![]() | 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 |
We need a new photograph as the one that's there gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size. AllanHainey 14:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I ended up on this article after reading [1]. I was looking for why he had lost his power and it looks like its because of fighting in public. In the course of reading the article, I couldn't help laughing sometime. Like, who would use a car to travel 300 yards? I once saw "The gods must be crazy 2" and there was a dude who delivered a mail from his house to a mail box outside on a car and I thought, this has to be a joke, nobody do that. Now, it looks like I was all wrong.
His sentences construct look like a google translation. Is English his first language or what is the hypothesis behind it? Is it always like that, or is it only when he is under pressure? I am aware this a risky topic for me considering my English skills aren't that good, but ....
He is also prone to a diminished sensibility in his speech (right?) when he hasn't had it prepared and checked and the lines double spaced. Probably because he is dyslexic or something like that. Rdog 10:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
“and well known for his habit of speaking in which he often uses a confusing syntax.”
Given that we’re referring to the guy’s dodgy grammar, this needed cleaning up. A habit of speaking? Don’t we all have one of them? Changed it to:
“and is well known for the mangled syntax that he often employs whilst speaking”.
You might find the word ‘mangled’ a bit harsh and slang-like but I thing it’s more appropriate than ‘confusing’. It’s usually clear enough what he’s talking about, even if it looks odd transcribed. Bombot 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
From John Prescott's 1996 Labour Conference speech:
"Morality is measured in more than just money. It's about right and wrong. We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people. We've had enough lies. Enough sleaze."
How can that be a judgement on Prescott's morality - they are his own words?
New entry
Absolutely 100% Prescott--The Guardian ran an article on this on Thursday April 27. If he didn't want it to be in a public record like wikipedia, he should never have said it. Quotation has been reinstated.
hi all - i removed the current tag because the article really doesn't document a current affair - his affair is really not going to impact the article much whatever the outcome - and it all being forgotten in a day or two is the most likely.... Petesmiles 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone sort out the quoatation marks on the following:
Barrie Williams, 46, currently Miss Temple's partner told the Daily Mirror: "I feel sick. I can't believe the woman I wanted to marry has slept with John Prescott. "I feel sorry for Mr Prescott's wife because, like me, I'm sure she had no idea what was going on he added.I've been betrayed by one of the most powerful men in the UK."
I havn't read the article in the Mirror so i don't know where they are meant to go. Wright123 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've punctuated one of his quotes properly. Whilst it does still contain some mangling of grammar, it does actually make a lot more sense with the right punctuation (you'll note I didn't change a letter, just added dots, commas, question marks, brackets and stuff). I don't think removing punctuation from hesistant and broken speech entirely represents it fairly. If there's an audio version available it would be interesting to see where the pauses are, and whether the things that look like questions (rhetorical or not) actually are voiced as such. Morwen - Talk 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The affair section seems to my reading to conflate unproven rumour with absolute fact, particularly in totting up 'official' counts for the number of Prescott's dalliances etc. Fact is fact, rumour is rumour, we're only interested in the former here. Badgerpatrol 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it completely inappropriate to have 3 sub-headings covering these? I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't be fun to read. I'll add them and people can remove if they really object. Kayman1uk 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
'No Jobs' added back: Here are just some of the "No jobs" sources: [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] ] 32.106.49.60 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why the source is so important to you; with a choice from Telegraph, Mirror, BBC, Independent etc. Does it matter?
Although the box to show Prescott's leadership dates and the like is a nice addition to the page, it shows him as being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I guess that we need a new, slightly altered template. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Moved the mini-essay on the role of the Deputy PM from the intro and then beefed it up a bit. Kayman1uk 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We should aim to include more on his activities on planning permission, since he actually seems to have done quite a lot there. I'll do some research. If that makes the article too long then we can make a sub-article on "Prescott's controversies". Kayman1uk 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected another spelling mistake in this. The edit contributed no new information; the material added is already in the article. It is a question of whether it is right that the material repeated should be in the article header. I will leave it to others to decide that. Viewfinder 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted edits by John Hustings who seeks to replace Prescott's picture with another which I feel is not appropriate [6]. Although this seems to be vandalism (see similar changes made by the same user to George Galloway) it is not clear cut enough for me to continuously revert it without violating 3RR. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought
John Hustings picture was much better also the old picture gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size.
Rastishka
Please - let us keep the lead pictures neutral. They should not be used for the purposes of sneaky POV pushing. The use lower down in articles, with appropriate captions and sources, may not be inappropriate.
Viewfinder
02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we name the women involved - RW and NW (this abbreviation shouldn't be libellous). Anyone interested can visit the most prominent political blog and find out the names anyway...
Also, the allegations about RW are covered on her entry on WP.
I have managed to track down this source which lists John Prescott with the title FSOS in October 2001. If anyone can find the exact date he gained the title, please list it here. Thanks. Road Wizard 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Rhetorical is more precise than oral:
oral [áwrəl] adj
3. spoken: existing in spoken form as distinct from written form
rhetorical [ri tórrik’l] adj
2. of effective use of language: relating to the skill of using language effectively and persuasively
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TerriersFan 23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contraray, I was going by the Wikipedia definitions (from Wiktionary):
