Talk:John Prescott/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

DPM/First Sec of State format

Is there really a need to put precededed by/succeeded by "vacant", and then the people who preceded him and succeeded him in those offices? Whilst I appreciate that there was a time gap, that is not relevant to the office box. That information is available in the profiles of Prescott, the offices themselves, and the people who have held them. Why therefore is there a need to put in the office box the "vacant"? Preceded by and succeeded by should warrant exactly that, and unless there was a title change (which there was not), there surely is no need for the vacant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because technically wherever "vacant" appears we should really say something along the lines of "office abolished" and "office created" as both offices cease to exist when they are not occupied. Adding the names of the person before or after the vacancy is a practical consideration to assist readers; if we wanted to go solely for accuracy we would leave "vacant" on its own. Road Wizard (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, OK. Do they actually cease to exist? Surely just because the posts are not occupied, that doesn't mean that they literally cease to exist until another occupant comes along? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, the position of Deputy Prime Minister ceased to exist during Brown's tenure and could have been abolished altogether. (92.4.193.118 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

Would it not make more sense to simply put the names of the relevant predecessors/successors, with the date they took up the offices in smaller format next to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.120.11 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the current format , with "vacant" is the most accurate, and avoids giving the impression there's been continuous use of the title. Prescott didn't in any meaningful sense succeed Heseltine, and the same applied to Mandelson later being given the title. David Underdown (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

British

John Prescott's nationality is officially British, not Welsh. Since he was Deputy Prime Minister for the United Kingdom the introduction should say that he is British. His comments claiming to be Welsh belong elsewhere in the article. (92.3.189.216 (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Countless people have responded to you countless times on this talk page, and those points still stand. Please consider creating an account rather than IP hopping all the time. See you again in a couple of months. raseaC^{talk to me} 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact this comes up so often highlights there is a problem and the current wording is unstable. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't count the posts from socks/IP hoppers, it hardly comes up at all. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that as hes someone who is know for being a British MP and British Deputy Prime Minister he should be called British in the introduction. He may have described himself in an article once as being Welsh, and he is certainly entitled to consider himself Welsh but in this case we all know hes not thought of as welsh in the media and his notability is because of his position within Britain.

When it comes to politicians, Welsh should be used just for Welsh Assembly members or nationalist MPs. You may like to read WP:UKNATIONALS which offers some advice about how to handle nationality matters for British people, its just advice and not a rule though, and it is advice some of us would like to see changed. But following that advice, i think in this case there is clear justification for British. One interview saying hes Welsh is rather different to him always going around identifying as Welsh. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and clearly those claims were only made for political reasons. Welsh implies he was a member of the Welsh Assembly or represented a Welsh constituency. (92.3.189.216 (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

I think the overriding point here is that JP considers himself Welsh, regardless of what other people may consider him I think his own view carries the most weight (excuse the pun) here. The fact that he considers himself British is, in itself, notable given exactly the reasons you provide above - think this fact alone makes this a special case. While there is no policy on the nationality issue I would agree that being a member of a certain political party would be a major factor, if it wasn't for such a clear-cut admission in an interview. It's a difficult issue that is unlikely to ever be agreed upon so working from the horses mouth is probably the best move. The fact that is says '...of the United Kingdom' sort of addresses any implication issues surely?raseaC^{talk to me} 09:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But does John Prescott consider himself welsh in the way Sean Connery considers himself Scottish and does the media coverage of John reflect him being Welsh in the way media coverage always reflects sean is Scottish? Whilst i accept there is a valid source saying he considers himself Welsh, it does not mean it must overrule other factors which suggest British should be used (like the fact he was British Deputy Prime Minister). Its custom to call someone like Gordon Brown or John Major British even if they also considered themselves Scottish / English and deputy PM should be treated the same way.

In the article in question where it mentions him being Welsh, i dont think it mentions him being British at all or how he feels about that. Just because it does not mention British does not mean he doesnt feel equally British. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course the introduction is going to have to be changed soon anyway to reflect the fact he will be a British peer of the realm. If we did put British in the first sentence there is no reason why the second sentence could not mention Wales or him being Welsh and with a Welsh mother. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't, but all that means is that we've got a source saying he considers himself to be Welsh, but not a source saying he considers himself British. If there is a source in which he identifies himself as British then that changes things, but as far as I'm aware there is no such source. The reason Brown and Major are identified as British is because they have, presumably, not made any assertion to the contrary, if such an assertion was made then, again, it would change things. I'm not sure what you mean by '...in the same way...' and I'm not sure that how Sean Connery identifies himself is entirely relevant to an article about John Prescott. If we are to look at this from a WP perspective the facts are, a) there is no WP:POLICY that covers how such people should be identified b) we have a WP:SOURCE in which the subject of the article identifies himself as 'Welsh' and c) the fact that the subject was the Deputy PM of Grerat Britain makes that identification WP:NOTABLE.

The introduction doesn't need to mention his nationality at all. We already have his quotation in the early life section. The intro should just say that he is a Labour peer and former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK. (92.4.54.170 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

That point has been raised in a previous discussion, please refer to it. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, so lets go over it again now. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In short, MOS:BIO would agree with 92.4.54.170 but, IMO, it's worth a mention considering he's a British MP but considers himself to be Welsh. Throughout the extensive discussion about his nationality, most of which instigated by 92.4.54.170's continued trolling, there's been little mention of removing his nationality entirely from the lead. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"considering he's a British MP but considers himself to be Welsh. " This gets to the heart of the problem. You use the word "But" as if he rejects his British identity, If there was evidence of that then the case for stating he is welsh in the introduction is far stronger. But at the moment all im looking at is in one interview following some form of documentary into his roots, he stated he was proud to be welsh and people are shocked when he says he is Welsh. There is nothing at all there about not being British, which is the key issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the introduction. He's not Welsh, at best he could only claim to be half-Welsh through his mother. It would be far better to describe him as a Labour peer who was formally the British Deputy PM. (92.4.54.170 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Well i do not dispute the guy is welsh, if one of his parents were welsh then he can claim to be that if he wants. The problem is British should take priority, especially as in this case he is a prominent British politician who was British Deputy Prime Minister.

