This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael Portillo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Michael Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Born |
Bushey,
Hertfordshire, England | 26 May 1953||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Occupations |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Television | Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political party | formerly Conservative Party (UK) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In office 1 February 2000 – 18 September 2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Leader | William Hague | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preceded by | Francis Maude | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Succeeded by | Michael Howard | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@ Smerus: I stumbled across the page today and was surprised at the changes to the infobox (I was not active on political wikis back in 2017). I looked at the page history and I thought I'd chime in with a proposal to, as the outcome of the original talk page determined, have his political offices offset by his primary notability of being a television host and historian. And I think a collapsed module, per Winston Churchill's page, appearing beneath personal details, per Justin Welby's page, would look very neat and very much to the taste of my politically inclined friends on the wiki as well as you and your friends too. This was not an option discussed in the original forum and I think it might be ideal. Thoughts? Alex ( talk) 19:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Michael Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Born |
Bushey,
Hertfordshire, England | 26 May 1953||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Occupations |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Television | Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political party | Formerly Conservative | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Given that all other Privy Councilors have the Rt. Hon. in their infobox (see for examples Richard Aikens, Tony Baldry, and Wyatt Creech, to name a few), is there much of a reason why this article should be singled out as not having it? 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 13:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I may be missing something obvious, but can I ask why you made this revert [1] at Michael Portillo? The IP's edits just converted redirects to direct wikilinks, and I couldn't see anything wrong with them. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Smerus: Can I ask you to elaborate on your somewhat gnomic edit summary here? I'd argue that generally the parties in any transaction are relevant to a discussion of that transaction; that something is sold often doesn't mean much without specifying to whom it was sold. In this case the "to whom" is the focus of the extensive coverage in reliable sources that exists, and, as I argued in my own edit summary, linking to the Annington Homes article, which contains more extensive discussion of the matter, provides a useful service to the reader. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 13:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Absence of 'reason to doubt' on the part of one editor is not quite the same as proof. (Indeed it is borderline WP:OR). The 2017 citation mentions that someone sent Portillo a note that an unnamed person wanted to have a conversation with him. I cannot see that this proves anything. The 2022 Guardian quote confirms that the deal was done while he was Defence Secretary. I don't have access to the other quotes. It is debatable whether the language they use means that he was personally motivated to advance the deal or whether he signed off on the advice he received. 'Direct involvement' has a suggestion of initiation or advancement, rather than passive signing of paperwork. There does not seem to be any suggestion that Portillo acted against advice at the time. You should bear WP:BLP in mind. In my opinion, to note this episode as part of Portillo's record is correct, but to go into it in detail in this article is WP:UNDUE. I should be interested in comments of other editors.-- Smerus ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
he was personally motivated to advance the deal or whether he signed off on the advice he receiveddoesn't strike me as at all relevant; nor does the possibility
that Portillo acted against advice at the time, which as far as I'm aware no one but you has raised. But this is getting away from my primary point above: why, if you have doubts about the relevance of the content to the article, does that lead you to conclude that the material belongs in the article but on the proviso three words and one link are removed? That's what I continue to be baffled by. (If you want I can send you the contents of the Times and FT articles, or could point you to a handy browser extension...) – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Your allegation that "I refuse to answer simple questions" is extremely unpleasant to me and contrary to WP:AGF. I don't particularly feel this matter belongs in the article. It is about something which happened on Portillo's watch (as did countless other things during his tenure); but he does not seem to have been personally involved in proposing or driving it. None of the citations you mention suggest this; and, once again, I refer you to WP:BLP. My conclusion is that this affair is very tenuously part of Portillo's story and therefore it could be held to merit mention in the article. On those grounds I have not sought to remove it. The only other editor commenting in this thread appears to share my opinion. It is of course up to you whether you take this to RfC. There seems little point in continuing the present thread.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Editors opposed to including the information primarily based their arguments through application of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, saying that on balance sources do not mention Portillo's involvement in the sale, drawing attention to a a 2017 Guardian Long Read.
Editors in favour of including disagreed with that argument, drawing attention to five reliable sources (one published in 1996, four in 2022) that do directly link Portillo's involvement in the sale.
