Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Times article concerning Trump

Ritchie333, can you please explain your reasoning why you think it is important and due weight that this article should say that Rees-Mogg "also wrote an article for The Times entitled 'Trump Will Be Our Greatest Ally After Brexit'" [1]? Considering that among the UK's allies, Trump was probably the only leader who looked favourably on Brexit, it's hard to see Rees-Mogg's statement on this as a matter worthy of much comment beyond the daily journalistic copy. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Do a Google News search for "Trump Will Be Our Greatest Ally After Brexit" and you'll find lots of hits. I got this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hits? Even if some good quality sources can be found, that isn't necessarily sufficient in itself to justify inclusion, and doesn't address my question, and yet the sources you present here are nothing like good quality sources. The first one is an attack piece disguised as news in a local paper, the second one is a tabloid, the third one is a 'letter to the editor', and the fourth is International Socialism. Do you seriously believe these constitute a good compliment of sources for justifying including something in the article of a UK politician who tends to generate a lot of copy and who is described in our article as "traditionalist and socially conservative" and "a controversial figure in British politics"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. What did you expect, the Tooting Popular Front?? At least they quote The Times! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Martin, surely in an article on someone like Rees-Mogg, we should be using material that is covered by a broad range of sources, from across the political spectrum. Media these days are highly politicised, so that right-wing politicians tend to be attacked or criticised by the left-wing media, and vice versa for left-wing politicians. Just using one side risks having articles that veer away from neutrality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the Mirror (left wing), the Independent (centre left), the Times (centre right), The Express (right wing) and a local newspaper (neutral) and a journalist magazine (neutral) covers pretty much the entire political spectrum. I'm not going to look up the Morning Star or the English Defence League. Part of the problem is that a number of right-wing facing sources, particularly The Sun and the Daily Mail have been thoroughly discredited as reliable sources for BLPs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both The Mirror and The Express are tabloids and not *good quality* sources. The Times? Are you referring to the original article (which is a primary source) or to the 'letter to the editor' that you linked above? Neither is useable to indicate significance. The local newspaper you linked to is absolutely not neutral - it is an attack piece on the tories. And what is the 'journalist magazine' you are referring to - International Socialism? Surely you don't claim that to be neutral? And even if all those sources were OK (which they're not), you still have not explained why that justifies including the sentence about the Trump/Brexit article. I can find lots of sources regarding Nicola Sturgeon's recent lapse in following her own government's Covid rules, so by your argument here so far, an editor could add that to her article, even though it's totally trivial in terms of her career. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think his cosying-up-to-the-Donald, chlorinated over-ready chickens notwithstanding, was certainly part (however misguided) of Boris's Brexit strategy and deserves a mention/ a little expansion. I'm sure other more suitable sources, alongside The Times, could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Express is unreliable and the Daily Mirror has no consensus of its reliablity per WP:RSP (honestly suprised the mirror has not been complelely deprecated). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Both The Mirror and The Express are tabloids and not *good quality* sources." Who said they were? You've fallen into the old trap of decrying a source for being unreliable without specifying what claim is being cited by the source. The question asked was "Is the quotation attributed to JRM politically neutral?" and the range of sources presented shows that it is. You can't then throw out half of the sources as being "unreliable" because the policy says "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Which it has, being covered in The Times on multiple occasions outside its original mention ([2], [3]) and The Independent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The question that I asked was not whether anything attributed to JRM was politically neutral, it was whether it is important enough to warrant inclusion in the article. The political neutrality of the sources being used is of importance, but as I stated above, "Even if some good quality sources can be found, that isn't necessarily sufficient in itself to justify inclusion, and doesn't address my question". Are you going to address the question? I can find sources similar to those that you linked above to back up the statement that "Rees-Mogg has a prediliction for Cadbury's creme eggs" (here, here, here, here), but to include such information in the article on the basis of that would be ridiculous. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd welcome such an addition, although I'm not sure he's really in need of the £10,000 for finding one of 800 white ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if it's got multiple independent reliable sources about it and doesn't violate the BLP or neutrality policies to add it, be bold and put it in! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, the egg thing has been going on since at least 2013, if we can believe The Daily Mail, which of course we can't. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see this discussion isn't going anywhere, so I will just state that I find some of the recent attention at this article to be of concern. Just at the time when it could be viewed as being particularly disadvantageous for a UK politician to have any association with Donald Trump, there has been a push to expand and elaborate such an association within this article. Of course whether information should be listed in an article will often be a matter for discussion, but what I find prompts concern is the timing and also that some of the editors pushing to include such information can be seen to have either professional or personal antagonism to the article subject. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Awww shucks. I thought it was headed to the end of the COVID lock-down. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Zarah Sultana