Now all this Welsh stuff seems to surround some program that traced his roots and where he responded by saying hes very proud to be Welsh etc. I really do not think that is enough to justify saying he must be described as Welsh, in the way Sean Connery because of his political stance and why he is notability over the decades means we call him Scottish. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The convention on biographies is that where the subject self-identifies as a particular nationality, that nationality is how the subject is described. John Prescott is quoted by a reliable source self-identifying as Welsh. Whatever our personal views may be, John Prescott should be described as that in the opening sentence. Btw, however Sean Connery is described on his article is not relevant to this one. Do we need to explain Talkpage guidelines again? Daicaregos (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if you need to explain talkpage guidelines, because you clearly have a lack of understanding of them if you think we can not mention other relevant articles and compare how to handle this one.

The current convention on wikipedia for dealing with British nationals is to take it as a case by case situation. Now in this case we have one incident which all this is based on where he described himself as proud to be welsh. He never rejected his British identity, he was British Deputy Prime Minister, and we handle high level politicians by saying British. He is not notable for being Welsh, he is notable for his political career which has been outside of Wales and as an MP in England and a member of the British government. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he didn't reject his British identity, which is actually an irrelevant point when we're referring to a source that backs up his Welsh identity. We can only work with what the sources say, not speculate about what people may think. Indeed he is notable for being a member of the British government and that's why that fact is mentioned in the very same sentence where he is identified (according to WP standards) as Welsh. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is not irrelevant at all. The whole justification for putting Welsh is because of this one interview where he says hes proud to be Welsh and its his country, but at no point is that a contradiction to him being British or him rejecting being British. 1 sentence requires us to overrule all the other factors we should be taking into account which suggests it should say British? WP "standards" on this simply state it has to be handled on a case by case basis. There is far more justification for putting British for this man than Welsh. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But he's not Welsh at all, he's English. (92.4.54.170 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

WP:PROVEIT Active Banana (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

He's a Yorkshireman. (92.4.54.170 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Whilst i disagree with your view that he can not consider himself welsh, i did find this link to back up your point. [1] The BBC describes him as a Yorkshireman in their profile of him. Also i notice.. "His childhood was neither affluent nor deprived. Indeed, the Prescott family won £1,000 as the winners of a competition to find the "most typical British family of 1951"." lol BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He is clearly British, English and a Yorkshireman but he is certainly NOT Welsh in any shape or form. (92.4.54.170 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Ok the introduction currently states..

John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott[1] (born in 31 May 1938) is a Welsh[2] former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. Do we not think this is potentially confusing for some people who may not understand the setup of the United Kingdom and its internal countries? Someone could easily read that as holding two positions for different entities. He is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister" and a First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. If he was the current deputy prime minister would people be ok if that said he is a "Welsh Deputy Prime Minister?"? I hope not. So how does adding the "former" in between that make any difference when it means he was one in the past. At the very least this article should read John is a Welsh former BRITISH Deputy Prime Minister although i am not convinced even that compromise is required because the case for putting British rather than Welsh seems overwhelming to me, when the only 1 justification for it to say Welsh there is because of one interview he gave to the Welsh Media. This guy is a politician, do we not think there was a potential for a certain amount of "playing to his audience"?

Anyway i will be adding British to before "deputy prime minister". We can then continue the debate on if Welsh should remain as his stated nationality in the first sentence. The following are just a few sources to justify my edit which will put "British Deputy Prime Minister, these are from a quick google search. I can find dozens more sources if anyone decides to challenge my edit.

Chinese embassy 2008 - State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan Meets with Former British Deputy Prime Minister Prescott [2]

Chinese embassy 2010 - On March 24, Ambassador Liu Xiaoming called on Former British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at British House of Commons. [3]

BBC - The former British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has admitted that for years he suffered from the eating disorder bulimia nervosa. [4]

Making the change now. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks quite good actually. Whilst i would rather it simply say British there i am prepared to accept the current wording (with the British i just added) as a compromise and leave things at that which means we can all focus on other matters instead of going round in circles over this. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

He is British by legal nationality, Welsh by self-description (one source, but the only self-description we have), and "of the United Kingdom". The question for me is whether the descriptions of him as "Welsh" (valid) and "of the United Kingdom" (also valid) obviate the need to mention the fact that he is also British. I think the word "British" should appear somewhere in the introductory paragraph, to avoid confusing any readers who do not understand that it is possible to be Welsh, British, and "of the United Kingdom". But I don't necessarily think it should be in a single sentence, and I think BW's wording is clunky. But I haven't yet thought of a better wording, so I'm not going to revert it (yet). I'm sure he'd have a good laugh about it if he came here, btw. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I have no objection to including British in the lead. May I suggest "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born in 31 May 1938) is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and British First Secretary of State."? Daicaregos (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording than putting it that way round. Saying "John is a Welsh former British Deputy Prime Minister is not ideal but at least it includes both in an article where theres many reasons for the first sentence to say British rather than Welsh, in line with other major British politician articles that say British. I would not mind if having just one link British Deputy Prime Minister was used rather than the separate British if that makes a difference. But there are plenty of sources for the term "British Deputy Prime Minister", there is less need to say "British First Secretary of State" which is a less known position anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick google search finds 4,180 for British First Secretary of State, most of those appear to be about Lord Mandelson or William Hague where as there are 454,000 results for British Deputy Prime Minister. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite plausible that the wording of "..Welsh former British.." would lead some readers to think that he must be Welsh now, but used to be British. It's not an ideal wording, but I'm not sure what is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How about something like: John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott[1] (born in 31 May 1938) who is of Welsh heritage[2], is former British ... Active Banana (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ive changed it to the British Deputy Prime Minister to make it a bit more clearer we are talking about the position he held rather than him no longer being British. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be ok with something along those lines but i think some will want just Welsh rather than Welsh born or of Welsh heritage there. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My edit here is now sadly being undone. Surely people can see that saying "John is a Welsh[2] former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." could be read by some as "Welsh[2] former Deputy Prime Minister" and " First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." . Avoiding this confusion is important. Of course if the introduction started by saying the man was British like it should do, this would not be a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a tautology, you have to resolve the nationality issue here --Snowded ^TALK 18:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how when people reading that sentence can think of the United Kingdom ONLY applies to the first secretary of state. That is the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you see a problem with the following sentence...

