Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Repeated Left-Wing Vandalism

He may well be (his views are unusual in one so relatively young, I think) but I do hope this entry will stay true to Wikipedia neutrality.

The amazing thing is that his father was once, unbelievable as it now seems, seen as *against* the old Tory order; people were talking about "the vulgarisation of The Times" (i.e. having news on the front page, giving journalists bylines and acknowledging that John Lennon existed) even in the late 1960s. RobinCarmody, 7 October 2006, 02:50 BST

"In his personal life Rees-Mogg is engaged to Helena de Chair" I imagine he's engaged to her in other parts of his life too.

Let's try to keep this article in line with wiki NPOV. I've edited down somewhat and hope it read less like a direct paraphrase from the independant link now. Alci12 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow - this looks like a severe case of inbreeding - hate to think how the children will turn out.

As an non-British outsider, this entry was very difficult to read and read like an attack ad. It does contain some interesting starting points, but as it is now you'd have to be really intimate with British class and language structures to make any sense of it. The stuff on language and accent really should be explained to an international audience. Clearly the original article was POV, full of character assasination references such "inability to dodge a banana skin" etc. The naming of the child - I don't half understand what it is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in the English language, not for the English nation. Janbrogger (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have once again reverted User:Libertarian-Winger edits and posted to his user page. I will call on an administrator if this continues. Janbrogger (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Alphege - which one & place of birth

I note the paragraph about naming his son Alphege has been removed & reinserted several times, without anyone citing sources. Wikipedia has articles about 2 people called Alphege for which I'm trying to find a reliable source for a Place of Birth. Ælfheah of Canterbury was also known as Alphege & currently the link in this article directs to that one. There is also Alphege of Wells. Both are close to the constituency Rees-Moog is prospective candidate for. Does any know, with suitable sources, which one his son's name may reflect & if a place of birth could be found for that one - I think it would resolve this ongoing issue.— Rod ^talk 12:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alphege was born in Weston, near bath, as stated in the reference. However this is NOT Weston - super - Mare. Weston is on the outskirts of the City of Bath and is in the Constiuancy boundry of North East Somerset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katesimmonsnes (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference given (no 6 on article) takes you to an entry on Almarus and although it mentions Alphage I can't find any information on the place of birth.— Rod ^talk 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability and neutrality banners

This article has now had notability and neutrality banners for a while. Do other editors think notability has been established with the increase in the number (?and quality) of references? Does the article now present a neutral point of view? ie can these banners be removed?— Rod ^talk 14:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. He's a known national political figure, albeit a minor one, despite his failure to actually get a seat in the house thus far. Honbicot (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He is a person that people who have never had any personal connection with him and don't expect to in the future might want to look up, and that is my measure of notability. According to http://stats.grok.se this article gets over 400 hits every month. Choalbaton (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lettuce fan?

Re: neutrality I would point to [this tweet] from Rees-Mogg suggesting he has been editing his own page. Edits on the 13th June match up to his claim.--CheShA (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#UK MP editing article about himself & IP vandalism. ? COI asking an admin to investigate any WP:COI or other issues.— Rod ^talk 17:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The lettuce comments seem to be nonsense and the article should be semiprotected if they are added again. WP:BIOSELF does not prevent the removal of obvious errors, but anything beyond that is controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anything, I'd commend the MP for announcing their edits on Twitter, because it drew eyes to the article and forced those eyes to review the WP:BLP edits. (Lettuce? Really?) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, we're in the Telegraph.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoof blog

I've removed the link to the spoof blogg at http://www.jacobreesmogg.org.uk/ even though its funny it doesn't belong on wikipedia.— Rod ^talk 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This link no longer works and may have been removed because it deliberately impersonated someone else. The same person may now have turned his attention to adding unfunny witticisms to this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg bids to shut Twitter account

This is in the news today. Perhaps WP:NOTNEWS, but it may also be the work of the same "humourist" who set up the spoof blog (see above).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stance on Illicit Meat Vendors near Houses of Parliament?