I thought the reported detail, that Rees-Mogg was "... in line to receive an £800,000 dividend payout this year", was quite notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Rees-Mogg's comment about Unicef was peculiar and ill-judged, and I'm not surprised it was attacked by members from the opposition benches, though I'm still not favourable towards Wikipedia covering it, as it all blew over within a day or so, and I don't see it as being a significant event in Rees-Mogg's career. MPs are constantly trying to discredit members from opposing benches, and I think Wikipedia should be wary of being dragged into all of that he-said she-said kind of narrative, unless it becomes a major event that persists for a significant period of time. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's old news anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Balance

I appreciate that writing in a balanced manner on such divisive character is hard, but this page reads like it was written by a fanboy. BillhomEls (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Chairman of the European Research Group

Jacob Rees-Mogg/Archive 3
Chairman of the European Research Group
In office 9 January 2018 – 3 September 2019
Deputy	Steve Baker
Leader	Theresa May Boris Johnson
Preceded by	Suella Braverman
Succeeded by	Steve Baker

Can Rees-Mogg's role as Chairman of the European Research Group be included in his infobox, as it is with other chairmen such as Suella Braverman, Steve Baker, Mark Francois and Chris Heaton-Harris? 81.147.76.243 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The European Research Group is notable, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Curbon7 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Titles and styles

As the son of a life peer (a baron), he has been entitled to the style 'The Honourable' since his father's ennoblement (8 August 1988). The reference just mentioned has a list of courtesy titles given to children of peers, though Debrett's will also provide such list.

His style of 'The Honourable' is even mentioned in the Order appointing him to the Privy Council. As such, it is clear that Debrett's mention of courtesy titles is enough evidence to warrant sufficient reference as to his style. 'The Right Honourable' is already referenced through the Privy Council.

If anything, I'd remove the first line of styles (24 May 1969 – 8 August 1988: Jacob Rees-Mogg), as it is not really needed. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the objection. Both my edit summaries seem clear: [4][5]. We don't do this for MPs. It's trivial and unnecessary repetition. We know his name is Jacob Rees-Mogg: it's given in big black letters at the top of the article, and the top of the infobox and the first line of the article. We don't need it repeated a further 3 times in a special section of its own. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

References

JRM's upper class credentials

There is a clearly a difference of opinion here about whether it is appropriate to question JRM's upper class (wahtever that is) credentials. His father's webpage William Rees-Mogg says he (WRM) was born into a middle-class family. Since JRM's mother was a secretary, daughter of a lorry driver, I don't think one can justifiably claim him to be upper class. One could just as easily label him middle class or even working class - why should one override the other? More important, however, is fact that the reference used to support this sentence does not say anything about his being criticised by constituents for being too posh, so it would probably be best if this sentence was omitted altogether.

I suggest omitting the sentence altogether and perhpas adding something somewhere else. The underlying issue is that he is perceived as being upper class by many people - Personal life or Public image to present published information about this Epzcaw (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"Posh" is very often an accusation made against "middle-class" people who have pretentions to grandeur that they do not really deserve. Similarly with "snob"... just like the BBC's Hyacinth Bucket. I think it might be easy to find additional sources that argue that Rees-Mogg is perceived as "too posh". I took out the mention of "constituents" in response to your last edit summary. Yes, a better location might be appropriate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How about I draft something based on this article and the more recent Guardian one, and post it here (or maybe on my sandbox). I will message you when I have done this. Epzcaw (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's sounds fine. Thanks very much. I think DrKay may also have an interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

The article states "Jacob William Rees-Mogg (born 24 May 1969)" and then, later, "Crook came to work for the family in 1965 when Rees-Mogg was four."