John is a Welsh Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. ? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes it sound like he was the Deputy Prime Minister for Wales. Prescott is not even Welsh, the article should describe him as British which is the nationality on his birth certificate and passport. I have spoken to a man who knew him when he was a young child and he said Prescott never had a Welsh accent, nor did he ever go to school in Wales. That disingenious quotation by Prescott does not belong in the article at all. (92.3.232.178 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps you would reconsider this suggestion, which doesn't seem as confusing : "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born in 31 May 1938) is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and British First Secretary of State."? Daicaregos (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No i will not accept or support that version. "British Deputy Prime Minister" makes far more sense than "British First Secretary of state". There are 100,000s of uses of the term British Deputy Prime Minister, theres a tiny number used for "British First Secretary of State. This article should state he is British in the first sentence, i think theres plenty of justification for it to say British first, but i proposed that compromise and said id leave it at that. Sadly some people can not even accept that modest alteration. I guess we are all going to be here for a very long time dealing with this matter. I have plenty of points i wish to make on why he should be called British. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"This article should state he is British in the first sentence" Do you have reliable sources for this? The only source I have seen seems pretty clear that he views himself as Welsh and have seen nothing that contradicts that claim. Active Banana (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well he was British Deputy Prime Minister, he is a British citizen, his family won an award for being a typical British family. He has spent most of his life in England, representing an English seat. It is shocking people are trying to block the fact the guy is British on the back of one article where he says hes Welsh but doesnt in anyway contradict being British or reject being British. Major UK politicians are usually called British. Being Deputy Prime Minister means he should be treated the same way we treat British Prime Ministers. We do not say English even if John Major liked Cricket, we do not say Scottish on Gordon Browns, we do not say Welsh as the first nationality over on the only Welsh British Prime Minister. if it was not for this one source, this article would still say British today.

I knew wikipedia policy on dealing with WP:UKNATIONALS was weak and flawed, but the idea if on just one occasion someone states they are proud to be Welsh, Scottish or English and that it is their country it means we can not call them British is unworkable and plain wrong BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So to make a start. If it was not for this one source [5] where he states Wales is his country and hes proud to be Welsh would we be having this argument today? Before this one statement British appeared in this article introduction and it appeared stable. It is incredible that one article which makes no reference to rejecting British identity has caused this present situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

He's not even remotely Welsh at all. I'm Welsh and I can tell you that everybody here absolutely despises him and laughs at his pathetic claim. Prescott is English, British but most certainly NOT Welsh. (92.3.232.178 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

I've reverted your edit because consensus is still developing, and it is somewhat insulting to other editors to change to your own preference before such consensus is reached. The article will be protected if such edit-warring continues. Rodhullandemu 21:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's no ones fault that there is only one source, that's just the way it is. It would be great if we could magic up a billion sources supporting either British or Welsh but we can't and we just have to work with what we've got. The argument against there being one source is further flawed when you consider that here we simply go with what the subject views themself as, we don't require the subject to tell us over and over and over and over what their nationality is, we just need them to mention it once. The fact of the matter is that JP identifies himself as Welsh according to all available (admittedly one, but still) sources available and as per WP custom we therefore describe him as Welsh. Clarification on the fact that he served in the British government is ofcourse necessary and no one here (I don't think) is refusing that clarification, but what government he served in and what nationality he identifies himself as are two entirely different matter and should be treated as such. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

" here we simply go with what the subject views themself as, we don't require the subject to tell us over and over and over and over what their nationality is, we just need them to mention it once. " I am sorry but i do not accept that is the vague policy we are meant to be following or what is covered at WP:UKNATIONALS which of course is just advice and not policy. Someone like Sean Connery clearly self identifies as Scottish and the media identifies him as Scottish and this has been the case for decades, there for there is justification for his introduction to state he is Scottish (although he is still a British citizen and that should be mentioned too). Now in this case we have many reasons to describe him as British as the article did in a stable way for a long time, all until this one source arrives where he says hes proud to be Welsh and his country is Wales. I am sorry but i reject the idea that automatically over rides all other factors. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the reliance being placed on WP:UKNATIONALS, it seems to me that this issue will remain unresolved by editors on this page. Clearly he is Welsh by self-description, but he is also legally British, and use of that word can, in my view, generally be helpful in order to give clarity to a global readership. Although, in my view, using the description "British" is inappropriate for those people who reject it (whatever their legal nationality), there is no evidence that Prescott does. But, we have insufficient evidence from him to confirm or reject that view, and the advice at WP:UKNATIONALS is imperfect. I cannot conceive of a wording which would achieve consensus among those editors who express a view here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

After further consideration I suggest: "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born in 31 May 1938) is a Welsh former First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom and British Deputy Prime Minister." Any comments? Daicaregos (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i would rather that than the current wording although DPM is the more notable job and should be listed first. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i still think there is justification to simply say British in this first sentence rather than Welsh. If others support your suggestion (or along those lines with British clearly mentioned in the first sentence) id be prepared to settle for that change as a compromise and leave things at that. Although this whole thing highlights the present policies on dealing with UKnationals is still flawed. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I accept the point about saying English/Scottish/Welsh on those who reject their British identity although citizenship should be mentioned somewhere even if its not in the introduction. I have not attempted to change the use of English, Welsh and Scottish when dealing with articles on people notable for their relevant sporting teams, like football and even on articles about politicians to the devolved assemblies/parliament. But when it comes to notable people in British politics, especially those in government at a high level, it should be British and one single source where they state they are proud to be English, Welsh or Scottish should not override everything else.