Retoric
1. The art of using of language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.
Oral
1. Relating to the mouth. 2. Spoken rather than written.
The former is making a judgement on Prescotts ability to persuade, whereas the latter makes the more accurate description of his Oral problems. Matthewfelgate 12:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure it is making a judgement; that is what the paragraph is all about. As a compromise I have now used the term 'speaking'. TerriersFan 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Re edits by User:Zargulon. OK, "adultery" and "sex scandal" are not exactly the same, but there is considerable overlap. I do not think an adultery category is appropriate. It could capture a vast number of people and, imo, damage public opinion of Wikipedia. Are we going to list Lloyd George and Karl Marx in it? If not, then why John Prescott? If so, then why not create a "sinners" category and a "perverts" category? If adultery becomes a scandal then it will be covered by "sex scandal". I do not want an edit war so I will cool it for now, but I would appreciate comment on this from more experienced Wikipedians. Viewfinder 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This issue goes beyond John Prescott and is best continued, if necessary, on User:Zargulon talk page. Btw it is well documented that Lloyd George and Marx fathered illegitimate children by mistresses outside long term marriages. Viewfinder 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adulterers for ongoing discussion about this issue. Viewfinder 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing to split this article, spinning off 'Controversies and incidents' to its own page. The article is now longer than its optimum length. More importantly, though, the 'Controversies and incidents' section (which is both fun and encyclopaedic) is starting to dominate the article making the more 'serious' parts of the biography harder to navigate. May I have any views, please? TerriersFan 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have now carried out the split, the new article being John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge. (Discussion & not a vote, but it helps to summarize. :) Your statement about how it's an attack page in style if not in intent is well taken. While the theory (see the Proposed article split section above) was to include positive events as well, it wasn't leaning that way.
I agree that integrating them into a timeline would be unwieldy if some events overlap. Having separate sections for each event makes them more coherent. However, I no longer believe that a separate article for the controversies surrounding John Prescott is necessary or preferred to satisfy NPOV, and that the article could be balanced with good editing. It'd be long, but lots of articles about prominent, especially modern politicians are long, accounting for their impact, the amount of easily accessible, verifiable data, and the interest invested in them.
It seems from the short conversation above and the AfD that the split was largely uncontested primarily due to lack of discussion/interest. Hopefully the merge template at the top of the article will persuade more to give their views so it'll be more of a consensus. I'd say the AfD was more "no consensus" than a clear consensus to merge. TransUtopian 03:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I'm genuinely not sure. These are all interesting; but this article on the controversies is, and has to be, longer than the main article. (And this is not just that he's messed up often; it is that these stories need more detail.) These are a lot of little incidents; putting them back might be undue weight. JCScaliger 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate. I see no pressing reason to merge these articles. I understand that they were separated due to the former 'controversies' section dominating the main article, a problem as JCScaliger rightly says is only going to get worse. The hope is that the slimmed down main article might attract an editor who is prepared to do a job of work on it. I think that we should leave things as they are, for the time being, to let the split articles settle down and see if this hope is realised.
I don't buy the 'attack article' approach. Certainly it is no more an attack article than Criticism of Tony Blair, for example. The title allows for some 'good news' stories to be included. If an editor considers that the article is too negative then the opportunity is there to research and include some contentious incidents where Prescott has done well.
If anyone wishes to press the merge then I think a good approach would be to work up a draft in their sandbox to show what it would look like. BlueValour 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Remain as two articles - nothing has changed since I split the article. Both articles need a lot of work but that won't happen until the uncertainty is ended. Since the article split we have had an extended AfD and now the merge proposal. TerriersFan 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the merge tag - this article has had this tag hanging on it for well over 2 months with no sign of a concensus or any real enthusiasm for the merger. BlueValour 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have inititated the semi-protection of this page because of regular IP vandalism. Please leave a message here if you consider, at a future point, that the protection should be lifted. BlueValour 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article reads that Prescott will stand down at the same time as Blair. It then says party members want him to stand down at the same time????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxton ( talk • contribs)
I'm not a Prescott fan, but this article seems to overly emphasize criticism of Prescott. Bwithh 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Complete agreement with Badgerpatrol - much of the critisism is based on parrotting gutter headline journalsim of the worst kind. The article split is a good start 147.114.226.172 15:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The powers-that-be on Wikipedia seem to be objecting to official government photos of British politicians being used on Wikipedia as Crown Copyright is not a sufficiently free license. Apparently they are readily replaceable with free images. Not that I can find any. So here's the challenge people. If John Prescott (or one of his colleagues) is going to be in your area and you have a spare minute, grab your digital photos and get snapping! Hopefully we'll get a new photo soon. All efforts appreciated. WJBscribe 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There's an Italian town called "Prezza". On January 28, an editor moved the article about that town to Prezza (Italian town), and made Prezza a redirect to this article. That may have been correct, as it's possible that John Prescott's nickname is much more important than a small town in Italy, but because the move was done without discussion, creating a good handful of broken links, I've started a move request at Talk:Prezza (Italian town), for the purpose of gauging whether the move was appropriate.
Lest anybody get the wrong idea, I'm not supporting the move, nor am I trying to steal Mr. Prescott's nickname. I'm just entirely unfamiliar with the nickname, and want to be sure the Prezza article is as it should be before changing a bunch of links that may have to change back. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently he has died (05 June 2007). Can anyone confirm this?
As he never occupied offices as the "former deputy prime minister" or as the "former first secretary of state" then there is no sense in listing these as his offices in the infobox. Whilst I understand the reasoning behind this edit, the 'dates in office' show that he is a former minister. -- MC 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor should please stop removing the summary of this article. If anyone wants to summarise the subsidiary article in a better form that is fine but it must be summarised and that has not been done. I agree that the bulleted form is stylistically poor but the alternative is a more detailed prose summary not its removal. BlueValour 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added a {{ Fact}} tag to this quote. He is alleged to have said it, but the reference given in Hansard is to a Conservative MP quoting him as having said it, without any independent verification. All the other references I've found have been of other people saying that he said it, but I've never seen an original source of the quote. Is it a (politically motivated) urban myth? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well in his book Prezza he admits to having said it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.246.66.223 (
talk)
20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This BBC News article discusses Prescott's battle with bulimia nervosa, which I can't remember being mentioned in the press or elsewhere before. It refers to an article in today's Sunday Times, which presumably reveals more details. Despite the temptations of WP:BOLD, I would rather somebody else with WP:BLP writing experience add this. Hassocks5489 ( talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just finished reading the Prescott article here and I am disgraced by how short it is. It needs filing out a bit more - unlike the man himself! Furthermore, I feel that his affair and other activities such as the egg-punch incident should be highlighted more as well.