Someone born in 1969 was not four in 1965. 82.22.59.42 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. A change made Nthep (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Impersonation

Jacob Rees-Mogg was sent a Cease and Desist order by The Beano, for infringing their copyright by “... masquerading as Walter Brown”. This is unusual enough to warrant a mention in the article.

Some of many sources: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43642564

https://news.sky.com/story/beano-tells-rees-mogg-to-stop-copying-comic-character-walter-the-softy-11316413

https://www.thenational.scot/news/16137862.rees-mogg-slammed-beano-ripping-off-character/

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-walter-the-softy-and-rees-mogg-25502/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/jacob-reesmogg-accused-of-being-a-big-softy-a3805351.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.103.252 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it was a bit of a publicity stunt and has problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. It is mentioned at The Beano where it is more on topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 25 March 2→022 (UTC)

If only the Mogg Father had been "deeply outraged" or even "bitterly offended". But he was actually slightly clever and joined in, as the BBC notes: "Mr Rees-Mogg said the move was "all harmless fun", adding that "compared to me, Walter is Mr Muscle"." Agree it belongs at The Beano although, yes, the likeness is quite remarkable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

He doesn't 'identify' as a social conservative. He identifies *himself* as one, or claims / states he is one, or similar.

The level of grammar in Wikipedia is sometimes disappointing, sometimes appalling: the result of not having actual editors. 2A01:4C8:1521:E82F:1:1:492B:53AB (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd never identify as an actual editor. Just like yourself, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Language changes over time. This specific use of the verb 'identify' is in the dictionary now, so perhaps you could get over yourself and apply the English language in the way that it's expected to be applied? Desincarne (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Identify what or whom as a conservative? His dog? One of his large brood? This is lazy, ungrammatical misuse of English and would not occur in a real encyclopaedia.

Missing reference to Rees family in 2nd crest element

Please add (Rees) at end of 2nd crest description (it's missing.) 2603:6011:6A23:823B:D47A:AE8E:DAFB:4EAA (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I second the motion subject to digging up the documentation.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Addition to the description of his coat of arms needed

Currently, the description of the escutcheon of Rees-Mogg's coat of arms in the "Titles, styles, and arms" section of this article reads:

"Quarterly, 1st and 4th, Argent on a Fess Pean between three Ermine Spots each surmounted by a Crescent Gules a Cock Or (Mogg); 2nd and 3rd, Gules a Chevron engrailed Erminois between three Swans Argent wings elevated Or (Rees)"

This is not a complete description: there should be another semi-colon following the last part of the description -- i.e., "...(Rees);" -- followed by the following:

"over all a Crescent Sable for difference"

A crescent "over all" in heraldry is a mark of cadency. A mark of cadency signifies that the armiger is himself the son of an armiger, and if one of many of their sons, which one exactly. In this case the mark of cadency is a crescent, signifying that the armiger, Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, is the second son of the late Rt. Hon. The Lord Rees-Mogg (after Hon. Thomas Rees-Mogg, whose mark of cadency would be a label of three points).

Would someone like to make this addition?