I thought the suggestion of saying "Welsh former British Deputy Prime Minister" was a reasonable compromise that allowed Welsh and British to be mentioned in the first sentence so both sides could be reasonably happy. I accept the sentence was not a work of art, but the current wording is far from perfect too considering some could read it as "Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister" and "First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom".

My edit was undone because it was apparently "tautology", but considering the potential confusion some may have when reading it as i just mentioned i do not think it is. There is nothing to say that "of the United Kingdom" at the end of the sentence has to or does apply to the Deputy Prime minister bit which some could easily read as being connected to the Welsh instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born in 31 May 1938) is a Welsh former politician. He served as the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" Splitting it into two avoids any confusion about which country he served as a politician in and while all of this information should probably be in the first sentence in this instance it is clear that doing so will just lead to understandable confusion from many international readers. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we intentionally trying to avoid saying the guy is British? That in no way is a reasonable compromise, that simply corrects a clear error in the current wording people here have been prepared to tolerate for sometime to accommodate the fact we must call the man Welsh thanks to ONE interview. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the most helpful wording would be to say "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938, in Prestatyn, Wales) is a British politician, who served as the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." The para on his early life goes into his Welshness to the degree necessary, in my view. However, I know that this wording is in conflict with various bits of WP guidance and advice, and I doubt whether it will gain consensus here. (And, by the way, I don't think we can yet call him a former politician.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that, IMO, is that it doesn't take into account the core issue as far as I see it, which is that Prescott identifies himself as Welsh and therfore that is the nationality we should list. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How the person identifies himself is just one factor, and in this case we are talking about just one article, rather than someone like Sean Connery who for decades has clearly identified as and described as Scottish and if they reject British identity is a core issue, Prescott in this one interview never rejects being British. Saying born in Wales there in the introduction still ensures Prescott's roots are not ignored and how he feels about being Welsh is covered in the article itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that it being 'just one factor' makes it any less of a factor, not rejecting being British, being a member of the UK government, etc. are all just single factors too. It's already been said again and again that we can't assume that he either does or doesn't reject being British, we can only work with the sources we have. It's not a matter of his roots, it's a matter of his nationality, what in this case is Welsh. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

His nationality is British, He is a British citizen, that does not stop him from saying he is Welsh. He was British Deputy Prime Minister, he spent most of his life in England, representing English people, standard practice for dealing with high level British politicians is to say British. IF there are no sources to suggest he rejects being British then working with the sources we have to assume he doesnt, especially when you consider his career and where he lives. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But he says he's Welsh? raseaC^{talk to me} 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

People can be Welsh and British. The idea that based on one source, if someone says they are English / Welsh / Scottish it means we can not call them British is clearly unworkable. We have to take into account the other factors, like his career and saying British would in this case clearly be in line with other articles on politicians. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter that the Welsh can be British, they are British. However, if the subject chooses to describe themself as Welsh rather than British, I see no reason not to do so too. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

He has a british passport, under what authority does he claim to be welsh? Tomas Jennings (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

". However, if the subject chooses to describe themself as Welsh rather than British, I see no reason not to do so too. ". I am prepared to accept that people who clearly rejected their British identity should not be called British in their introduction. But that is not the situation here. Welsh rather than British is not backed up by any sources. Thats the point i was trying to make before. Just because he says he is welsh in one article, does not mean he is saying he is not British. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tomas, he identified himself as Welsh in the only source we have on the matter. No one has ever calimed he isn't British, simply that he's identified himself as Welsh. Anyway, I think new arguments stopped appearing a few months ago so I'm not quite sure where we go from here. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You said he identified as Welsh rather than British. This is simply not backed up by the source. Saying in an interview "Im Welsh and im proud of Wales" does not suggest he would rather be called Welsh than British. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, he said he was Welsh, he didn't say he was British. Therefore he identified himself as Welsh rather than British. I din't mean to insinuate that he would want to be called Welsh over British. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But why does this one source where he mentions being proud to be Welsh justify avoiding saying British and ignoring all the other factors which suggest we should say British here? Do you not think it would be unworkable if based on a single article with someone saying they were "proud to be Scottish, Welsh, English" it meant we had to remove British from the introduction? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the problem, no. WP would be in serious trouble if we each pick and chose what sources suited us. Like I said, there's no new arguments here. We're just going in circles. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the problem

1) He is notable for his position in British politics including being British Deputy Prime Minister, a British MP (representing an English seat) and now a British Peer.

2) This article stated he was British happily before one source arrived last year where he states he is proud to be Welsh to the Welsh media.

3) At no point has he rejected being British.

4) Political figures who hold high office tend to say British. Gordon Brown, John Major, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg etc.

5) Some form of change to the introduction is clearly needed as at present those who do not know the UK setup could think it says: John is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister Connecting the Welsh bit to the deputy Prime minister position, thinking the "of the United Kingdom" only applies to the first secretary of state position.

We can not simply dismiss this problem by saying there is "no new arguments". BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If he had been a deputy PM of Wales, it would say "former Welsh deputy PM" and not "Welsh former deputy PM". The current word order means Welsh refers to his nationality, not the following job title. However, if you are really worried about this, I suggest:

...is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Secretary of State. He represented...