Could this be inserted, if extant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.217.195 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Floccinaucinihilipilification and neologisms Not the longest word in Hansard

When Betty Boothroyd resigned as Speaker, one of the MPs who praised her used the word supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Rees-Mogg's 29 letters is nothing.--82.181.201.187 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure his use of schoolboy language contributed anything to the parliamentary debate -or that this section contributes to our knowledge of his significance in parliament. In the video he says it was done to get noticed. It has a reference other than Hansard otherwise it would fail notability. It seems to meet the Wp:Trivia#Guidance "lack real importance" criteria for removal and I wouldn't have included it. JRPG (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I originally removed this in accordance with WP:NOTNEO as it is simply an Etonian neologism. It has no meaning even to well educated people outside the school. It did receive publicity, I note it has been replaced and perhaps its best if it is simply explained.
Please discuss in accordance with wp:BRD. JRPG (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is not a real word. It was made up for Mary Poppins. Rees-Mogg holds the record for the longest real word. 86.135.211.204 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to consider a silly coinage by Eton schoolboys any more a 'real word' than a silly coinage by a lyricist. Markington (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've combined the 2 sections. This appears to me to be utter trivia and I would like to think every MP has a more important claims to 1 line in Wikipedia than this. ..On reflection, it is balanced by the comments of parliamentary sketch writers. JRPG (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo in the top right

Any chance we could have a picture of this guy that isn't utterly terrifying? Wikiditm (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I took the photo current being used and it has not been changed in any way.— Rod ^talk 17:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a well taken photo but his eye colour doesn't show up so well and it makes him look very scary. Upon first visiting the page it is a very striking image. Wikiditm (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what he looks like. He has quite a disturbing (even scary) appearance. His fans would argue that this is part of his charm, though I don't see it myself. --Ef80 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Title -as son of a life peer.

Thanks to 82.41.112.230 for correcting my edit -and clearly explaining it. I was unaware of his title -so I've learnt something :). The manual of style is intended to achieve some sort of consistency and looking at Honorific_prefixes, it looks as if it shouldn't be included but can be referenced in the article. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of the Daily Mail

According to WP:Suggested_sources#Current_news one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun."

According to WP:BLPSOURCES, Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. JRPG (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Failure to declare interests"

I have a problem with the wording of this heading. The following is presently contained in the section:

"In December 2014 Rees-Mogg was reported to the Parliament's standards watchdog for speaking in debates on tobacco, mining and oil and gas without first declaring he is founding partner and director of Somerset Capital which has multimillion pound investments in the sectors. However, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Hudson, decided that no wrongdoing had been committed and so no investigation would take place.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Mogg's extra-parliamentary work took up 476 hours or 9 hours per week in 2014."

My issue specifically arises with the use of the word "failure".

As to the first paragraph. Though it is certainty correct that Rees-Mogg was reported to the Parliament's standards watchdog. The Commissioner made a determination that Rees-Mogg was to be cleared of wrongdoing outright, not even a formal investigation was deemed warranted under the circumstances. There was therefore no failure on the part of Rees-Mogg in his declaration of interests. As to the second paragraph. The Daily Telegraph knows the hours Rees-Mogg spent on extra-parliamentary work precisely because Rees-Mogg entered them into the Register of Members' Financial Interests for 2014, which the Daily Telegraph article states that it is citing. This is the exact opposite of a "failure to declare interests".

For the reasons outlined above, I believe a change of the heading to "Declaration of interests" to be a reasonable amendment to this article. I think the information contained in the section is perfectly valid to appear in the Wikipedia entry, I merely take issue with the inaccuracy of the heading. Under both circumstances, there was no failure on the part of Rees-Mogg to declare his interests, not even a substantive allegation.

If anyone feels my changes are an unreasonable compromise, I am happy to discuss the issue further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranzWilde (talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for raising the issue which I'm sure we can resolve. I added the section & my very strong understanding is that in addition to the register one should make a verbal statement to the house or committee which JRM didn't do. I've added "verbally" to the article. JRPG (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Richmond Park by-election

A section has recently been added on this. Is it really meaningfully about Rees-Mogg? It seems far more relevant to Goldsmith. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and removed per WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't all that notable and would be more on topic in Zac Goldsmith or Richmond Park by-election, 2016.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Family background

He has recently had some coverage (eg https://www.ft.com/content/d5efd3a0-b32f-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1 ) after government funding for Wentworth Woodhouse in the autumn statement, however I'm not sure if this should be included as illustrating his family background and certainly seems separate to his political views/activity.— Rod ^talk 09:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like its well worth adding. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

HIGNFY

He appeared on BBC 1's "Have I Got News For You" on 9th December 2016, and his side won. (5.8.187.14 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC))

Annunziata

To call Annunziata a fellow Conservative politician may be a bit confusing since she is neither a member of any parliament nor a councillor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.255.95 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

According the the article about Annunziata Rees-Mogg "She is also active in Conservative politics and was added to the party's A-List by David Cameron. She was unsuccessful as a Conservative parliamentary candidate in the 2005 and 2010 general elections." (this is supported by further detail and references). I would suggest this makes describing her as "a fellow Conservative politician" quite reasonable.— Rod ^talk 16:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Family history of corruption??