109.249.187.84 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that. I was just about to say the same thing and you've saved me some typing. Also, I would question whether that is a Fess Pean. My understanding of things like a "semi" or "seme" of something is that it should be drawn with some of the elements cut off by the edges of the shape, to make it clear that it is a spangling of those objects and not "x objects". That fess to me appears to be a Fess Sable with a Cock (Or) between two Ermine Spots Or. It's not Pean because no ermine-spots are cut by the edges of the fess. However, Wikipedia might not be creating error here, but may be faithfully recreating an error perpetrated by heralds who either wrote a blazon that doesn't match the shield or drew the shield so that it doesn't match the blazon.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I failed to make clear in my earlier language that "Pean" is the same thing as a background of Sable strewn with golden (i.e. "Or") Ermine-Spots. "Strewn" here means "semé of" which is sometimes rendered "seme of" or "semi of". For pean to be pean, the golden Ermine-Spots need to be uncountable which means some gold Ermine-Spots need to be cut off by the edge of the shape that is patterned with pean. You have the option of seeing that as a shape cut from a cloth of infinite extent patterned with an infinite number of the small charges, or as a window on the other side of which is a field of the small charges with the edges of the window obscuring the view of some of the charges. If a shape is NOT done that way, and you can count the spots, it would be something like "Sable, seven Ermine-Spots Or", in this case a Fess Sable with two Ermine-Spots and a Cock Or, or some language that makes it clearer that the charges are distributed evenly horizontally with the cock centered between two Ermine-Spots.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

There could be greater depth on the wedding-venue

At the time of this post this article has the sentence "The couple were married at Canterbury Cathedral, Kent, in 2007, in a ceremony at which the post-Vatican II Mass was celebrated in Latin". There are two issues. The first is that it's not normal to have a CATHOLIC Mass in an ANGLICAN Cathedral. (I clicked the text to see if there was also a Catholic Canterbury Cathedral, but the text links to the Anglican one. Well, okay, I can't say that's false, it's just that the unusualness of it should be explained or documented. I can't RULE OUT a hypothetical sentence in a hypothetical article "He built a balloon out of lead, filled it with lava, and flew it", but it IS counterintuitive and needs some expansion. Second, if a Mass occurs I don't think the fact should be stated using the specialized jargon of the institution that performed the Mass. A CARDINAL might well say that a Mass was "celebrated", but the layman non-technical language is that a Mass was "performed" or "executed". To "celebrate" some thing (or person) is to have an event at which attendees express their happiness that the thing (or person) exists. This article makes it sound like the subject used the occasion of his wedding to express joy, in Latin, over the fact that the post-Vatican-II Mass exists. If what is meant was that the post-Vatican-II Mass was PERFORMED (in Latin), then it should say so, and also provide the explanation as to how a Catholic Mass occurred in an Anglican church.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Repeated paragraph

First paragraph under the heading ‘Parliament’ is written twice. 2.98.113.154 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted it now. Not sure how that happened. — Czello 07:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Resignation

He resigned, so this page needs to be updated, but I'm not an expert on British politics, so I just want to inform you. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Intro back-bencher.

Someone who has an account should add a link to back-bencher for people unfamiliar with the Westminster system. 216.234.220.130 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Misleading point in "Social Issues"

This article describes, and I quote, him "directly profits from the sales of abortion pills through investments made by his investment company Somerset Capital Management". This is misleading as the very next line introduces the fact of the matter which is that these pills are not for abortions. I propose, as I cannot edit this, that this is rewritten to say "He directly profits from the sales of stomach ulcer pills used, in some places, as improvised abortifacients through investments made by his investment company Somerset Capital Management". The context added is better than nothing, but the current phrasing could lead people to believe something that isn't true. 2.127.10.155 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

GB News

Rees-Mogg regularly presents a show, each evening Monday-Thursday, between 8pm and 9pm: [6], where he generally spouts his provocative and reactionary twaddle on a wide range of controversial subjects: [7]. I think this should be added. Possibly also needs a mention in the lead section. Thanks. 86.170.226.56 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like someone's butthurt 2.127.10.155 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Currently the article doesn't even say he works for them. Some people might even see that as a second job? "If anyone deserves to make £802 an hour, then surely it’s this multimillionaire Tory." 86.187.230.148 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

BroomJH could you explain why you deleted this, with no explanation:

"He directly profits from the sales of abortion pills through investments made by his investment company Somerset Capital Management."

