This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
During the same interview, Rees-Mogg admitted that he had never changed a nappy, noting that “I don’t think nanny would approve because I’m sure she’d think I wouldn’t do it properly”. These remarks sparked criticism from other MPs. In September 2017 Labour MP Harriet Harman argued that “Men who don’t change nappies are deadbeat dads – and that includes Jacob Rees-Mogg”.
This is so banal and ridiculous. This has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.232 ( talk) 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Should we add the attack which occurred yesterday by momentum activists Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need a citation for this? If he had been a minister, this article would say so. Richard75 ( talk) 09:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
When reading the article as normal, the first category listed before "1969 births" is Category:Grade II listed buildings in Somerset. It is included as a page in the category as normal, but I can't fix this obvious error since the category doesn't seem to be in the page source to remove. Any ideas what's going on here and how to resolve this? – 72 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This is regarding this edit.
The bolded part of this sentence "He attracted support through the social media campaign Moggmentum and due to his party popularity[5] has been touted as a potential successor to Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May.[6]"
is a detail which is not supported by the attached source, making it
WP:SYNTH. It doesn't mention "moggmentum" or social media, so it's use here is unacceptable. The source explains who, precisely, he is popular with regarding this specific hypothetical outcome, but only within context. The edited sentence is already too vague, since it doesn't clearly explain who is touting him. This is a mild form of
WP:WEASEL wording, which is forgivable as a summary, but should not be expanded beyond what's supported. Was he touted because of moggmentum, or was moggmentum a meme that came about because of his popularity? Is there a reliable source that specifically says he is popular because of the social media campaign? If so, let's see it, and we can go from there.
Grayfell (
talk)
00:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The evidence of his party popularity is a necessary addition to offer context to the him being heralded as a potential successor.
The connective 'and' represents a second part to the sentence specifically referring to his ministerial acknowledgement whilst the prior was a relevant factoid denoting his public acclaim. Due to your specific criticism If you believe the sentence would be more factually relevant as two separate sentences without the 'And', then that's an amendment I can agree to. --
FactChecked1 (
talk)
01:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure this will be useful somehow... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Are there any other links than attending a Traditional Britain Group dinner in May 2013, which he denounced after it? [3]. If not, the wording should be changed to be less broad or removed. Also, isn't "critiqued for his attitude to money" a bit silly for the lead? I understand those are there for the balance because he's also called entertaining, but it's like saying he's being opposed by left-wing people for being too right-wing. Well, duh. -- Pudeo ( talk) 23:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I was responsible for adding "critiqued for his attitude to money" when I was tidying up the lede, but I wasn't happy with it at the time and your comments have all just confirmed how bad it is. Let's be rid of it. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Question - should use of the term "anti-fascist" be in inverted commas as most people would describe themselves as against fascism, whereas many of those who call themselves "anti-fascist" also have far-left leanings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.53.22 ( talk) 15:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't his sister be named as Annunziata Mary Glanville in the infobox, rather than using her maiden name of Rees-Mogg? Bangalamania ( talk) 00:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the opening paragraph: Change - "A member of the hard right wing of the Conservative Party" To - "A member of the Conservative Party"
In declaring Rees Mogg to be "hard right wing" Wikipedia is departing from provable fact and giving a highly contestable opinion. Windymac ( talk) 10:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
??^^Is Russia Today really a good source for anything relating to British politics?