Is there a history of Rees-Mogg family corruption?

Was the failure to declare an indirect financial interests in a company whose pecuniary advantage he was seeking in parliament a one off?

Can someone have a look at this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tory-backbench-mp-jacob-rees-mogg-failed-to-declare-interests-9923362.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It might be that this was a one off instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts

Can someone put in some background linking people that are used to (and getting away with) using alternative facts - Michael Gove, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Paul Nuttall for the UK and then compare and contrast with the US - KellyAnn Conway/Sean Spicer/Stephen Miller in the USA.

What does this pattern of alternative facts mean?

Why are they only getting picked up now, but not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"The late" William Rees-Mogg

"The late" has been removed by Ashmoo with the edit summary "Basically, 99% of people in an encyc are dead, so best style is to not use 'late'". 99% of the people in an encyclopaedia are not the parents of living people. A much higher proportion of the parents of living people are themselves alive. As such, I think it's not inappropriate to mention that Rees-Mogg's father is dead. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ashmoo is right, I think. Using "the late" is generally frowned upon. I suspect this has been discussed many times before, but I'm not sure if there is any centralised discussion. Perhaps Ashmoo might be able to find one? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

One way around this is to add "who died in XX" to give more information and context but avoid "late".— Rod ^talk 18:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"The late" is definitely on my yuk list of unencyclopedic phrases, and it has problems with WP:EUPHEMISM. Rod's suggestion makes sense here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care how we express it, so I've inserted "who died in 2012". Pinkbeast (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It seemed for a moment that you did care. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I care that we say that he's dead; I don't care how we express that he's dead. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

In reply to attempted reversions to the lead: Rees-Mogg is a political attack dog, who has little else to say except adopt a contrary view point. As such, his various positions are of direct relevance to the lead of his bio. Re hard Brexit is not about immigration; well hopefully, but thats how Rees-Mogg stirs his constituency and angles for air time. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact you call him an "attack dog", your profile and nature of your edits, obliterates WP:NPOV. Not only that, the other version is better written. This is the 3rd account that has reverted your edits - stop edit warring Ryanharmany (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are grasping at straws. The other version denies Rees-Mogg earlier held and loudly voiced position. I give facts, while yer version is political spinning, practically an apologist election manifesto, and pure conjecture. Your text = "...Claims that the terms hard and soft Brexit which have been used unofficially to describe different types of exit from the European Union are "nonsense" and that "there is no such thing as hard and soft Brexit there is only being in or out." So how is that NPOV. Ceoil (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh would both of you, please! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested full protection at WP:RFPP. Please shout at each other here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly it's not my text - it was written by someone previously. It says; Rees-Mogg is a monarchist and Eurosceptic, he supports a 'hard' Brexit, but claims that the terms hard and soft Brexit which have been used unofficially to describe different types of exit from the European Union are "nonsense" and that "there is no such thing as hard and soft Brexit there is only being in or out.". it obviously states that his views on hard and soft brexit are his views - your bigotry may be blinding you. You have edit warred with 3 people, you have called Rees-Mogg a "attack dog", your profile shows your bias against non-remain views ("One year on, don't be fooled by charming buffoons.") and you call anyone that doesn't conform to your view an "apologist".Ryanharmany (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I was stating facts, most beople know him for his Trump/UKIP stuff, its how he earns a living. You are reinstating opinion, that, oh, also also happens to be false and untrue. Its as simple as that. Better to gut the lead to the opening statement. He was born, and is a politician. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Now you called me a biggot and that cant really stand. Its sort of block worthy stuff. dave I know you dont really give a fuck,[1] and have already made your mind up...but???Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that he is most known for being ostensibly pompous - as this is how he is mostly displayed my the media and reciprocated online. ?He earn a living from being a fund manager and has almost no connection to trump other than supporting his presidency - are you sure you are not confused with Nigel Farage?. If you want opinion removed I guess you would also want this "Ideologically, Corbyn identifies himself as a democratic socialist.[5] He advocates reversing austerity cuts to public services and welfare funding made since 2010, and proposes renationalisation of public utilities and the railways" removed from Jeremy Corbyns page? I have called you a bigot as, by definition, that is how you are acting - you have called multiple people "Apologists" and "buffoons", simply for disagreeing with you.Ryanharmany (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this 3BC and two wrongs make a right? I dont care what you do to the Jeremy Corbyn article; knock your self out. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The current version of the lead is dreadful. The idea that Rees Mogg's support for his party leader's decision to do a deal with the DUP (complete with fake citation) is amongst the most significant aspects of his career is ridiculous. Nor is the lead a good place to frame his Brexit position in tabloidy terms he expressly denies are meaningful, or his largely irrelevant stance on gay marriage. Given that Rees Mogg is much better known for being a rebellious posh eccentric with a fondness for filibustering and Farage, it's not exactly as if there isn't more relevant stuff for including here Dtellett (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If I do provide some discussion about this, it is that I must agree with Dtellett. I came across the lede earlier today, when I was adding a link to the new Moggmania article, and I thought that the last paragraph does indeed stand out in the wrong way, as if there is nothing else to go with it. He did this, he did that and so on. Give an overview of his activities as an MP and as a person, in the sense of his filibustering and eccentric posh behaviour. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention his fondness, obviously inspired by Saint Hilda of Grantham, for large cakes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2017