Overall, there were more editors in favour of including the sale than opposed to it. However consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and not as a result of a vote. Through that lens, and on balance of the sources provided weighed against the arguments, editors achieved a rough consensus that the information should be included per option C.
- Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Should this article discuss the 1996 sale of the Ministry of Defence's housing stock, and if so, in what form?
– Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
ambiguous on the level of [Portillo]’s personal involvment [ sic], or irrelevant, are very far from convincing. The claims in the sources are, on the contrary, both entirely unambiguous and abundantly clear on Portillo’s involvement: the Financial Times, for example, bluntly tells us that "The deal was struck by the then defence secretary, Michael Portillo", and this is one of many making broadly the same assertion. That numerous high-quality reliable sources reported on that involvement 20+ years after the fact also attests very strongly to its relevance to this article. Finally, if the sale is discussed in the article it’s useful to the reader to include a link to Annington Homes, because describing a sale without specifying the buyer unnecessarily leaves out useful information, and the linked article contains more detail on the subject which may be of interest to the reader. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
sold off by then-defence secretary Michael Portillo[2] or
the man who approved the sale-and-leaseback[3]. The reliable sources seem to be of the view that whether or not he was acting on the advice of his civil servants seems to be irrelevant, because he was the one who is ultimately responsible. Further, to mention that it was sold without to whom it was sold seems both incongruous and unexplanatory. BeReasonabl ( talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I've read the infobox proposal section that led to the current consensus for the infobox, however I'm still a little confused why this was proposed in the first place. He was an MP for 13 years, served on high profile cabinet positions such as Defence Sec. of State and Chief Treasury Sec. He is clearly a notable politician, much more than George Stephanopoulos, Joe Scarborough and Jerry Springer (who's political offices are noted in their infoboxes *not hidden*). If Springer's one year stint as Cincinnati mayor, Scarborough's six year tenure as U.S. Rep or Stephanopoulos 3 year tenured offices at the White House can be noted on their infoboxes, why can't Portillo's much longer MP tenure or other political posts be noted on the infobox (not hidden). TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 22:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael Portillo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Michael Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Born |
Bushey,
Hertfordshire, England | 26 May 1953||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Occupations |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Television | Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political party | formerly Conservative Party (UK) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In office 1 February 2000 – 18 September 2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Leader | William Hague | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preceded by | Francis Maude | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Succeeded by | Michael Howard | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@ Smerus: I stumbled across the page today and was surprised at the changes to the infobox (I was not active on political wikis back in 2017). I looked at the page history and I thought I'd chime in with a proposal to, as the outcome of the original talk page determined, have his political offices offset by his primary notability of being a television host and historian. And I think a collapsed module, per Winston Churchill's page, appearing beneath personal details, per Justin Welby's page, would look very neat and very much to the taste of my politically inclined friends on the wiki as well as you and your friends too. This was not an option discussed in the original forum and I think it might be ideal. Thoughts? Alex ( talk) 19:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Michael Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Born |
Bushey,
Hertfordshire, England | 26 May 1953||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Occupations |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Television | Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political party | Formerly Conservative | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Given that all other Privy Councilors have the Rt. Hon. in their infobox (see for examples Richard Aikens, Tony Baldry, and Wyatt Creech, to name a few), is there much of a reason why this article should be singled out as not having it? 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 13:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I may be missing something obvious, but can I ask why you made this revert [1] at Michael Portillo? The IP's edits just converted redirects to direct wikilinks, and I couldn't see anything wrong with them. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Smerus: Can I ask you to elaborate on your somewhat gnomic edit summary here? I'd argue that generally the parties in any transaction are relevant to a discussion of that transaction; that something is sold often doesn't mean much without specifying to whom it was sold. In this case the "to whom" is the focus of the extensive coverage in reliable sources that exists, and, as I argued in my own edit summary, linking to the Annington Homes article, which contains more extensive discussion of the matter, provides a useful service to the reader. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 13:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Absence of 'reason to doubt' on the part of one editor is not quite the same as proof. (Indeed it is borderline WP:OR). The 2017 citation mentions that someone sent Portillo a note that an unnamed person wanted to have a conversation with him. I cannot see that this proves anything. The 2022 Guardian quote confirms that the deal was done while he was Defence Secretary. I don't have access to the other quotes. It is debatable whether the language they use means that he was personally motivated to advance the deal or whether he signed off on the advice he received. 'Direct involvement' has a suggestion of initiation or advancement, rather than passive signing of paperwork. There does not seem to be any suggestion that Portillo acted against advice at the time. You should bear WP:BLP in mind. In my opinion, to note this episode as part of Portillo's record is correct, but to go into it in detail in this article is WP:UNDUE. I should be interested in comments of other editors.-- Smerus ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
he was personally motivated to advance the deal or whether he signed off on the advice he receiveddoesn't strike me as at all relevant; nor does the possibility
that Portillo acted against advice at the time, which as far as I'm aware no one but you has raised. But this is getting away from my primary point above: why, if you have doubts about the relevance of the content to the article, does that lead you to conclude that the material belongs in the article but on the proviso three words and one link are removed? That's what I continue to be baffled by. (If you want I can send you the contents of the Times and FT articles, or could point you to a handy browser extension...) – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Your allegation that "I refuse to answer simple questions" is extremely unpleasant to me and contrary to WP:AGF. I don't particularly feel this matter belongs in the article. It is about something which happened on Portillo's watch (as did countless other things during his tenure); but he does not seem to have been personally involved in proposing or driving it. None of the citations you mention suggest this; and, once again, I refer you to WP:BLP. My conclusion is that this affair is very tenuously part of Portillo's story and therefore it could be held to merit mention in the article. On those grounds I have not sought to remove it. The only other editor commenting in this thread appears to share my opinion. It is of course up to you whether you take this to RfC. There seems little point in continuing the present thread.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Editors opposed to including the information primarily based their arguments through application of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, saying that on balance sources do not mention Portillo's involvement in the sale, drawing attention to a a 2017 Guardian Long Read.
Editors in favour of including disagreed with that argument, drawing attention to five reliable sources (one published in 1996, four in 2022) that do directly link Portillo's involvement in the sale.
Overall, there were more editors in favour of including the sale than opposed to it. However consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and not as a result of a vote. Through that lens, and on balance of the sources provided weighed against the arguments, editors achieved a rough consensus that the information should be included per option C.
- Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Should this article discuss the 1996 sale of the Ministry of Defence's housing stock, and if so, in what form?
– Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
ambiguous on the level of [Portillo]’s personal involvment [ sic], or irrelevant, are very far from convincing. The claims in the sources are, on the contrary, both entirely unambiguous and abundantly clear on Portillo’s involvement: the Financial Times, for example, bluntly tells us that "The deal was struck by the then defence secretary, Michael Portillo", and this is one of many making broadly the same assertion. That numerous high-quality reliable sources reported on that involvement 20+ years after the fact also attests very strongly to its relevance to this article. Finally, if the sale is discussed in the article it’s useful to the reader to include a link to Annington Homes, because describing a sale without specifying the buyer unnecessarily leaves out useful information, and the linked article contains more detail on the subject which may be of interest to the reader. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
sold off by then-defence secretary Michael Portillo[2] or
the man who approved the sale-and-leaseback[3]. The reliable sources seem to be of the view that whether or not he was acting on the advice of his civil servants seems to be irrelevant, because he was the one who is ultimately responsible. Further, to mention that it was sold without to whom it was sold seems both incongruous and unexplanatory. BeReasonabl ( talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I've read the infobox proposal section that led to the current consensus for the infobox, however I'm still a little confused why this was proposed in the first place. He was an MP for 13 years, served on high profile cabinet positions such as Defence Sec. of State and Chief Treasury Sec. He is clearly a notable politician, much more than George Stephanopoulos, Joe Scarborough and Jerry Springer (who's political offices are noted in their infoboxes *not hidden*). If Springer's one year stint as Cincinnati mayor, Scarborough's six year tenure as U.S. Rep or Stephanopoulos 3 year tenured offices at the White House can be noted on their infoboxes, why can't Portillo's much longer MP tenure or other political posts be noted on the infobox (not hidden). TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 22:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)