Then it only mentions UK/British once in the sentence, but also removes any ambiguity about where he was deputy PM of. JRawle (Talk) 18:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would John is a Welsh Deputy Prime Minister be a problem? Clearly it is, so i do not see how simply having "former" there completely solves the problem which just means he no longer holds the post. I suggested John is a welsh former British Deputy Prime Minister, i thought that was a reasonable compromise, which means we keep welsh in the introduction and mention he is also British at the same time as avoiding the potential confusion about what he was DPM for. Sadly this suggestion was rejected on the grounds that it was "tautology", yet in the present sentence there is nothing to suggest the "of the United Kingdom" MUST apply to the DPM bit too.

I thought it was a reasonable compromise, considering there are many factors which suggest this article should call him British. Sadly people seem to be suggesting all sorts of things as long as British doesnt appear in the first sentence. As he is notable for his position in British politics and does not reject being British i do not think that is fair or right. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. There have been suggestions from several editors, trying to appease you, which included the word British in the first sentence, but they weren't good enough for you. If you want the opening sentence to change then it is up to you to come up with an acceptable alternative. Daicaregos (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed all the proposals avoided the term British in the first sentence, sorry if it sounded that way. I have certainly not rejected all suggestions. I supported your suggestion above which was:

"John is a Welsh former First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom and British Deputy Prime Minister."

I said if there was agreement for that id accept it. I have also suggested my own wording which was a compromose... "John is a Welsh former British Deputy Prime Minister.." but that was rejected on the grounds it was "tautology" even though "of the United Kingdom" could easily only apply and be read as only applying to the First secretary of state position.

I think there is clear justification for this article to start "John is a British", but ive clearly supported several compromises above hoping we can come to an agreement so we can all move on. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, my only concern with your suggestion above ("John is a Welsh former First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom and British Deputy Prime Minister.") is the fact that 'United Kingdom' and 'British' are both mentioned and it simply sounds cumbersome, as if being a British politician and member of the UK government are two different things.raseaC^{talk to me} 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the problem with saying British and United Kingdom.

"Tony" Blair (born 6 May 1953) is a British Labour Party politician who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"

"Sir John Major, KG, CH, ACIB (born 29 March 1943) is a British politician, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"

Ideally it should say... "John is a British politician, who served as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of sate of the United Kingdom. " which is in line with other articles. Maybe we could talk about him being born in Wales and identifying as welsh in the second sentence? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In those examples, "British" refers to their nationality, and "United Kingdom" refers to the location of their jobs. In this article, it has been decided to refer to Prescott's nationality as Welsh. I personally don't agree with that, but that's a different debate. You can't have it saying Welsh, British and United Kingdom in the first sentence. If you look back through the discussions above, you'll see that the current wording (former... ) is to get around the problem of it saying "Welsh politician", which makes it sound like he was active in Wales. Personally, I'm hoping he gives an interview soon when he says he's "Proud to be British". JRawle (Talk) 12:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there appears to be no majority support for it to say Welsh there now. I agree that saying Welsh, British and United Kingdom in some of the proposals above is not ideal but its a reasonable compromise to ensure both British and Welsh is mentioned. Your point about him saying British in one interview is a good one. At the moment the only justification for saying Welsh and creating this problem is one interview. It is not a strong enough case as far as im concerned. First sentence should state he is a British politicians, that served as DPM and First Secretary of State of the UK. The second sentence then could mention about him being born in Wales and describing himself as Welsh if that is really needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would give more weight to 'Welsh' over 'British' and think that 'Welsh' should be mentioned in the first sentence. I have no objection to British also being mentioned though. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel about John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh born, British politician who served as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom.? I understand its not ideal but that puts Welsh first and then mentions him being a British politician. Another problem with the current wording is we make it sound like hes no longer in politics, which is not the case as his interview on the BBC sunday AM show highlighted this morning. This would address that and some of the other proposals above would. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think that 'Welsh-born' doesn't adequately address what he considers to be his nationality. However, given that there is good coverage later on in the article with regards to his nationality and in light of other editors making compromises on this matter I am also prepared to do so and would support your suggestion. raseaC^{talk to me} 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

'Welsh-born' does not adequately address what he considers to be his nationality and implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh - in the same way that "Cliff Richard is an Indian born English singer-songwriter ...". This is misleading and, per WP:LEAD, is not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. Daicaregos (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

However, his quoted words - "I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh...I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country." - don't actually say that he considers Welsh to be his nationality. The words are what they are - it is an interpretation of those words to argue that he therefore regards Welsh as his "nationality". As a former senior member of the UK government, he would be fully aware that, in legal terms, his nationality is British. There are valid points on both sides of the debate here, and existing WP guidance and advice is not especially helpful in trying to resolve the question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to be able to find the Wikipedia policy (or guidance essay) noting that biographies must note the subject's “legal”nationality. Please provide a link to it. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. That's my point. It's a grey area. Many people would define their nationality as being their legal nationality. Others would not. We don't know which category Prescott falls into. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:UKNATIONALS has the section “Guide to finding UK nationality”, which includes advice to “Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality.” Prescott has. It is Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We're going round in circles. He has said "I am Welsh". He has not said "My nationality is Welsh". The point is that WP:UKNATIONALS is unhelpful in this instance because it does not address that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, would you support: "Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh born, British politician who served as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. Its not perfectly worded but atleast it will continue to mention him being Welsh first in the introduction and not just say Wales at the same time as addressing the other problems.BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would support that, as the best available compromise in this instance, especially given that the "Early life" section goes into a detailed exposition of what he has said. I don't find WP:UKNATIONALS helpful on this issue. Where we are talking about someone like, say, Katherine Jenkins, I have no problem in her being described primarily as Welsh. The same applies to someone like Carwyn Jones, who I'm happy to see described as a "Welsh politician" - he is Welsh, and his main area of political activity is within Wales. With Welsh-born politicians like Prescott, who are known for their activity in British rather than specifically Welsh politics, I think it is more dubious to call them a "Welsh politician". In addition, "nationality" is a concept with more than one definition - anyone who defines themselves as of Welsh nationality (within the UK) is also legally of British nationality - a point they may, or may not, choose to acknowledge. In this case, we know the words that Prescott has said, but we don't necessarily know precisely what he meant by them. Not an unusual circumstance, in his case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I do agree it makes sense to say Welsh or Scottish politician when dealing with those involved with the devolved assemblies/parliament and also when dealing with sportsman who just represent Wales / Scotland. Use of British should be acceptable if they play for Britain in sport or are involved in British politics, seems reasonable to me. I think there are many black holes with UK:NATIONALS where it is not as clear as it could be and results in many different conflicts, i wish i was around when it was first debated. :( But at some point in the future clarifications or alterations are going to be needed about dealing with these things, for now though it does seem workable in most cases without too much problem. It sort of reminds me of the Barnett Formula, everyone has a problem with it but its impossible to get agreement on how to change it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Daicaregos, are you sure you would not be prepared to accept the most recent compromise suggested? It still clearly mentions welsh before saying he is a British politician. I know its not ideal, id rather it simply say British, you would rather it simply say Welsh but this seems like a reasonable middle ground. If we can come to agreement then we dont have to continue going over this and if there is a next time the IP or someone else tries to have Welsh removed from the first sentence ill defend keeping the wording there unless considerable evidence (to counter the Welsh article is provided). BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