I'd like to remove the same-sex marriage and DUP points from the lead. The lead should be reserved for the most significant information in the article and as Dtellett says in the talk page, "The idea that Rees Mogg's support for his party leader's decision to do a deal with the DUP (complete with fake citation) is amongst the most significant aspects of his career is ridiculous." Super-Mac (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree these points are given too much prominence, but I think the most needed step is to increase the size of the lead, which is far too short for a long article.

Could an admin add the following to the lead (before the second paragraph)

Rees-Mogg was born in Hammersmith, London and was educated at Eton College. He studied History at Trinity College, Oxford and was president of the Oxford University Conservative Association. He worked in the City of London for Lloyd George Management before setting up his own company, Somerset Capital Management. After several unsuccessful attempts to become an MP, he was was elected to Parliament to represent North East Somerset in 2010. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Support the above proposal. Current lead seems quite inadequate, unbalanced and recentist. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Second. Gives a good overview of his whole life. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed

I edited through protection to perform this requested edit due to the apparent consensus above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Rees Mogg and guitars at mass

I discovered Rees Mogg because I heard he wanted to ban guitars. Well I find out the article is misleading (although probably unintentionally). The rest of the article which he is quoted from states:

Interviewer: I ask him why he is so opposed to guitars at Mass, as the topic repeatedly crops up:

"'I’m not,' he laughs. 'It’s just that we have had an outbreak of them in Somerset and I find them disagreeable.;"

So, it is found out he is making a joke. Perhaps the quote about the guitars and noisy mass should be removed anyway, how relevant is a politician's specific liturgical preferences to an encyclopedia? No bishop. Keeping preference of Tridentine Mass is useful though and I think that accomplishes what the article intends to put out anyway.75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that the last two sentences in that quote should be removed? If you want a change you'll have to make a formal edit request. But that interview source was four years ago, so the availability of the Tridentine Mass in Somerset may have changed and/ or he may have changed his views. Is it fair to still use the words "likes to attend"? Maybe he's taken up playing the guitar since then! I wonder if he ever attends Mass in London. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To me, the article reads as if a joke is deliberately intended - saying far more about his humour than his spirituality. And that's maybe appropriate since he's a jokey sort of bloke. Perhaps to an international audience the joke is less apparant. Thincat (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't resist. Thinking about Rees Mogg and jokes reminded me of this. Thincat (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'll apologise too Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Misplacement of Politically Biased Material