Have to agree with Windymac. I don't believe it's a particularly fair or well cited characterisation. AsyncKomms talk 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The article has acquired a "Media appearances" section which is long and has problems with WP:TRIVIA. Most UK politicians have appeared on the The Andrew Marr Show and Daily Politics but we don't have to record it for posterity every time it happens. Other articles about politicians don't do this. I was sorely tempted to remove the whole section but don't want an edit war. Why is this here, and why is it really necessary?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow at all the presence of the line 'Sec. of State: David Davis' in the 'Incumbent' section of the biography. Mogg is not part of the government, so he's not a subordinate of David Davis. And there are many secretaries of state in the government. He may or may not share a similar point of view on Brexit as Davis, but that doesn't justify the line in this section. If there is some reason for it that I've missed, please advise. Otherwise I propose to remove it. Tsuchan ( talk) 11:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a downright falsehood that his company has opened an office in Dublin. The source merely say the company has opened a fund. Moreover, he has adressed this very point on air and thoroughly debunked it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMGcEw48AK0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visf ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That Rees-Mogg stands to amass a huge amount of wealth from the kind of Brexit he advocates (and is actively working) for while the majority of the public, including his constituents, suffer significant economic damage should be reflected in the section "Opposition to membership of the European Union." 85.211.235.108 ( talk) 18:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe Rees-Mogg has appeared at least three times on this programme: here, here and here , as well as being the subject of Paul Merton's tea-towel. I'm surprised his involvement is not seen as notable. I think "WigGate" was quite widely reported. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
if you look at the Electoral history on the same page it gives a different percentage of the majority
Member of Parliament for North East Somerset Incumbent Assumed office 6 May 2010 Preceded by Constituency created Majority 10,235 (18.9%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8827:B500:2DFE:8A51:A950:E4B2 ( talk) 20:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we change the 'Political party' value from the current 'Conservative Party (United Kingdom)' to the canonical reference used for other party members: 'Conservative_Party_(UK)'. This is to make it easier to leverage the structured data. Thank you. 2A00:23C5:318B:E200:C069:B4ED:C36F:4BF8 ( talk) 00:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me that Rees-Mogg's mother-in-law is Lord Nicholas Hervey's mother and John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol's stepmother. I can just picture Moggy and the 7th Marquess strolling together through through the grounds of Ickworth House with the latter firing off his shotgun in the air and shouting "fuck off all you poor people". Anyway, I wondered if it was worth a footnote in this article, or is it off-topic? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Any connections here? https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.187.150 ( talk) 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
How can this website pretend to be neutral with editors making comments like this? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A01:388:38E:150:0:0:1:8E (
talk)
21:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"A member of the Conservative Party, his views have been characterised as socially conservative"
Rees-Mogg's views are not a member of the Conservative Party: he is. Please replace "his views have" with "he has". 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 17:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Jacob Rees-Mogg was sent a Cease and Desist order by the long-established publication, The Beano, for infringing their copyright. by “... masquerading as Walter Brown”.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/jacob-reesmogg-accused-of-being-a-big-softy-a3805351.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.112 ( talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys,
Very minor, but in the Quote from JRM under the sub-heading "May government", the sentence ending: "...and in my view they do not" lacks punctuation. It needs a period (.). It should read: "...and in my view they do not. If..."
AND, in the same section ("May government"), the last paragraph does indeed properly state the case surrounding the attempt by JRM and the ERG to un-seat the PM, and his comments on the matter immediately following that extraordinary vote...
HOWEVER, in the weeks subsequent, he has said that the matter is settled, that Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party, and that she has his "confidence" [1].
I think that a sentence to that effect should be added at the end of that aforementioned paragraph.