'Welsh-born' does not adequately address what he considers to be his national identity and implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh - in the same way that "Cliff Richard is an Indian born English singer-songwriter ...". This is misleading and, per WP:LEAD, is not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. Please do not issue threats, or encourage vandalism. He self-identifies as Welsh. Get over it. Daicaregos (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The introduction certainly would not be misleading, it would be accurate. The current wording is misleading because someone could easily think it states "Prescott is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister". I certainly did not issue a threat or encourage vandalism. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misread your post. It could have been that you posted "ill defend" when I think you meant "I'll defend". But my apologies anyway. Daicaregos (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, sorry if i wasnt clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with a Welsh father myself, I think British in the very opening does make more sense, it reads as if it's qualifying his involvement in politics (and aside from the egg incident), most of his political life has been at the UK level. It would probably make most sense to mention Weslshness in the second para, "Born in Wales, he has described himself as Welsh, though the family moved to Yorkshire when he was four. He became a sip's steward after leaving school" or something along those lines. Let's not forget that he's a politician and they're not above tailoring their words depending on their audience - and he was being interviewed by Welsh media in this case. If you trawl through back issues of the Yorkshire Post you'll probably find him describing himself as a proud Yorkshireman (and of course the two thigns are not necessarily mutually exclusive). David Underdown (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether John Prescott's statement could be considered self-identification of his nationality and if it would support the current lead has been raised at the reliable sources noticeboard (here). Their opinion is that it is a reliable source for the current lead. Consequently, the bizarre assertion that John Prescott may not be referring to his nationality when he said “I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.” is irrelevant. As John Prescott self-identifies as Welsh it should be noted in the lead sentence of the introduction, which the current lead does perfectly well. It is accurate and informative, and there is no need for it to change. However, if anyone wishes to add something (relevant and grammatically correct) about the British government I would not object. Daicaregos (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh born, British politician who served as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. can be backed up by sources as well. Oh and nice of you to inform us about the RSN. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was the RSN post that first alerted me to this discussion. Yes it's a reliable source, but I'm far from convinced that it's the last word on the subject, and it seems to take rather a narrow view. As I point out above, he was talking to a Welsh media outlet at the time, which may well lead to him presenting a slightly different view of himself tahn had been talking to the Yorkshire Post. Again, while it's perfectly fair to say he regards himself as Welsh, I think there are very differnt implications to calling hima Welsh politician - when he's never been involved in "Welsh politics" as such. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And it should be pointed out that there has been precisely one response at RSN - hardly the stuff of which consensus is made. David Underdown (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pure (and rather insulting) conjecture. If you find a source please share it with us.

Your argument suggests a "Scottish artist" would have to paint only Scottish subjects, or an "Irish author" write exclusively about Ireland. It's nonsense. The current lead is perfectly understandable. Daicaregos (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here is nothing to do with whether the Wales Online interview is a reliable source. It is. The unresolved questions here relate to appropriate balance and weight in the wording of the opening sentence of the article, together with the various meanings of the term "nationality", and the weight to be given to the essay (not guidance, not advice, to be considered "with discretion") at WP:UKNATIONALS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I'm also perfectly happy to stipulate it's a reliable source, and should have made that clearer. Weight is really what I've been trying to get at. As to the differing impliations of phraseology, consider that we have Welsh politics, which begins "Politics in Wales forms a distinctive polity in the wider politics of the United Kingdom". Although there are indeed recognised bodies of Irish literature and Scottish art, to continue with the example given above, there are still (in my view) generally fewer overtones to the phrase Irish author and Scottish artist. Though particularly in the Irish case there might be interesting distinctions as to whether they were Nationalist or Unionist. Or if an author has deliberately set out to distance himself from "Irish literature", would the description of "Irish author" still be appropriate? The issue is trying to make Welsh/British a mutually exclusive choice. Yes he's made one statement (that we've found) that he regards himself as Welsh, but that doesn't preclude him also thinking he's a Yorkshireman, and/or British either. His public persona is very much "working-class Yorkshireman" (see his most recent appearance on Have I got news for you). Personal identity is far more complicated than that. I would generally identify as British, having one Welsh parent and one English parent (and some Ulster Scots going further back, and probably Hugenot even more distantly), butcome the rugby, I'd really rather Wales beat England. If you asked my sister, having the same parentage, she should immediately describe herself as Welsh, not really surprising given she works for Plaid at the National Assembly. David Underdown (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that jumping on a single quote from one interview in order to definitively assert in the opening sentence that he is "Welsh" oversimplifies the issue. As noted, these things are complicated, and identification with one description does not necessarily exclude or override another. He is British by definition - even if there is no explicit quote supporting that - as well as whatever else he might be. Indeed when it comes to politics he has been quite adamant in stating that he is a "national [ie British]" politician, as here. Unless we want to suggest he is involved in Welsh politics, or that he regularly and explicitly identifies as Welsh as opposed to British - neither of which is the case - it seems obvious to me that British should be to the fore, with appropriate reference to his being born in Wales and his one (?) on-the-record statement about that. N-HH talk/edits 13:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Time for a straw poll?