In the meantime, perhaps another editor could restore it? Thanks. 86.187.175.85 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this particularly encyclopedic content or noteworthy? Its inclusion appears to be solely to make a point about the subject. Given that the pills in question were used to treat stomach ulcers but were being used to trigger abortions seems largely unrelated to Rees-Mogg. — Czello ^(music) 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Rees-Mogg may indeed not have been directly involved, but I would suggest the entire incident deserves mention, because of the widespread reporting by the media and because of Rees-Mogg's previous very controversial comments on abortion e.g. describing it as "a death cult". The article from The Independent, used as the source, seems perfectly fair and well balanced. Maybe that text needs to be amended, and it should certainly not appear to be made in wiki-voice, but it should not simply be removed without any discussion. I might suggest something like this:

"In November 2022 he was accused of hypocrisy when it was revealed that Somerset Capital Management had invested £5m in the Indonesian company Kalbe Farma which manufactures medication to treat stomach ulcers that has also been used to trigger abortions." Thanks. 86.187.175.85 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I did read the article, which is why I replied. It strikes me as a storm in a teacup. He has investments in a company that produces stomach ulcer pills which can induce an abortion. Us including it just because of his own views on abortion smacks of a "gotchya". — Czello ^(music) 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: Evening Standard, Catholic Herald, Bristol Post, Daily Mail, Somerset Live, The Guardian, Metro, LBC, Elle. So quite wide coverage. Seems notable. 86.187.175.109 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes - sorry for not leaving an explanation. It seemed a superfluous and rather opinionated comment, since the truth of the matter (i.e., that a company he has interests in sells pills for stomach ulcers which some people use to induce abortion) is covered in the next sentence. As Czello says, it does rather smack of a "gotchya". The matter is certainly worth mention, but in a more balanced tone, such as you have suggested. I'll leave it to another editor to make the final decision! BroomJH (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Has the knighthood been bestowed by the King yet? 84.64.20.120 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Interfering with Partygate probe

The BBC reports "Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg accused of interfering with Partygate probe". Sir Jacob calling the Privileges Committee "a political committee against Boris Johnson" on GB News. This should be added. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

On 22 March Sir Jacob ".. told Radio 4 the committee 'makes kangaroo courts look respectable'": [8]. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

PC label

What the basis Векочел for "Only peers get the PC label applied after their name" in your 11:38, 2 November 2023 edit summary in view of Diana Johnson DBE PC MP, Michael Heseltine PC MP, Arthur Henderson, P.C., M.P.? Mcljlm (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• See the articles on British prime ministers from John Major onwards for examples. Векочел (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Apart from Wikipedia not being a reliable source (see also WP:RSPWP) Векочел don't the examples I mentioned indicate PC should be included? Mcljlm (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Privy Counsellors and Crown Appointments". Debrett's. Archived from the original on 28 May 2016. Retrieved 15 June 2015. In a social style of address for a peer who is a Privy Counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other members of the Privy Council the pre-fix 'Rt Hon' before the name is sufficient identification.
• "Letters after the name". Debrett's. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017. In a social style of address for a peer who is a privy counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other members of the Privy Council the prefix 'Rt Hon' before the name is sufficient identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKay (talk • contribs) 17:53:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Criticism

I am concerned that criticism of Jacob Rees-Mogg has been removed without explanation, such as here and here. I freely admit I have a strong opinion on JRM, so that's why I think we should have a discussion about whether the removed text was appropriate or not, and also the reasons why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to see what the reasons were for these removals. The lead section includes the claim that "He amassed a significant fortune: it was estimated in 2016 at between £55 million and £150 million, including his wife's expected inheritance." This needs to be covered in the main body of the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Is being wealthy a bad thing then? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether being wealthy is a bad or not is irrelevant. What is a "bad thing" is an article that makes two different claims, one in the lead section and one in the main body? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's just that the heading here is 'criticism', so I wondered if you thought discussing his wealth was criticism of him. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The criticism arises not from him being wealthy as such, but rather from this privilege meaning he has no real idea of how most people live. Either way, the article ought to be accurate. Or perhaps you think £50 million is just an insignificant trifle? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What should the threshold of personal wealth be do you think, that if exceeded we could say that the person could not possibly have any real idea of how most people live? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably less than £150 million. But my personal views are also irrelevant. What are relevant are secondary sources detailing criticism of Rees-Mogg from notable individuals. And even if there were none of these, I'd suggest that his personal wealth should be reported accurately here. Perhaps we need a separate discussion thread on "Personal wealth"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The main body currently says just "in excess of £100 million". There seems to be some discrepancy with what appears in the lead section? The Spectator usefully tells us: Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair, 45, born in 1977, is the daughter of famous poet and aristocrat Somerset de Chair and Lady Juliet Tadgell. Lady Tadgell (now aged 88) is heir to the Fitzwilliam fortune and has an estimated net worth of £45 million, all of which Helena stands to inherit as her only surviving child. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing children