Fair point; but is there actually much to say, substance-wise?
Indeed - good point.
John - ok, i dont know how to work out this wikipedia discussion thing, but how does this Evans get "floored" as stated from the wikipedia article? from the video, he wasn't even knocked down by John Prescott. In fact, they both traded a punch or two and Evans was choking John Prescott until the Police came and grabbed him. Should that line be removed? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.53.204.109 (
talk)
23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
His birthdate is 1938? I thought he would be younger. 78.148.194.109 ( talk) 18:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
He's been an MP for almost 40 years, why would he be younger? ( 92.14.193.82 ( talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
He, David Owen and David Steel were born within weeks of each other.
Are there any other examples of 'politicians attacking non-politicians' (ie not duels and other 'particular contexts')? Are there enough to create a subsidiary list on the legislative violence page? ('In the context' Prescott was reacting to a perceived threat.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Prezza is a diabetic? I read it in the UK diabetic magazine. No doubt due to his immense weightage! lol
No, it's not worth mentioning!
Should he really be introduced as a "Welsh" politician? Although he was born in Wales he moved to Yorkshire when he was four. If we consider him Welsh presumably we also need to consider Alistair Darling an "English" politician as he was born in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually while Prescott may describe himself as Welsh, he is not. He is English, like Tony Blair. Blair was born in Scotland but is English and his wikipedia article does not describe him as a "Scottish" politician. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is English, NOT Welsh. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
He might have claimed to be Welsh but he is in fact English. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
The introductory sentence of the lead has been amended from John Prescott "... is a Welsh Labour politician ..." to "... is a Welsh-born Labour politician ...". The reasons given (in edit summaries) for maintaining this version are: "This seemed to describe Prescott as a member of the Welsh Labour Party and so I have amended it to increase clarity" and " ... we don't assume that every reader is aware of the welsh labour party, mainly because the majority aren't". There are two reasons why this lead should be changed: #1 if one had not heard of the WLP one would not assume that "John Prescott is a Welsh Labour politician ..." meant that he was a member of the Welsh Labour Party (we don't assume that John Smith was a member of the Scottish Labour Party and there is nothing leading us to suppose he was). If one were politically aware enough to have heard of the Welsh Labour Party one would know that John Prescott is not a member. If one had not heard of the Welsh Labour Party one would not be aware there was such a thing and, anyway, the Wikilinks would lead one to Welsh people and Labour Party (UK), rather than to the Welsh Labour Party; #2 "Welsh-born" implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh - in the same way that " Cliff Richard is an Indian born English singer-songwriter ...". This is misleading and, per WP:LEAD, is not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. Daicaregos ( talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That was my first thought Daicaregos but I'm not sure it's correct. How about something along the lines of '...welsh politician. As a member of the Labour party...' raseaC talk to me 10:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've no opinion. Most MP articles have British, but there's been no consensus sought on this. A useful link is Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nicely put (although I tend not to click blue things, especially not irrelevant ones). However, this encyclopedia belongs to the editors and if the editors want it to say 'Welsh', 'Welsh' it shall say. raseaC talk to me 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
He's not Welsh at all. ( 92.3.182.236 ( talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is NOT Welsh. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is not Welsh, he is English. The introduction should describe him as either British or English. Tony Blair was born and brough up in Scotland but he is not described as Scottish on this site because he is English. Just like Prescott. (17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.163.144 ( talk)
Prescott may have claimed to be Welsh but he clearly isn't. He is in fact English. It would be better just to say he is British. ( JackNoseworthy ( talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is English, just like Tony Blair, Timothy Dalton and many others. Just because he was born in Wales does not make him Welsh. ( JackNoseworthy ( talk) 17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
( edit conflict):And yet he, and his family, seem to think he is. A case of mass delusion perhaps? The other option is that he is, actually, Welsh. Daicaregos ( talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
N.B. The sock puppets HughMcHardy and JackNoseworthy have been blocked indefinitely. Daicaregos ( talk) 09:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Without wanting to re-ignite any controversies over whether Prescott is Welsh, there's an inconsistency here. He claims "I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh" -- and yet the page says he left Wales at the age of four (too young for school(, and went to school in South Yorkshire and Cheshire. Nursery school? A few days at primary school before moving to England? Can anyone explain? Flapdragon ( talk) 10:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I wasn't asking for speculation or OR (and speculation is hardly research, original or otherwise), just hoping that someone might have an explanation. Nothing wrong with that. Flapdragon ( talk) 11:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The quote is a lie so it should be removed. Prescott did not start going to school until 1943, when he was living in England. He NEVER went to any school in Wales at all. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
Just check his own 2008 autobiography "Pulling No Punches", he writes he started school in Yorkshire in September 1943 when he was five. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
Pre-school didn't exist at all in the 1940s, especially for people like him. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
There is a way of telling - education for under-fives simply did not exist then, especially for somebody like him. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
It looks as if we agree that that there's something puzzling there at least. It can't harm to add something to his statement to show that we've noticed and it's not just a mistake. Flapdragon ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well he obviously didn't because he was from the lowest tier of the working classes and his family wouldn't have been able to afford any pre-school lessons (which didn't even exist then). ( 92.10.198.18 ( talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
It is a fact that no working-class children went to school in those days before the age of five. ( 92.10.198.18 ( talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
Shouldn't the health section mention that Prescott suffers from obesity? ( 92.12.15.205 ( talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
Since Prescott is not in any way either Welsh or a Welsh politician, perhaps the introduction should read he is a British politician who was born in Wales? ( 92.3.182.236 ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC))
Coming to this article as a neutral party to read about Prescott following his peerage announcement, I have to say that "John Prescott is a Welsh politician" just sounds daft. For a start, such a sentence implies that the subject has been active in politics in the named country, but Prescott has never been involved in Welsh politics.