We currently seem to have two alternative options. Is it time for a straw poll?

• OPTION A: John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom.
• OPTION B: John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh born, British politician who served as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom.

I've taken out the refs and comments which would be common to both versions. Any views? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Option A. John Prescott self-identifies as Welsh. Whatever our personal views may be, we should accept John Prescott's view and describe him as that in the opening sentence. 'Welsh-born' does not adequately address what he considers to be his nationality and implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh - in the same way that "Cliff Richard is an Indian born English singer-songwriter ...". This is misleading and, per WP:LEAD, is not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. Daicaregos (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Option B. He has said "I am Welsh". However, that statement does not not necessarily define his nationality. In legal terms his nationality is British. The statement was made in a single interview, which was specifically about his ancestry and place of birth - that is not necessarily the same thing as what he would define as his nationality. We have no information on whether he defines his nationality as purely Welsh, or as both Welsh and British - although, on the face of it, the latter would appear more likely as he has not discussed it in any other interviews or speeches so far as I am aware. More importantly, some readers (internationally, looking at WP for clear statements of information) would not necessarily understand that people defined as Welsh are also (legally) British - that is, citizens of the UK. We should aim to be as clear as possible. The section on Prescott's early life sets out the words he used in relation to his ancestry and birth. This opening sentence of the article needs to both summarise the article text and set out a clear overview. The wording set out in B represents the best available compromise wording, in my view - it highlights the fact that he was born in Wales, but also the fact that he is British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Option C, don't mention Welsh or Wales at all in the opening sentence. Move it to the second para, which is more about his background and so on anyway. eg "Born in Wales his family moved to England when Prescott was four, however he has stated that he regards himself as Welsh" or soemthing along those lines. David Underdown (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What would be your suggested wording for the opening sentence, per WP:LEAD? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your wording suggested a few days ago would work well ""John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938, in Prestatyn, Wales) is a British politician, who served as the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." . Could leave out the in Prestatyn, Wales bit and include Prestatyn in the second sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) .

Basically I was thinking option B, but without mentioning "Welsh-born". Giving birthplace in the brackets after birthdate is I think against WP:MOSBIO. David Underdown (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So, your suggestion, I think, is this:

OPTION C: John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a British politician who served as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be rather arrogant to discount a subject's self-identified nationality and substitute one of your choice instead of his? But then ... Oh don't worry, I've just answered my own question. Daicaregos (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, and clarify who that comment is aimed at. I am merely setting out the views expressed by User:David Underdown. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is aimed at anyone who thinks they have a better understanding of John Prescott's self-identity than John Prescott himself. Do you disagree then? Daicaregos (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We agree that, in some senses, he is Welsh. That's not the point at issue. It is also factually accurate that he is British. We are talking about the wording that best summarises both those facts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But we are not dismissing it, the introduction would still mention he identifies as Welsh. The thing is he is notable for being a British politician, not for being born in Wales or Welsh. That is why the introduction needs changing. If Prescott had stated he rejected his British identity then you would have a case, but there is nothing that requires us to say he is Welsh in the first sentence, especially if it causes other problems like the "Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister" issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OPTION C: John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a British politician who served as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom.

Prescott was born in Wales, and though the family moved to England when he was five, he has said that he considers himself Welsh, and Wales to be his home. After leaving school, he became a ship's steward and trade union activisit...

Is what I was actually driving at. I am not presuming to know his self-identity better than him. But I think you are oversimplifying things based on one comment that he has made, and missing the important distinction that exists between someone being a Wlesh politician and being a British politician, particularly in the light of devolved government. It may be instructive to compare the opening of this article with those for David Lloyd George, Michael Howard and Michael Heseltine. David Underdown (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Something along those lines is fine with me, with a little rewording of the second paragraph, but to say the same sort of details. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support option C if not then B - Just saying Welsh is not enough in the introduction, this man is notable for his role in British politics, he represented an English seat for many years, he was British deputy prime minister. There for mentioning he is a British Politician is a reasonable compromise to continue to include Welsh. I would however rather Option C mentioned by David Underdown where Welsh is not mentioned in the opening sentence at all. I support B because i hoped Dai would accept the compromise, but he seems to reject any change anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made several suggestions, as you well know. You responded to them - some positively and some not so. Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support option C - It seems a pretty straightforward way of conveying the basic information. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support B or C - simply having the "Welsh" description at the outset is strictly accurate but misleading, and highlights something that the subject does not appear to on a regular basis. Option B - "Welsh-born British" - seems a bit overloaded, but I guess that's what happens when we have to look for these slightly bizarre compromises. I suppose an Option D would be to remove British/Welsh from the first sentence altogether. The fact that he was UK DPM makes the "British politician" redundant anyway, and we can add "born in Wales" to the second sentence, where it sits quite well, as per the following - John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott[1] (born 31 May 1938) is a former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom. Born in Wales, he represented Hull East as the Labour Member of Parliament between 1970 and 2010. Equally we could sidestep MOSBIO to include the "born in Wales" in the birthdate bracket. Deviation from guidelines is of course not a capital offence, even if it is frowned upon. N-HH talk/edits 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support the first sentence of option D. Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you support having the first sentence ("John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom."), what would your preferred second sentence be? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It appears my view that John Prescott's self-identification as Welsh is sufficient to ensure his Welsh nationality is noted at the beginning of the lead paragraph is not shared by many (if any) editors of this page). I wonder how we would feel if, were we notable enough to have our own Wikipedia article, having self-identified as one nationality some bunch of nobodies on Wikipedia still chose to define us as another. Attention has been drawn to the articles of David Lloyd George, Michael Howard and Michael Heseltine. Lloyd George is noted as “... a British statesman who was the first and so far only Welsh Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ...” (note that British statesman is linked to United Kingdom and not to British People), and neither Howard nor Hesseltine self-identify as Welsh, to my knowledge. The majority of respondents appear to favour noting British because his notability is due to his involvement in British politics, and that's fair enough. That being the case 'British' should be linked to United Kingdom. Prescott's nationality, that being Welsh as the only source we have where he has self-identified, still needs to be noted in the opening paragraph per WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph. 'Born in Wales' or 'Welsh-born' does not convey his self-identity, Welsh does. Suggestions? Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But of course Lloyd George wasn't born in Wales. Peter jackson (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