His children are missing from the article, which is an unusual omission for a Wikipedia biographical article.

Perhaps someone could add them. Their names are:

1) Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius,

2) Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan,

3) Peter Theodore Alphege,

4) Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam,

5) Mary Anne Charlotte Emma,

6) Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher.

See [9]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40506109 81.154.4.27 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

They are deliberately not named in the article, see WP:BLPNAME. This wouldn't add significant value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the latter point. Those names will be a big enough burden for the brood to bear throughout their lives, without even more people finding them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.78.33 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You say that the children are "deliberately not named in the article", referring to WP:BLPNAME, and that naming them "wouldn't add significant value". Can you explain why it is different for Truss' predecessor as PM, Boris Johnson, whose children are named?

The names of Johnson's children are given in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Relationships) as

1) Lara Lettice,

2) Milo Arthur,

3) Cassia Peaches,

4) Theodore Apollo,

5) Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas,

6) Romy Iris Charlotte.

This is trying to make WP:OTHERCONTENT into a reason for having the names in this article. In line with WP:BLPNAME, it isn't necessary to name children if they are not notable in their own right.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Using your justification, please could you explain why the following children of notable politicians are named?

- David Cameron (Ivan Reginald Ian (deceased), Nancy Gwen, Florence Rose Endellion, Arthur Elwen)

- Gordon Brown (John Macaulay, James Fraser)

- Tony Blair (Euan, Nicholas, Kathryn, Leo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.4.27 (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We could play this game all day long, but the fact is that WP:BLPNAME discourages including the names of children if they are not independently notable. As it says, "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Jacob Rees-Mogg is notable because of his career as a politician, his children aren't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. You haven't addressed the question of selective and inconsistent application of the policy that you quoted at all. It's not clear that you even recognised it. I might have misjudged your efforts and you might be on a mission, even now, to apply the same policy elsewhere. Perhaps you have started by removing the names of the children of Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair... Surely you wouldn't show an 'editorial' bias such as would be implicit in only applying the policy to one particular politician, would you? 81.154.4.27 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd never really given it much thought until it was raised in this thread. We've both had our say on this, so there needs to be input from other editors to get a WP:CONSENSUS on whether the names of the children are notable enough for inclusion. Personally I think they aren't, but that's just me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that the names of his children aren’t notable, and have removed them from the mother-in-law article. KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This example of editorial inconsistency is hilarious: the article on Mogg's father lists his children in great detail, including the subject of this article. One might surmise that the father is unashamed of his children's names and the supporter of the omission of the subject of this article's children is somewhat embarrassed by the, ahem, 'quirky' choice of names which does, to be fair support the subject's pseudo-self-gentrification striving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.135 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As for hilarity, try this quote on for size: "it isn't necessary to name children if they are not notable in their own right" (emphasis added)... Jacob Rees-Mogg IS notable in his own right; hence his name is freely usable where applicable. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

JR-M's four siblings are named. Are they all "notable in their own rights"? One has her own Wikipedia page, the others don't. Perhaps the latter three should be deleted from the article.

It seems possible that some participants in the discussion, above, might be showing a bias regarding JR-M's children's names. 86.160.228.56 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)