I don't want to get into a debate about British vs Welsh/English, but I will say that nationality of the constituent countries of the UK is a tricky subject as there is no official way to be Welsh, English, Scottish, etc. Many of the usual rules for determining someone's nationality simply don't apply. Common sense surely has to prevail, and I have to say that no-one who knows John Prescott would call him a Welshman, except in jest or out of pedantry.
In this instance, I do feel "British" would make the most sense, seeing as he was deputy PM of the whole of the UK. In you really must include "Welsh" in the opening, at least say "Welsh-born politician" so as not to imply he was involved in Welsh politics. Maybe "Welsh-born British politician" as a compromise? JRawle ( Talk) 23:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and the socks don't make it any easier! The article will be getting a bit of visibility at the moment so I'd be inclined to leave it for a while and see if anyone else chirps in with any suggestion. raseaC talk to me 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Prescott is not Welsh, he's English. And he's certainly not a "Welsh politician" at all. ( 92.0.131.145 ( talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
John Prescott is a Yorkshireman, he's not Welsh at all. ( 92.13.136.19 ( talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
WP:DFTT raseaC talk to me 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Even though he claimed to be Welsh for political reasons - and lied about going to school in Wales - Prescott is actually English and should certainly not be described as a "Welsh politician" because he's not and never was. ( 92.3.178.177 ( talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
It is a long held convention that if the subject of a biography has expressed his/her views on their nationality, then we should accept their wishes and describe them according to that view. You say it is fair to describe his ethnicity as Welsh. However, you have also stated that in your opinion, the concept of "ethnic group" is "highly contentious, divisive and flawed". So why you would use that as part of your argument is rather strange, to say the least. And anyway, it is utter nonsense to assume that Prescott was describing his ethnicity as opposed to his nationality. Prescott considers himself Welsh and we are required to state that nationality. It is up to us to devise suitable wording to describe him in a way that is not "potentially misleading". Daicaregos ( talk) 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Just one comment: we have one reference that quotes Prescott as saying he's Welsh, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't also describe himself as British. I think we need evidence of a consistent description of someone's nationality in order to take that into account for something as prominent as the opening. (Any comments the subject has made can of course be included somewhere in the article.) As for the heading of this debate, Prescott did famously say, "There is no such nationality as English", so he should most definitely not be described as such! JRawle ( Talk) 16:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article say Prescott is a Welsh politician when he's English? ( GerryLongfellow ( talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
Sorry I'm not a sock, I only encountered this article todaya nd was surprised to read that Prescott is described as a Welsh politician when he is actually 100% English, like his parents. ( GerryLongfellow ( talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
It doesn't matter what lies he's said. He might have been born in Wales but that doesn't make him Welsh. And he obviously never went to school there if he left when he was four. Prescott is not Welsh, he is ENGLISH. ( GerryLongfellow ( talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
The article needs to be updated to mention the recent announcemnt of his peerage. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not an official source, but prescott did reply to the claims on his expenses on Have I got News For You episode 9, season 39 claiming that the Parliamentary Expenses Commission cleared his name for the toilet seat and restoration expenses. Perhaps this article needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.163.53 ( talk) 01:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is no longer true to say that he has not responded to his expenses claims. ( 92.0.49.64 ( talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
As the BBC and other sources are reporting Prescott's introduction in the House of Lords, people will be looking to add his title to the article. The Lords Business Paper for today shows that he is introduced as Lord Prescott, meaning that his title is Baron Prescott. [7] The territorial designation on his Letters Patent will be "of Kingston upon Hull in the East Riding of Yorkshire" or something similar. This is not part of his title, and we'll have to wait for Hansard or the London Gazette to publish it to know the correct form (unless anyone happened to be watching the introduction on Democracy Live). JRawle ( Talk) 10:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm unsure as to the rules on these sorts of things as I rarely edit on Wikipedia, but should there not be a redirect from Lord Prescott and/or Baron Prescott as he will increasingly be referred to by these titles. I also don't know whether there are rules on the inclusion of a section of the different titles that a person has held and the years that they were known by that title, as I have seen pages of ex MPs and now Lords both with and without them. I don't feel that I should have to register, I only wish to make a few small alterations that myself and other would benefit from, but I don't know how to go about and make these changes, that is why I have raised the issue here, in the hope that someone could either point me in the right direction or decide that ny suggestion is worth acting on. 213.208.117.140 ( talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You only have to watch his appearance on Have I Got News for You to see he has indeed publicly defended his expenses claims, asserting they were all legitimate. ( 92.4.54.170 ( talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC))
Yes they are. He was challenged about his expense claims and gave a length reply. And it is a political show, not a comedy show. ( 92.4.54.170 ( talk) 19:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC))
This BBC site and this Daily Telegraph page both quote him as saying: "Every expense was within the rules of the House of Commons on claiming expenses at the time." Whether or not that's a "defence" is another matter. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:32, 8 July 2010 (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 |
We need a new photograph as the one that's there gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size. AllanHainey 14:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I ended up on this article after reading [1]. I was looking for why he had lost his power and it looks like its because of fighting in public. In the course of reading the article, I couldn't help laughing sometime. Like, who would use a car to travel 300 yards? I once saw "The gods must be crazy 2" and there was a dude who delivered a mail from his house to a mail box outside on a car and I thought, this has to be a joke, nobody do that. Now, it looks like I was all wrong.