All the best,
James 96.30.109.88 ( talk) 05:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I don't see this info as being suitable for the article, as per WP:RECENT. The comment was made 5 days ago and is already out of the news. It was just a comment on a TV discussion programme - politicians are always making comments that other people don't like, it doesn't mean the comments have to appear in their WP articles. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Age at General Election in 1997 was actually 27 years. Turned 28 by end of that month. Correction to article requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.146.86 ( talk) 09:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"Rees-Mogg was born ..., the youngest son of..., by his wife"
Aren't the terms 'by' and 'out of' the language used when talking about breeding horses or dogs, rather than people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.67 ( talk) 22:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
JRPG recently added to the article the statement that "when interviewed by Channel 4, in March 2019, Rees-Mogg refused to answer suggestions their calculations showed that he stood to benefit by £7M since the Brexit vote", sourced to The Irish Times. However, the source states that "Channel 4 asked a clearly uncomfortable Rees-Mogg if their calculations – that Somerset has set aside £7 million (€8.2 million) for him since the Brexit vote – were correct", which is not the same as Rees-Mogg 'benefitting' from Brexit, as it doesn't prove that the Brexit vote caused this income. So I reverted the edit. If Rees-Mogg has benefitted financially from Brexit, any statement as such in the article would need to have a citation to a source that actually states that. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 06:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Perhaps the content in question should be re-written, resourced, and re-worded, making it less controversial. There must be a million and a half such quotes to glean from different sources at the moment, which would stand alone with less interpretation. Mulstev ( talk) 05:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC) |
JRPG, please provide the full text of what you are proposing - your current proposal begins with "however...". Also please sign your post. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 09:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Ylee, you recently added a quote from Cherwell magazine, printed in the FT, which you transcribed as "We more need we say?" [4] This doesn't make sense. Can you check that you have transcribed it accurately - I would do so myself, though the source is behind a paywall. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 12:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Jacob Rees Mogg is now a "Right Honourable" rather than "Honourable" given that he's the leader of the house of commons and president of the council.
The same applies to new cabinet ministers.
Correct. I changed this, and it was reverted. I have changed it again to reflect his honorific as Lord President. Ecbrown ( talk) 13:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In the absence of a designated deputy PM don't these new posts make JRM the de facto deputy PM? Cassandra
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the honours section change 'giving Him the Honorific Title' to all lowercase. Thereafter capitalize 'honorific title' correctly, i.e. not at all. 2A02:A311:240:E680:823:F7EC:364C:E916 ( talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford ( talk · contribs) 14:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The article is a minefield, with structural issues; notably honours have been placed as a sub-set of ones private life, this is certainly the general view, nor would coats of arms be regarded as a mater on ones private life. There is inconsistent use of British and American English, often within the same sentence. It is regularly made ambiguous by the excessive quoting and "micro-quoting." This is worsened by an unsatisfactory level of grammar. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | This article does not appear to have regard for the Manual of Style. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | While I may be mistaken, I do not believe this to be the case. See the criticisms stated below, while they exist it is hard to determine the true nature of the overall citation and to attribute the gap to one single point. As such I have attributed a neutral status to point 2 (a), this is because until the article is sourced fully it is unclear. As I stated at the beginning I have strong reasons (The lack of citation in crucial areas, and the call for more reliable sources on the page being just two) to believe that this article is insufficiently sourced, with that in mind there are some 211 source. I feel that some of these if used properly would cover some of the gaps in citation. I therefore conclude that point 2.a on its own is not a major problem, only when added to 2.b, 2.c and or 2.d does it become a serious concern. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | While some of the sources are reputable, many are not, to the extent that much of this article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; this fact is highlighted by the call throughout the article for more sources, or better sources. This is amplified by the repetitive use of self published sources among others, and sentences using a source which does not relate to contentious material. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial speculation and areas lacking reliable sources. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial plagiarism and copyright violations or speculation. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This article sufficiently addresses the main aspects of Mr Rees-Moggs life and career. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | There is a clear lack of cohesion within the article, which undermines the content as many of the same points are repeated three or four times, which has resulted in the article being longer than necessary, furthermore the way it has been outlined is detrimental to the subject as it further exasperates these issues. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | With the citation in such disarray to attempt to objectively determine the neutrality of the article would be foolish. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This article does not currently appear stable, I am aware that at the moment one would expect greater activity then many, although reading through the history, shows much to and throwing, I am also aware that there is currently a partial protection on the article. While it may not get better, I am of the opinion that it would be stable in the long term. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The photographs are tagged as required | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The relevance of some of the photos is unclear, there are remarkably few containing Mr Rees-Mogg. The captions are accurate and informative in each given case. | |
7. Overall assessment. | At this time, the article requires too many amendments to be brought to a state that would qualify as a good article. I wish you luck in your future endeavours, and hope to see this article back here, when these have been rectified. |
The reference to Chat Politics is selective and doesn't really mean anything. What does "thinks solutions that do not hinder technological progress should be sought" mean? It is probably code for hydraulic fracturing = a solution to climate change. It is both code and highly dubious. He makes other more transparent assertions on Chat Politics such as it is not worth mitigating climate change and we are better off adapting to it and also misrepresents the IPCC regarding modelling and time scales. Chat Politics is no longer on line and there is no transcript, although the video resource is on YouTube.com
The reference to the Independent article is about environmental regulations rather than climate change per se, the article just repeats what is said in the Treasury Committee which is the primary source.