The various controversies mentioned in 'Parliamentary Candidate and other roles' does not belong in that section. Furthermore the instances which are mentioned are so obscure and dated that they are rendered irrelevant in an article which is otherwise relatively brief and undetailed. A general cleanup, and perhaps expansion of this article is required. I firstly propose that the aforementioned paragraphs are deleted as they have very obviously been inserted in an incorrect section, and with political motives. I have tried to previously delete them because of their blaringly obvious violation of Wikipedia rules, but have been told by Pinkbeast that I must seek consensus; odd. Picander Peerage (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're seeking to expand the article it seems a little odd to start by removing material. Suggest creating a more appropriate section, perhaps "Controversies"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that it should be deleted until a time when the article can be fully and comprehensively expanded in line with the depth of detail that these examples represent. As you point out, a controversies section would serve well in clearing up the various scandals which are currently dotted around in random places of the article. Picander Peerage (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We know what that would mean; deleted and conveniently forgotten about. It is better to leave it be than to let that happen. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If these violations of Wikipedia rules are so "blaringly" obvious, it should be straightforward to say which rules and why. I'd raise an eyebrow at invocation of WP:UNDUE; the article has just been subject to considerable attention and some rearrangement of material after a spate of vandalism, and no-one seemed to feel that was an issue then. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There was a bit of undue weight given to the views of the Traditional Britain Group, given he doesn't seem to have had any involvement other than accepting a dinner invitation and then disowning them. Have trimmed that (although there's a case of not including it at all; he's certainly much better known for other things). Other than that, the article seems reasonably fair. Controversies sections are generally discouraged on BLPs. Dtellett (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Gay marriage" in introduction

The Catholic Church is also opposed to adultery, fornication, pornography and murder. Presumably, as a Catholic, Rees-Mogg adheres to the Catholic Church's position on these areas too. Is there any particular reason to single out homosexual marriage in the introduction? Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Parliament has not had a free vote on adultery, fornication, pornography and murder in which Jacob Rees Mogg participated Dtellett (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of pious Catholics who support same-sex marriage. Plenty of clergy and bishops who have also spoken out in favour of it and civil unions. It's useful to make the distinction that Rees-Mogg is on the conservative wing of the church. It's also a fairly unusual political position to take (shared by only a minority of parliamentarians) and therefore quite notable. I'm all for transparency. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In the Third Reading of the bill at the House of Commons it was passed by 366 to 161. So Rees-Mogg is in a minority but not of a handful - only "notable" because of the political attention this receives. Taking away the emotion attached to the issue not opposition not freakishness. Interestingly the Commons vote broadly reflects public opinion polls on the issue.

Parliament is highly unlikely to have free votes on murder etc. The original poster's views stand - singling out homosexuality ignores any views Rees-Mogg may have as a Catholic on a wide range of other issues that don't generate hysteria. Pfm401 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Also, there are 65,640,000 people in the UK, of those (according to the BBC) only about 15,000 have undergone "gay marriages", which is a grand total of 0.02% of the UK population. To put that into perspective there are more UKian people who vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party or put down Jedi as their religious affiliation than have "gay marriages", what are Rees-Mogg's views on Jedis? But apparently this is supposed to be the most important topic in British politics. It probably deserves a sentence, but it seems odd to put it in the intro (despite the British fascination with homosexuality in general). Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We can all play that game. If as a general rule of thumb you give a conservative estimate that around 10% of any population is homosexual (aside form those that engage in same sex sexual activity or have general attraction) then that gives you a figure of around 700 million people in the world. So not that insignificant an issue. If you look at regular church going catholics then I suspect the global figure will be somewhat less thatn 700m - and yet reams of stuff everywhere about Catholicism. As if it's really that notable a subject. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-British editors' abilities to regurgitate statistics on gay marriage in the UK might reveal much about their own personal fascination with homosexuality, but are not at all relevant to the decision to emphasise a politician's overt statements of his subordination to the Holy See on such matters (As opposed to, a cynic might add, his overt disregard for Papal statements on lesser matters such as refugees) in keeping with the rather ostentatious Catholicism which is among the things said politician is best known for. Dtellett (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh I agree, it is undoubtedly fascinating from an anthropological and sociological perspective. Especially how British neo-Malthusians subtly encourage it around the "Commonwealth" as a strategy to lower the global population and hope that nobody cottons on. But I digress.

I think you are confusing the clergy/Vatican as a political structure and Catholicism as a religious system of beliefs. The Catholic Church categorises homosexual sex as a mortal sin and as Rees-Mogg stated, matrimony as one of the sacraments. So those are basic tenants which it can be taken for granted that Catholics generally believe in, highlighting them in the introduction of an article about a Catholic is a bit like saying a bear shits in the woods.