His sentences construct look like a google translation. Is English his first language or what is the hypothesis behind it? Is it always like that, or is it only when he is under pressure? I am aware this a risky topic for me considering my English skills aren't that good, but ....
He is also prone to a diminished sensibility in his speech (right?) when he hasn't had it prepared and checked and the lines double spaced. Probably because he is dyslexic or something like that. Rdog 10:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
“and well known for his habit of speaking in which he often uses a confusing syntax.”
Given that we’re referring to the guy’s dodgy grammar, this needed cleaning up. A habit of speaking? Don’t we all have one of them? Changed it to:
“and is well known for the mangled syntax that he often employs whilst speaking”.
You might find the word ‘mangled’ a bit harsh and slang-like but I thing it’s more appropriate than ‘confusing’. It’s usually clear enough what he’s talking about, even if it looks odd transcribed. Bombot 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
From John Prescott's 1996 Labour Conference speech:
"Morality is measured in more than just money. It's about right and wrong. We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people. We've had enough lies. Enough sleaze."
How can that be a judgement on Prescott's morality - they are his own words?
New entry
Absolutely 100% Prescott--The Guardian ran an article on this on Thursday April 27. If he didn't want it to be in a public record like wikipedia, he should never have said it. Quotation has been reinstated.
hi all - i removed the current tag because the article really doesn't document a current affair - his affair is really not going to impact the article much whatever the outcome - and it all being forgotten in a day or two is the most likely.... Petesmiles 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone sort out the quoatation marks on the following:
Barrie Williams, 46, currently Miss Temple's partner told the Daily Mirror: "I feel sick. I can't believe the woman I wanted to marry has slept with John Prescott. "I feel sorry for Mr Prescott's wife because, like me, I'm sure she had no idea what was going on he added.I've been betrayed by one of the most powerful men in the UK."
I havn't read the article in the Mirror so i don't know where they are meant to go. Wright123 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've punctuated one of his quotes properly. Whilst it does still contain some mangling of grammar, it does actually make a lot more sense with the right punctuation (you'll note I didn't change a letter, just added dots, commas, question marks, brackets and stuff). I don't think removing punctuation from hesistant and broken speech entirely represents it fairly. If there's an audio version available it would be interesting to see where the pauses are, and whether the things that look like questions (rhetorical or not) actually are voiced as such. Morwen - Talk 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The affair section seems to my reading to conflate unproven rumour with absolute fact, particularly in totting up 'official' counts for the number of Prescott's dalliances etc. Fact is fact, rumour is rumour, we're only interested in the former here. Badgerpatrol 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it completely inappropriate to have 3 sub-headings covering these? I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't be fun to read. I'll add them and people can remove if they really object. Kayman1uk 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
'No Jobs' added back: Here are just some of the "No jobs" sources: [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] ] 32.106.49.60 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why the source is so important to you; with a choice from Telegraph, Mirror, BBC, Independent etc. Does it matter?
Although the box to show Prescott's leadership dates and the like is a nice addition to the page, it shows him as being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I guess that we need a new, slightly altered template. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Moved the mini-essay on the role of the Deputy PM from the intro and then beefed it up a bit. Kayman1uk 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We should aim to include more on his activities on planning permission, since he actually seems to have done quite a lot there. I'll do some research. If that makes the article too long then we can make a sub-article on "Prescott's controversies". Kayman1uk 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected another spelling mistake in this. The edit contributed no new information; the material added is already in the article. It is a question of whether it is right that the material repeated should be in the article header. I will leave it to others to decide that. Viewfinder 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted edits by John Hustings who seeks to replace Prescott's picture with another which I feel is not appropriate [6]. Although this seems to be vandalism (see similar changes made by the same user to George Galloway) it is not clear cut enough for me to continuously revert it without violating 3RR. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought
John Hustings picture was much better also the old picture gets fuzzy whenever it is increased above thumbnail size.
Rastishka
Please - let us keep the lead pictures neutral. They should not be used for the purposes of sneaky POV pushing. The use lower down in articles, with appropriate captions and sources, may not be inappropriate.
Viewfinder
02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we name the women involved - RW and NW (this abbreviation shouldn't be libellous). Anyone interested can visit the most prominent political blog and find out the names anyway...
Also, the allegations about RW are covered on her entry on WP.
I have managed to track down this source which lists John Prescott with the title FSOS in October 2001. If anyone can find the exact date he gained the title, please list it here. Thanks. Road Wizard 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Rhetorical is more precise than oral:
oral [áwrəl] adj
3. spoken: existing in spoken form as distinct from written form
rhetorical [ri tórrik’l] adj
2. of effective use of language: relating to the skill of using language effectively and persuasively
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TerriersFan 23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contraray, I was going by the Wikipedia definitions (from Wiktionary):