The most transparent statement on Rees-Mogg's views on climate is from an interview he gave with the Timsbury Community (in his constituency) which presents a neutral science based assessment in the context of the then Conservative manifesto, it is fully referenced and offers no political judgement:
Rees-Mogg's views in this document reflect his stated views in both lectures and other interviews. Cunomaglus ( talk) 11:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a Crescent Sable in the image of the Escutcheon (shield) which does not appear in the blazon. Other images of the shield in Google show either no Crescent or a Crescent Or (i.e. golden). Errando ( talk) 23:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I propose to merge Moggmentum into Jacob_Rees-Mogg. I do not think that Moggmentum alone meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY but think its content would be a much better fit into this main article. - Ethanmayersweet 22nd Feb 2019
The file "Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg" should be used as the image in the main infobox over the current "Jacob Rees-Mogg MP.jpg", as I believe the latter looks less formal and is badly lit. Moreover, "Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg" is the official portrait of Mr. Rees-Mogg that is even the preferred image of use by the website of The House of Commons themselves.
I had changed the infobox image to the proposed image in an edit but it was reverted for the one already in use being more up to date. While I concede that the image in question is the more recent one, I believe that the more formal looking image should take precedence, strengthened by the fact that it used by the House of Commons themselves and that Mr. Rees-Mogg doesn't noticeably different in the proposed image compared to the current image. -- Anirudhgiri ( talk) 13:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg is the image that screams "Formal", "Official", and "Authority". I believe that such an image should be employed to be the main image of the article - particularly for a person who is the leader of the House of Commons and is known to be the embodiment of formality and tradition. The image currently in use, while it does have natural flesh tones, looks very informal with the awkward smile and the shadow in the background. These official portraits are also used in the articles of other well known MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn, Peter Bone, Anna Soubry and the Speaker of the House himself - Sir Lindsay Hoyle. For these reasons, I support the proposed change.- Anirudhgiri ( talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
He's characterised as "Far right", with the cited authority being an opinion article in The Guardian...? Really?? Has Wikipedia become this silly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.72.223 ( talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Did Rees-Mogg hold a low profile because he had said something stupid about the Grenfell Tower fire or because he was reclining on the bench of House of Commons during a debate about the Brexit? In the article both claims are made. Creuzbourg ( talk) 00:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why David Lammy was used for sourcing when talking about JHM's political beliefs. Have removed for obvious reasons as he's a direct political opponent. Simply using the main stream media to quote what David Lammy said isn't the same as sourcing a main stream media who endorses those opinions. Both occassions have been removed for partisan reasons. We're not going to ask a rabbit for his opinion on a fox or a Jew for his opinion on Palistine and present them as neutral Alexandre8 ( talk) 12:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Under the 2019 Election result for North East Somerset, the turnout box is empty. Under electoral history. The change of majority also needs to be updated there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.33.131 ( talk) 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Can a confirmed user update the section on Social Issues to reflect Rees-Mogg's views on funding charities designed to to help feed children. See /info/en/?search=UNICEF#Funding_of_UK_food_charities Thanks 86.135.135.51 ( talk) 01:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
During the same interview, Rees-Mogg admitted that he had never changed a nappy, noting that “I don’t think nanny would approve because I’m sure she’d think I wouldn’t do it properly”. These remarks sparked criticism from other MPs. In September 2017 Labour MP Harriet Harman argued that “Men who don’t change nappies are deadbeat dads – and that includes Jacob Rees-Mogg”.