That is complete different to non-binding political opinions/whims of the Vatican or certain clerics. For example, the Vatican is currently trying to subvert the government of Venezuela, doesn't mean pro-Maduro Catholics are going to be excommunicated or that they are violating basic tenants of Catholic belief. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you nuts? No seriously. Are you? yes you digress. This is rubbish and WP:OFFTOPIC. Keep focused. Of course matrimony as a sacrament in the Catholic Church is more recent than you think - but then I wouldn't want to distract from a good story.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think his position is notable but shouldn't be. If 1/3 (ISH) of MPs voted against SSM, he's in a minority that's all. Opinion polls suggest a similar minority of the public share this view. What happens is that the subtle but important differences of agreeing with the law, disagreeing with the law and following it whilst trying to change it, and having a moral conviction with no attempt to change the law are forgotten in the noise.

As a Catholic I'm deeply uncomfortable because - and correct me if I'm wrong - he didn't seek to prioritise his "controversial" views in his political life. Others find out he is a Catholic and give him the choice of denying what he thinks or being vilified. His views on things he might actually try to implement, or his general competence as a politician, are secondary to his moral convictions.

Are we really saying that if you can't be openly Catholic and in public life? Pfm401 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Whip from Catholic Church likely to be inaccurate

The statement that Mr Rees-Mogg, as a Catholic, takes his whip from the "Roman Catholic Church" is likely to be deliberately misleading for two reasons: 1. The issues referred to - same sex marriage and abortion - are free vote issues and not subject to a Party Whip 2. A Catholic is duty bound to take into account the teachings of the Church in matters of conscience, not blindly obey it.

The article as it stands suggests that Mr Rees-Mogg simply implements orders from the Holy See. Together with the generally pejorative use of the term "Roman Catholic" this is likely to have been written by a political or philosophical / religious opponent.

Of course if it's a direct quote from Mr Rees-Mogg then a citation would clarify the position. Pfm401 (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from Rees Mogg, and the context in which he gave it - free votes on same sex marriage and abortion - is accurately reported. The citation is included with the direct quote in the article proper under "social issues", but not duplicated when summarising in the lede, per Wikipedia convention. I will replace the secondary source with a couple of better ones.

His expressed position that he "takes his whip" from the Holy See on conscience issues is an an unusual one amongst MPs, including other Catholic MPs, and Rees-Mogg's faith is clearly an unusually important part of his political profile relevant for emphasis in the lead. The text was written before Rees Mogg reiterating those views again became headline news this week, which certainly did nothing to diminish that importance. Dtellett (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I clearly hadn't done my homework :) I'm Catholic and I get sick to death of people misquoting or twisting our faith, including the backlash to Rees Mogg's interview. It's unusual indeed for the reasons I say - clearly "truth is stranger than fiction" holds here!

Do you think Rees Mogg went on GMTV with the intention of making those points or was the interview turned that way? Pfm401 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)::Y

You can see why that's a rather controversial thing to say, can't you? and worthy of inclusion in the lead section? GMTV or no GMTV. You can imagine being someone for whom Rees-Mogg was the elected Parliamentary representative, someone who was not a Catholic, nor even a Christian perhaps, and hearing that? Some might argue that holding such prescriptive views ought to preclude a politician from being an MP at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I can see that, of course. The problem I have with that is that there are many people in the UK who support Rees-Mogg's views, or other views based on principles, whether from a Catholic, Christian, or non-religious viewpoint. Who decides when a set of views is so controversial that they can't be represented in Parliament, and solely or largely define the person? Especially some which have a significant minority of the public supporting them. And why they seem to trump views Rees Mogg is actually planning to implement. Pfm401 (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think in the UK MPs are supposed to be elected to represent their constituents, not "a set of views"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed they are, and those constituents will hold a wide range of views on a wide range of issues. So why ban someone from standing who holds a set of views, which he isn't even planning to implement? The voters should decide - and to do so they need a balanced view of the candidates.

Sorry, this is an interesting debate but all this is off the point is it not (probably my fault!)? I started with a concern over the factual nature of the article, where dtellett proved the article right. I was simply surprised at what Rees Mogg said re his "whip" for the reasons I've stated, but he did say it, so I think my point is closed. Pfm401 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The reader, like you, might be interested in the interview context of that comment? I'm not sure that the article currently provides that very clearly. And one of the supporting sources appears to be a deadlink. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Original Beeb recording taken down but context of the speech was a discussion of how JRM would be voting on same sex marriage bill, which was of course a free vote in which he was (along with much of the rest of his party) able to oppose a proposal backed by his PM. Not sure there's a huge amount that can be added without original research Dtellett (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)