Retoric
1. The art of using of language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.
Oral
1. Relating to the mouth. 2. Spoken rather than written.
The former is making a judgement on Prescotts ability to persuade, whereas the latter makes the more accurate description of his Oral problems. Matthewfelgate 12:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure it is making a judgement; that is what the paragraph is all about. As a compromise I have now used the term 'speaking'. TerriersFan 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Re edits by User:Zargulon. OK, "adultery" and "sex scandal" are not exactly the same, but there is considerable overlap. I do not think an adultery category is appropriate. It could capture a vast number of people and, imo, damage public opinion of Wikipedia. Are we going to list Lloyd George and Karl Marx in it? If not, then why John Prescott? If so, then why not create a "sinners" category and a "perverts" category? If adultery becomes a scandal then it will be covered by "sex scandal". I do not want an edit war so I will cool it for now, but I would appreciate comment on this from more experienced Wikipedians. Viewfinder 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This issue goes beyond John Prescott and is best continued, if necessary, on User:Zargulon talk page. Btw it is well documented that Lloyd George and Marx fathered illegitimate children by mistresses outside long term marriages. Viewfinder 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adulterers for ongoing discussion about this issue. Viewfinder 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing to split this article, spinning off 'Controversies and incidents' to its own page. The article is now longer than its optimum length. More importantly, though, the 'Controversies and incidents' section (which is both fun and encyclopaedic) is starting to dominate the article making the more 'serious' parts of the biography harder to navigate. May I have any views, please? TerriersFan 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have now carried out the split, the new article being John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Prescott's involvement with specific events. TerriersFan 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge. (Discussion & not a vote, but it helps to summarize. :) Your statement about how it's an attack page in style if not in intent is well taken. While the theory (see the Proposed article split section above) was to include positive events as well, it wasn't leaning that way.
I agree that integrating them into a timeline would be unwieldy if some events overlap. Having separate sections for each event makes them more coherent. However, I no longer believe that a separate article for the controversies surrounding John Prescott is necessary or preferred to satisfy NPOV, and that the article could be balanced with good editing. It'd be long, but lots of articles about prominent, especially modern politicians are long, accounting for their impact, the amount of easily accessible, verifiable data, and the interest invested in them.
It seems from the short conversation above and the AfD that the split was largely uncontested primarily due to lack of discussion/interest. Hopefully the merge template at the top of the article will persuade more to give their views so it'll be more of a consensus. I'd say the AfD was more "no consensus" than a clear consensus to merge. TransUtopian 03:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I'm genuinely not sure. These are all interesting; but this article on the controversies is, and has to be, longer than the main article. (And this is not just that he's messed up often; it is that these stories need more detail.) These are a lot of little incidents; putting them back might be undue weight. JCScaliger 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate. I see no pressing reason to merge these articles. I understand that they were separated due to the former 'controversies' section dominating the main article, a problem as JCScaliger rightly says is only going to get worse. The hope is that the slimmed down main article might attract an editor who is prepared to do a job of work on it. I think that we should leave things as they are, for the time being, to let the split articles settle down and see if this hope is realised.
I don't buy the 'attack article' approach. Certainly it is no more an attack article than Criticism of Tony Blair, for example. The title allows for some 'good news' stories to be included. If an editor considers that the article is too negative then the opportunity is there to research and include some contentious incidents where Prescott has done well.
If anyone wishes to press the merge then I think a good approach would be to work up a draft in their sandbox to show what it would look like. BlueValour 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Remain as two articles - nothing has changed since I split the article. Both articles need a lot of work but that won't happen until the uncertainty is ended. Since the article split we have had an extended AfD and now the merge proposal. TerriersFan 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the merge tag - this article has had this tag hanging on it for well over 2 months with no sign of a concensus or any real enthusiasm for the merger. BlueValour 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have inititated the semi-protection of this page because of regular IP vandalism. Please leave a message here if you consider, at a future point, that the protection should be lifted. BlueValour 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article reads that Prescott will stand down at the same time as Blair. It then says party members want him to stand down at the same time????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxton ( talk • contribs)
I'm not a Prescott fan, but this article seems to overly emphasize criticism of Prescott. Bwithh 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Complete agreement with Badgerpatrol - much of the critisism is based on parrotting gutter headline journalsim of the worst kind. The article split is a good start 147.114.226.172 15:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The powers-that-be on Wikipedia seem to be objecting to official government photos of British politicians being used on Wikipedia as Crown Copyright is not a sufficiently free license. Apparently they are readily replaceable with free images. Not that I can find any. So here's the challenge people. If John Prescott (or one of his colleagues) is going to be in your area and you have a spare minute, grab your digital photos and get snapping! Hopefully we'll get a new photo soon. All efforts appreciated. WJBscribe 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There's an Italian town called "Prezza". On January 28, an editor moved the article about that town to Prezza (Italian town), and made Prezza a redirect to this article. That may have been correct, as it's possible that John Prescott's nickname is much more important than a small town in Italy, but because the move was done without discussion, creating a good handful of broken links, I've started a move request at Talk:Prezza (Italian town), for the purpose of gauging whether the move was appropriate.
Lest anybody get the wrong idea, I'm not supporting the move, nor am I trying to steal Mr. Prescott's nickname. I'm just entirely unfamiliar with the nickname, and want to be sure the Prezza article is as it should be before changing a bunch of links that may have to change back. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently he has died (05 June 2007). Can anyone confirm this?
As he never occupied offices as the "former deputy prime minister" or as the "former first secretary of state" then there is no sense in listing these as his offices in the infobox. Whilst I understand the reasoning behind this edit, the 'dates in office' show that he is a former minister. -- MC 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor should please stop removing the summary of this article. If anyone wants to summarise the subsidiary article in a better form that is fine but it must be summarised and that has not been done. I agree that the bulleted form is stylistically poor but the alternative is a more detailed prose summary not its removal. BlueValour 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added a {{ Fact}} tag to this quote. He is alleged to have said it, but the reference given in Hansard is to a Conservative MP quoting him as having said it, without any independent verification. All the other references I've found have been of other people saying that he said it, but I've never seen an original source of the quote. Is it a (politically motivated) urban myth? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well in his book Prezza he admits to having said it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.246.66.223 (
talk)
20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This BBC News article discusses Prescott's battle with bulimia nervosa, which I can't remember being mentioned in the press or elsewhere before. It refers to an article in today's Sunday Times, which presumably reveals more details. Despite the temptations of WP:BOLD, I would rather somebody else with WP:BLP writing experience add this. Hassocks5489 ( talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just finished reading the Prescott article here and I am disgraced by how short it is. It needs filing out a bit more - unlike the man himself! Furthermore, I feel that his affair and other activities such as the egg-punch incident should be highlighted more as well.