This is so banal and ridiculous. This has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.232 ( talk) 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Should we add the attack which occurred yesterday by momentum activists Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need a citation for this? If he had been a minister, this article would say so. Richard75 ( talk) 09:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
When reading the article as normal, the first category listed before "1969 births" is Category:Grade II listed buildings in Somerset. It is included as a page in the category as normal, but I can't fix this obvious error since the category doesn't seem to be in the page source to remove. Any ideas what's going on here and how to resolve this? – 72 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This is regarding this edit.
The bolded part of this sentence "He attracted support through the social media campaign Moggmentum and due to his party popularity[5] has been touted as a potential successor to Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May.[6]"
is a detail which is not supported by the attached source, making it
WP:SYNTH. It doesn't mention "moggmentum" or social media, so it's use here is unacceptable. The source explains who, precisely, he is popular with regarding this specific hypothetical outcome, but only within context. The edited sentence is already too vague, since it doesn't clearly explain who is touting him. This is a mild form of
WP:WEASEL wording, which is forgivable as a summary, but should not be expanded beyond what's supported. Was he touted because of moggmentum, or was moggmentum a meme that came about because of his popularity? Is there a reliable source that specifically says he is popular because of the social media campaign? If so, let's see it, and we can go from there.
Grayfell (
talk)
00:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The evidence of his party popularity is a necessary addition to offer context to the him being heralded as a potential successor.
The connective 'and' represents a second part to the sentence specifically referring to his ministerial acknowledgement whilst the prior was a relevant factoid denoting his public acclaim. Due to your specific criticism If you believe the sentence would be more factually relevant as two separate sentences without the 'And', then that's an amendment I can agree to. --
FactChecked1 (
talk)
01:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure this will be useful somehow... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Are there any other links than attending a Traditional Britain Group dinner in May 2013, which he denounced after it? [3]. If not, the wording should be changed to be less broad or removed. Also, isn't "critiqued for his attitude to money" a bit silly for the lead? I understand those are there for the balance because he's also called entertaining, but it's like saying he's being opposed by left-wing people for being too right-wing. Well, duh. -- Pudeo ( talk) 23:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I was responsible for adding "critiqued for his attitude to money" when I was tidying up the lede, but I wasn't happy with it at the time and your comments have all just confirmed how bad it is. Let's be rid of it. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Question - should use of the term "anti-fascist" be in inverted commas as most people would describe themselves as against fascism, whereas many of those who call themselves "anti-fascist" also have far-left leanings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.53.22 ( talk) 15:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't his sister be named as Annunziata Mary Glanville in the infobox, rather than using her maiden name of Rees-Mogg? Bangalamania ( talk) 00:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the opening paragraph: Change - "A member of the hard right wing of the Conservative Party" To - "A member of the Conservative Party"
In declaring Rees Mogg to be "hard right wing" Wikipedia is departing from provable fact and giving a highly contestable opinion. Windymac ( talk) 10:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
??^^Is Russia Today really a good source for anything relating to British politics?
