page says that the appearance of MH in I'm a Celebrity "has received negative reactions". From whom? If the fact that he came third in the show is anything to go by, the majority of the TV viewing public in the UK has been very positive about it. Who has said anything negative? Egarobar (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We’re not going with that edit that I made. Furthermore, your own hypothesis about the public’s reaction is irrelevant. If you think the public’s reaction has been positive, feel free to find reliable sources to include in the article. Asperthrow (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the duplication, but I didn't see the last talk. And, it hasn't been addressed yet! Egarobar (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hancock's ongoing participation in the show"[edit]

It was weeks ago that Jill Scott won, so this sentence in the article needs to be changed. 79.66.92.93 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023 (2)[edit]

Remove "ongoing participation in the show" as it's not been ongoing for two months. 92.15.148.117 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive photographs[edit]

One official photograph should suffice. The article currently has ten (!) photographs and looks like a piece of PR work. 86.145.140.135 (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need to Allege the Reporter Who Covered the Messages was a "White Supremacist"[edit]

How can we portray the reporter who covered Mr. Hancock's leaked messages as being a white supremacist? Are there any CNN pieces out yet calling her a white supremacist that we can use? Can any of you write some articles calling her a white supremacist, then we can use them as reliable sources for the article? Thanks and remember, we are the good guys. We are all really great people who spend our lives doing this. 137.83.219.106 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption claim[edit]

I removed the claim that one of his children is adopted because it was not sourced. But I thought it worthwhile to add an additional note, as this is a case of Citogenesis.

On August 9, 2021, the claim was first added, unsourced, by an anonymous ip address.

On August 16,2021, the claim was moved from the infobox in what appears to me to be a good faith edit. This was unfortunate, though, since it had never been sourced.

I checked quickly for sourcing, and I did find a few sources which tend to weakly assert this as fact. But all of these sources date from November, 2022 or later. OK! Grazia Metro. None of those are actual interviews or investigations, and they are all from lower-quality or celebrity news outlets.

Finally, as I know Mr Hancock professionally (he was the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport a few years ago), he raised the issue with me as being untrue. His children apparently think it is quite funny, and he didn't seem upset, but it is decidedly false. I made the edit directly because this is a BLP issue, and because I have no conflict of interest. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps also move the image File:Matt Hancock visits China to promote co-operation on healthcare innovation.jpg out of the "Personal life" section, as that was from an official Ministerial visit? Also the claim that "Hancock forbids his children to use social media" is a bit dated. The more recent source, from The Daily Telegraph is dated 2018, when his daughter was aged 11 and his two sons aged 9 and 4. Does he really still forbid a 16-year old daughter from having a phone? Even his elder son is now 14? Thanks. 86.187.237.138 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, again some celebrity you know asks you to personally intervene (but of course you have no COI to please your celebrity pals), and you claim that they tell the truth, we spread lies, and sources follow us. Of course, some searching again proves you wrong. The National, Scottish newspaper, reported on 25 June 2021[9]: "Hancock married his osteopath wife Martha Hancock in 2005. They have three children, one of whom is adopted." Bizarrely (well, not, considering British politics and the power politicians and the judiciary control over the press, see BJs lordship handouts) until a few days ago this was still present in the article (as evidenced by the Google cache), but is now removed. Nothing can beat a coordinated effort eh? Fram (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, I very clearly and very specifically made it very clear that the edits in Wikipedia appeared to be good faith. The original insertion was from an anonymous ip address who did not give a source, and of course that's never satisfactory for a BLP issue. In the rest of your remarks, you seem to be suggestion - with zero evidence - that Mr. Hancock may have inappropriately exercised political pressure on a Scottish newspaper. I know you are upset about this, but that's a direct BLP violation. What seems most likely (I have no idea) is that following advice that I always give to BLP subjects to ask me, he may have contacted the sources to ask for a correction. It's not like some grand conspiracy to hide something - it's just a simple factual correction that any newspaper would surely be happy to make. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I think your remarks qualify here, but in the current case I'll leave it others to remove because I'm tired of arguing with you over issues like this with you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I very clearly and very specifically made it very clear that the edits in Wikipedia appeared to be good faith." Uh, no, you didn't. You gave no qualification at all about the first edit which introduced it, you only said that the move afterwards to an infobox, by another editor was made in good faith. Fram (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPSO complaint[edit]

On July 28 2023, UK newspaper regulator [Press Standards Organisation|IPSO] ruled the following statement about Matt Hancock as accurate : "a failed health secretary and cheating husband who broke the lockdown rules he wrote, doubled down on the lies he told, helped enrich his mates via the infamous VIP PPE lane, and couldn’t resist monetising the infamy he acquired as a result of his ineptitude at managing the pandemic." [1] after Hancock's complaint. Can this be added to the Top of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2101:D88E:2A4:3D37:8BB3:2A55 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=23874-22

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023[edit]

Change "thatthe" to "that the" in paragraph four of the 'Pandemic Diaries' section. Rainyfern (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Hancock&oldid=1207534080"