Fair point; but is there actually much to say, substance-wise?
Indeed - good point.
John - ok, i dont know how to work out this wikipedia discussion thing, but how does this Evans get "floored" as stated from the wikipedia article? from the video, he wasn't even knocked down by John Prescott. In fact, they both traded a punch or two and Evans was choking John Prescott until the Police came and grabbed him. Should that line be removed? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.53.204.109 (
talk)
23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
His birthdate is 1938? I thought he would be younger. 78.148.194.109 ( talk) 18:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
He's been an MP for almost 40 years, why would he be younger? ( 92.14.193.82 ( talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
He, David Owen and David Steel were born within weeks of each other.
Are there any other examples of 'politicians attacking non-politicians' (ie not duels and other 'particular contexts')? Are there enough to create a subsidiary list on the legislative violence page? ('In the context' Prescott was reacting to a perceived threat.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Prezza is a diabetic? I read it in the UK diabetic magazine. No doubt due to his immense weightage! lol
No, it's not worth mentioning!
Should he really be introduced as a "Welsh" politician? Although he was born in Wales he moved to Yorkshire when he was four. If we consider him Welsh presumably we also need to consider Alistair Darling an "English" politician as he was born in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually while Prescott may describe himself as Welsh, he is not. He is English, like Tony Blair. Blair was born in Scotland but is English and his wikipedia article does not describe him as a "Scottish" politician. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is English, NOT Welsh. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
He might have claimed to be Welsh but he is in fact English. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
The introductory sentence of the lead has been amended from John Prescott "... is a Welsh Labour politician ..." to "... is a Welsh-born Labour politician ...". The reasons given (in edit summaries) for maintaining this version are: "This seemed to describe Prescott as a member of the Welsh Labour Party and so I have amended it to increase clarity" and " ... we don't assume that every reader is aware of the welsh labour party, mainly because the majority aren't". There are two reasons why this lead should be changed: #1 if one had not heard of the WLP one would not assume that "John Prescott is a Welsh Labour politician ..." meant that he was a member of the Welsh Labour Party (we don't assume that John Smith was a member of the Scottish Labour Party and there is nothing leading us to suppose he was). If one were politically aware enough to have heard of the Welsh Labour Party one would know that John Prescott is not a member. If one had not heard of the Welsh Labour Party one would not be aware there was such a thing and, anyway, the Wikilinks would lead one to Welsh people and Labour Party (UK), rather than to the Welsh Labour Party; #2 "Welsh-born" implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh - in the same way that " Cliff Richard is an Indian born English singer-songwriter ...". This is misleading and, per WP:LEAD, is not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. Daicaregos ( talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That was my first thought Daicaregos but I'm not sure it's correct. How about something along the lines of '...welsh politician. As a member of the Labour party...' raseaC talk to me 10:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've no opinion. Most MP articles have British, but there's been no consensus sought on this. A useful link is Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nicely put (although I tend not to click blue things, especially not irrelevant ones). However, this encyclopedia belongs to the editors and if the editors want it to say 'Welsh', 'Welsh' it shall say. raseaC talk to me 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
He's not Welsh at all. ( 92.3.182.236 ( talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is NOT Welsh. ( 92.1.163.144 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is not Welsh, he is English. The introduction should describe him as either British or English. Tony Blair was born and brough up in Scotland but he is not described as Scottish on this site because he is English. Just like Prescott. (17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.163.144 ( talk)
Prescott may have claimed to be Welsh but he clearly isn't. He is in fact English. It would be better just to say he is British. ( JackNoseworthy ( talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Prescott is English, just like Tony Blair, Timothy Dalton and many others. Just because he was born in Wales does not make him Welsh. ( JackNoseworthy ( talk) 17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
( edit conflict):And yet he, and his family, seem to think he is. A case of mass delusion perhaps? The other option is that he is, actually, Welsh. Daicaregos ( talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
N.B. The sock puppets HughMcHardy and JackNoseworthy have been blocked indefinitely. Daicaregos ( talk) 09:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Without wanting to re-ignite any controversies over whether Prescott is Welsh, there's an inconsistency here. He claims "I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh" -- and yet the page says he left Wales at the age of four (too young for school(, and went to school in South Yorkshire and Cheshire. Nursery school? A few days at primary school before moving to England? Can anyone explain? Flapdragon ( talk) 10:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I wasn't asking for speculation or OR (and speculation is hardly research, original or otherwise), just hoping that someone might have an explanation. Nothing wrong with that. Flapdragon ( talk) 11:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The quote is a lie so it should be removed. Prescott did not start going to school until 1943, when he was living in England. He NEVER went to any school in Wales at all. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
Just check his own 2008 autobiography "Pulling No Punches", he writes he started school in Yorkshire in September 1943 when he was five. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
Pre-school didn't exist at all in the 1940s, especially for people like him. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
There is a way of telling - education for under-fives simply did not exist then, especially for somebody like him. ( 92.12.20.228 ( talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
It looks as if we agree that that there's something puzzling there at least. It can't harm to add something to his statement to show that we've noticed and it's not just a mistake. Flapdragon ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well he obviously didn't because he was from the lowest tier of the working classes and his family wouldn't have been able to afford any pre-school lessons (which didn't even exist then). ( 92.10.198.18 ( talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
It is a fact that no working-class children went to school in those days before the age of five. ( 92.10.198.18 ( talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
Shouldn't the health section mention that Prescott suffers from obesity? ( 92.12.15.205 ( talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
Since Prescott is not in any way either Welsh or a Welsh politician, perhaps the introduction should read he is a British politician who was born in Wales? ( 92.3.182.236 ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC))
Coming to this article as a neutral party to read about Prescott following his peerage announcement, I have to say that "John Prescott is a Welsh politician" just sounds daft. For a start, such a sentence implies that the subject has been active in politics in the named country, but Prescott has never been involved in Welsh politics.