Have to agree with Windymac. I don't believe it's a particularly fair or well cited characterisation. AsyncKomms talk 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The article has acquired a "Media appearances" section which is long and has problems with WP:TRIVIA. Most UK politicians have appeared on the The Andrew Marr Show and Daily Politics but we don't have to record it for posterity every time it happens. Other articles about politicians don't do this. I was sorely tempted to remove the whole section but don't want an edit war. Why is this here, and why is it really necessary?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow at all the presence of the line 'Sec. of State: David Davis' in the 'Incumbent' section of the biography. Mogg is not part of the government, so he's not a subordinate of David Davis. And there are many secretaries of state in the government. He may or may not share a similar point of view on Brexit as Davis, but that doesn't justify the line in this section. If there is some reason for it that I've missed, please advise. Otherwise I propose to remove it. Tsuchan ( talk) 11:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a downright falsehood that his company has opened an office in Dublin. The source merely say the company has opened a fund. Moreover, he has adressed this very point on air and thoroughly debunked it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMGcEw48AK0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visf ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That Rees-Mogg stands to amass a huge amount of wealth from the kind of Brexit he advocates (and is actively working) for while the majority of the public, including his constituents, suffer significant economic damage should be reflected in the section "Opposition to membership of the European Union." 85.211.235.108 ( talk) 18:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe Rees-Mogg has appeared at least three times on this programme: here, here and here , as well as being the subject of Paul Merton's tea-towel. I'm surprised his involvement is not seen as notable. I think "WigGate" was quite widely reported. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
if you look at the Electoral history on the same page it gives a different percentage of the majority
Member of Parliament for North East Somerset Incumbent Assumed office 6 May 2010 Preceded by Constituency created Majority 10,235 (18.9%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8827:B500:2DFE:8A51:A950:E4B2 ( talk) 20:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we change the 'Political party' value from the current 'Conservative Party (United Kingdom)' to the canonical reference used for other party members: 'Conservative_Party_(UK)'. This is to make it easier to leverage the structured data. Thank you. 2A00:23C5:318B:E200:C069:B4ED:C36F:4BF8 ( talk) 00:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me that Rees-Mogg's mother-in-law is Lord Nicholas Hervey's mother and John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol's stepmother. I can just picture Moggy and the 7th Marquess strolling together through through the grounds of Ickworth House with the latter firing off his shotgun in the air and shouting "fuck off all you poor people". Anyway, I wondered if it was worth a footnote in this article, or is it off-topic? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Any connections here? https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.187.150 ( talk) 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
How can this website pretend to be neutral with editors making comments like this? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A01:388:38E:150:0:0:1:8E (
talk)
21:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"A member of the Conservative Party, his views have been characterised as socially conservative"
Rees-Mogg's views are not a member of the Conservative Party: he is. Please replace "his views have" with "he has". 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 17:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Jacob Rees-Mogg was sent a Cease and Desist order by the long-established publication, The Beano, for infringing their copyright. by “... masquerading as Walter Brown”.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/jacob-reesmogg-accused-of-being-a-big-softy-a3805351.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.112 ( talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys,
Very minor, but in the Quote from JRM under the sub-heading "May government", the sentence ending: "...and in my view they do not" lacks punctuation. It needs a period (.). It should read: "...and in my view they do not. If..."
AND, in the same section ("May government"), the last paragraph does indeed properly state the case surrounding the attempt by JRM and the ERG to un-seat the PM, and his comments on the matter immediately following that extraordinary vote...
HOWEVER, in the weeks subsequent, he has said that the matter is settled, that Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party, and that she has his "confidence" [1].
I think that a sentence to that effect should be added at the end of that aforementioned paragraph.
All the best,
James 96.30.109.88 ( talk) 05:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I don't see this info as being suitable for the article, as per WP:RECENT. The comment was made 5 days ago and is already out of the news. It was just a comment on a TV discussion programme - politicians are always making comments that other people don't like, it doesn't mean the comments have to appear in their WP articles. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Age at General Election in 1997 was actually 27 years. Turned 28 by end of that month. Correction to article requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.146.86 ( talk) 09:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"Rees-Mogg was born ..., the youngest son of..., by his wife"
Aren't the terms 'by' and 'out of' the language used when talking about breeding horses or dogs, rather than people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.67 ( talk) 22:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
JRPG recently added to the article the statement that "when interviewed by Channel 4, in March 2019, Rees-Mogg refused to answer suggestions their calculations showed that he stood to benefit by £7M since the Brexit vote", sourced to The Irish Times. However, the source states that "Channel 4 asked a clearly uncomfortable Rees-Mogg if their calculations – that Somerset has set aside £7 million (€8.2 million) for him since the Brexit vote – were correct", which is not the same as Rees-Mogg 'benefitting' from Brexit, as it doesn't prove that the Brexit vote caused this income. So I reverted the edit. If Rees-Mogg has benefitted financially from Brexit, any statement as such in the article would need to have a citation to a source that actually states that. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 06:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Perhaps the content in question should be re-written, resourced, and re-worded, making it less controversial. There must be a million and a half such quotes to glean from different sources at the moment, which would stand alone with less interpretation. Mulstev ( talk) 05:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC) |
JRPG, please provide the full text of what you are proposing - your current proposal begins with "however...". Also please sign your post. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 09:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Ylee, you recently added a quote from Cherwell magazine, printed in the FT, which you transcribed as "We more need we say?" [4] This doesn't make sense. Can you check that you have transcribed it accurately - I would do so myself, though the source is behind a paywall. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 12:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Jacob Rees Mogg is now a "Right Honourable" rather than "Honourable" given that he's the leader of the house of commons and president of the council.
The same applies to new cabinet ministers.
Correct. I changed this, and it was reverted. I have changed it again to reflect his honorific as Lord President. Ecbrown ( talk) 13:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In the absence of a designated deputy PM don't these new posts make JRM the de facto deputy PM? Cassandra
This
edit request to
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the honours section change 'giving Him the Honorific Title' to all lowercase. Thereafter capitalize 'honorific title' correctly, i.e. not at all. 2A02:A311:240:E680:823:F7EC:364C:E916 ( talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford ( talk · contribs) 14:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The article is a minefield, with structural issues; notably honours have been placed as a sub-set of ones private life, this is certainly the general view, nor would coats of arms be regarded as a mater on ones private life. There is inconsistent use of British and American English, often within the same sentence. It is regularly made ambiguous by the excessive quoting and "micro-quoting." This is worsened by an unsatisfactory level of grammar. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | This article does not appear to have regard for the Manual of Style. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | While I may be mistaken, I do not believe this to be the case. See the criticisms stated below, while they exist it is hard to determine the true nature of the overall citation and to attribute the gap to one single point. As such I have attributed a neutral status to point 2 (a), this is because until the article is sourced fully it is unclear. As I stated at the beginning I have strong reasons (The lack of citation in crucial areas, and the call for more reliable sources on the page being just two) to believe that this article is insufficiently sourced, with that in mind there are some 211 source. I feel that some of these if used properly would cover some of the gaps in citation. I therefore conclude that point 2.a on its own is not a major problem, only when added to 2.b, 2.c and or 2.d does it become a serious concern. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | While some of the sources are reputable, many are not, to the extent that much of this article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; this fact is highlighted by the call throughout the article for more sources, or better sources. This is amplified by the repetitive use of self published sources among others, and sentences using a source which does not relate to contentious material. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial speculation and areas lacking reliable sources. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial plagiarism and copyright violations or speculation. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This article sufficiently addresses the main aspects of Mr Rees-Moggs life and career. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | There is a clear lack of cohesion within the article, which undermines the content as many of the same points are repeated three or four times, which has resulted in the article being longer than necessary, furthermore the way it has been outlined is detrimental to the subject as it further exasperates these issues. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | With the citation in such disarray to attempt to objectively determine the neutrality of the article would be foolish. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This article does not currently appear stable, I am aware that at the moment one would expect greater activity then many, although reading through the history, shows much to and throwing, I am also aware that there is currently a partial protection on the article. While it may not get better, I am of the opinion that it would be stable in the long term. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The photographs are tagged as required | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The relevance of some of the photos is unclear, there are remarkably few containing Mr Rees-Mogg. The captions are accurate and informative in each given case. | |
7. Overall assessment. | At this time, the article requires too many amendments to be brought to a state that would qualify as a good article. I wish you luck in your future endeavours, and hope to see this article back here, when these have been rectified. |
The reference to Chat Politics is selective and doesn't really mean anything. What does "thinks solutions that do not hinder technological progress should be sought" mean? It is probably code for hydraulic fracturing = a solution to climate change. It is both code and highly dubious. He makes other more transparent assertions on Chat Politics such as it is not worth mitigating climate change and we are better off adapting to it and also misrepresents the IPCC regarding modelling and time scales. Chat Politics is no longer on line and there is no transcript, although the video resource is on YouTube.com
The reference to the Independent article is about environmental regulations rather than climate change per se, the article just repeats what is said in the Treasury Committee which is the primary source.