I don't want to get into a debate about British vs Welsh/English, but I will say that nationality of the constituent countries of the UK is a tricky subject as there is no official way to be Welsh, English, Scottish, etc. Many of the usual rules for determining someone's nationality simply don't apply. Common sense surely has to prevail, and I have to say that no-one who knows John Prescott would call him a Welshman, except in jest or out of pedantry.
In this instance, I do feel "British" would make the most sense, seeing as he was deputy PM of the whole of the UK. In you really must include "Welsh" in the opening, at least say "Welsh-born politician" so as not to imply he was involved in Welsh politics. Maybe "Welsh-born British politician" as a compromise? JRawle ( Talk) 23:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and the socks don't make it any easier! The article will be getting a bit of visibility at the moment so I'd be inclined to leave it for a while and see if anyone else chirps in with any suggestion. raseaC talk to me 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Prescott is not Welsh, he's English. And he's certainly not a "Welsh politician" at all. ( 92.0.131.145 ( talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
John Prescott is a Yorkshireman, he's not Welsh at all. ( 92.13.136.19 ( talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
WP:DFTT raseaC talk to me 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Even though he claimed to be Welsh for political reasons - and lied about going to school in Wales - Prescott is actually English and should certainly not be described as a "Welsh politician" because he's not and never was. ( 92.3.178.177 ( talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
It is a long held convention that if the subject of a biography has expressed his/her views on their nationality, then we should accept their wishes and describe them according to that view. You say it is fair to describe his ethnicity as Welsh. However, you have also stated that in your opinion, the concept of "ethnic group" is "highly contentious, divisive and flawed". So why you would use that as part of your argument is rather strange, to say the least. And anyway, it is utter nonsense to assume that Prescott was describing his ethnicity as opposed to his nationality. Prescott considers himself Welsh and we are required to state that nationality. It is up to us to devise suitable wording to describe him in a way that is not "potentially misleading". Daicaregos ( talk) 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Just one comment: we have one reference that quotes Prescott as saying he's Welsh, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't also describe himself as British. I think we need evidence of a consistent description of someone's nationality in order to take that into account for something as prominent as the opening. (Any comments the subject has made can of course be included somewhere in the article.) As for the heading of this debate, Prescott did famously say, "There is no such nationality as English", so he should most definitely not be described as such! JRawle ( Talk) 16:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article say Prescott is a Welsh politician when he's English? ( GerryLongfellow ( talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
Sorry I'm not a sock, I only encountered this article todaya nd was surprised to read that Prescott is described as a Welsh politician when he is actually 100% English, like his parents. ( GerryLongfellow ( talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
It doesn't matter what lies he's said. He might have been born in Wales but that doesn't make him Welsh. And he obviously never went to school there if he left when he was four. Prescott is not Welsh, he is ENGLISH. ( GerryLongfellow ( talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
The article needs to be updated to mention the recent announcemnt of his peerage. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not an official source, but prescott did reply to the claims on his expenses on Have I got News For You episode 9, season 39 claiming that the Parliamentary Expenses Commission cleared his name for the toilet seat and restoration expenses. Perhaps this article needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.163.53 ( talk) 01:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is no longer true to say that he has not responded to his expenses claims. ( 92.0.49.64 ( talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
As the BBC and other sources are reporting Prescott's introduction in the House of Lords, people will be looking to add his title to the article. The Lords Business Paper for today shows that he is introduced as Lord Prescott, meaning that his title is Baron Prescott. [7] The territorial designation on his Letters Patent will be "of Kingston upon Hull in the East Riding of Yorkshire" or something similar. This is not part of his title, and we'll have to wait for Hansard or the London Gazette to publish it to know the correct form (unless anyone happened to be watching the introduction on Democracy Live). JRawle ( Talk) 10:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm unsure as to the rules on these sorts of things as I rarely edit on Wikipedia, but should there not be a redirect from Lord Prescott and/or Baron Prescott as he will increasingly be referred to by these titles. I also don't know whether there are rules on the inclusion of a section of the different titles that a person has held and the years that they were known by that title, as I have seen pages of ex MPs and now Lords both with and without them. I don't feel that I should have to register, I only wish to make a few small alterations that myself and other would benefit from, but I don't know how to go about and make these changes, that is why I have raised the issue here, in the hope that someone could either point me in the right direction or decide that ny suggestion is worth acting on. 213.208.117.140 ( talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You only have to watch his appearance on Have I Got News for You to see he has indeed publicly defended his expenses claims, asserting they were all legitimate. ( 92.4.54.170 ( talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC))
Yes they are. He was challenged about his expense claims and gave a length reply. And it is a political show, not a comedy show. ( 92.4.54.170 ( talk) 19:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC))
This BBC site and this Daily Telegraph page both quote him as saying: "Every expense was within the rules of the House of Commons on claiming expenses at the time." Whether or not that's a "defence" is another matter. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)