The most transparent statement on Rees-Mogg's views on climate is from an interview he gave with the Timsbury Community (in his constituency) which presents a neutral science based assessment in the context of the then Conservative manifesto, it is fully referenced and offers no political judgement:
Rees-Mogg's views in this document reflect his stated views in both lectures and other interviews. Cunomaglus ( talk) 11:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a Crescent Sable in the image of the Escutcheon (shield) which does not appear in the blazon. Other images of the shield in Google show either no Crescent or a Crescent Or (i.e. golden). Errando ( talk) 23:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I propose to merge Moggmentum into Jacob_Rees-Mogg. I do not think that Moggmentum alone meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY but think its content would be a much better fit into this main article. - Ethanmayersweet 22nd Feb 2019
The file "Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg" should be used as the image in the main infobox over the current "Jacob Rees-Mogg MP.jpg", as I believe the latter looks less formal and is badly lit. Moreover, "Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg" is the official portrait of Mr. Rees-Mogg that is even the preferred image of use by the website of The House of Commons themselves.
I had changed the infobox image to the proposed image in an edit but it was reverted for the one already in use being more up to date. While I concede that the image in question is the more recent one, I believe that the more formal looking image should take precedence, strengthened by the fact that it used by the House of Commons themselves and that Mr. Rees-Mogg doesn't noticeably different in the proposed image compared to the current image. -- Anirudhgiri ( talk) 13:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Official portrait of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg crop 2.jpg is the image that screams "Formal", "Official", and "Authority". I believe that such an image should be employed to be the main image of the article - particularly for a person who is the leader of the House of Commons and is known to be the embodiment of formality and tradition. The image currently in use, while it does have natural flesh tones, looks very informal with the awkward smile and the shadow in the background. These official portraits are also used in the articles of other well known MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn, Peter Bone, Anna Soubry and the Speaker of the House himself - Sir Lindsay Hoyle. For these reasons, I support the proposed change.- Anirudhgiri ( talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
He's characterised as "Far right", with the cited authority being an opinion article in The Guardian...? Really?? Has Wikipedia become this silly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.72.223 ( talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Did Rees-Mogg hold a low profile because he had said something stupid about the Grenfell Tower fire or because he was reclining on the bench of House of Commons during a debate about the Brexit? In the article both claims are made. Creuzbourg ( talk) 00:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why David Lammy was used for sourcing when talking about JHM's political beliefs. Have removed for obvious reasons as he's a direct political opponent. Simply using the main stream media to quote what David Lammy said isn't the same as sourcing a main stream media who endorses those opinions. Both occassions have been removed for partisan reasons. We're not going to ask a rabbit for his opinion on a fox or a Jew for his opinion on Palistine and present them as neutral Alexandre8 ( talk) 12:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Under the 2019 Election result for North East Somerset, the turnout box is empty. Under electoral history. The change of majority also needs to be updated there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.33.131 ( talk) 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Can a confirmed user update the section on Social Issues to reflect Rees-Mogg's views on funding charities designed to to help feed children. See /info/en/?search=UNICEF#Funding_of_UK_food_charities Thanks 86.135.135.51 ( talk) 01:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)