His nationality is also British. He is a British citizen. If he had rejected his British identity there would be a case to only mention welsh, but this idea we are going to somehow deeply offend him by saying hes British is crazy. 1 article last year where he says hes proud to be Welsh does not change the fact for decades hes been considered British. That is how hes notable, as a British politician, not a Welsh one. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it would "somehow deeply offend him". Please don't pretend that I did. What I am saying is that we have a reliable source (as confirmed by the RS noticeboard of his self-identification as Welsh. If he considers himself to be British it shouldn't be a problem for you to find dozens reliable sources of him proclaiming it should it? And when you do you can add them to the article. John Prescott is notable due to his involvement in British politics, and I agreed that in my previous post. That does not mean he is notable for being British. Daicaregos (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:N-HH has pointed out this link above http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/wales/4465963.stm in which Prescott says: "Why are you asking me about this, I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician." and as N-HH points out, from context 'national' in this instance is essentially equivalent to British. I quite agree with you to just say Welsh-born is inappropriate (it would be better for Heseltine or Howard). Rather than linking to British people British politics might be better still (linking British politician as a whole). If we simply describe his Welsh in the opening a lot of people are going to say WTF, who's vandalised this - if anything most people would describe him as a Yorkshireman (see the long-running anon interventions above). Placing the information in the second sentence lets us place it fully in context, though if someone can come up with a way of putting it in the first sentence that actually reads well (equivalent to the description of Lloyd George as the only Welsm PM), then fine. David Underdown (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh right, there's a poll about this, in that case option D (don't mention any nationality - entirely pointless to do so when we already say what country he was Deputy PM of), followed by C, then B, and finally A (unless several more reliable sources can be found that describe him as Welsh).--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. It follows on from extensive discussion on the subject. But don't worry it, as your opinion is the only one that matters. Just change the lead to whatever you think is right, without discussing it with the editors involved on this page ... Oh you have. Daicaregos (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In what way is either of the two things I changed it to "only my opinion"? If I'm not mistaken, the discussion seems to have more or less concluded that this is the right way to go. Are we all agreed on limiting the mention of Wales in the lead to "Born in Wales,..." in the second sentence? --Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if no objections in principle, I'm going to put it in so we can see what it looks like.--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You can "see what it looks like" without changing the article itself. I suggest you wait until there is an agreement to close the discussion. There's no rush. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor is there any reason for delay. There are countless little things to be improved in this article; we can't wait for formal approval for every change (and anyway, every change can be changed back if it turns out people prefer something else).--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i would rather the first sentence said he was a British politician considering the guy is still active in British politics, i can accept the current wording now that Welsh is not there to confuse things. So if others are ok with it, this matter may be resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What about in the infobox? I'd have thought that the above arguments would apply there too, and that seizing on this one quote to state Welsh nationality as a fact is going to be misleading to readers.--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Putting welsh there is unacceptable. Im less against it saying Wales rather than the UK, although agreement before such a change is made should be needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not just agreed to option D which makes no mention of British in the first sentence to have someone put Welsh as his nationality in the infobox and change United Kingdom to Wales there too. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the nationality; but no harm in saying that his town of birth is in Wales, surely?--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering we already mention he was born in Wales in the second sentence, i dont think it needs to be changed to say Wales in the infobox, but i can live with that change if its what others support. Its only the nationality change that really concerned me and the reason why i reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)BW - please recognise that (it seems that) another editor has accepted a wording that contains neither "British" nor "Welsh" in the opening sentence. I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't find that a significant step forward. In the circumstances, I suggest that you accept Kotniski's point, and acknowledge the advantages of compromise on both sides, rather than continuing with this argument for the sake of making a point. (It's called coalition government, I believe.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But i did. Whilst i still think there is justification to say British politician, especially considering there was majority support for it in the above poll, i accepted option D and said if others agree then this is resolved. But then Dai added Welsh as nationality to the infobox which i reverted. Ive not supported not mentioning a nationality in the introduction for it to now appear in the infobox instead. The fact we do not say British seems like a compromise that Dai should be glad about. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of the other point, there's certainly no reason to say "Prestatyn, UK", so I'll change that. Given that, at the time, it was in Flintshire rather than Denbighshire, I think the simplest option is to say "Prestatyn, Wales". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Im ok with that change, although i do no see anything wrong with Prestatyn, UK especially as Wales is already mentioned in the second sentence. It was the nationality issue that made me restore to before Daicaregos edits. I cant support Welsh being put there which would still cause problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Father's name

While Mr. Prescott's father may have been known as Burt, his full name was John Herbert Prescott, therefore I have changed this on the page. My source is Mr. Prescott's birth registrar which I can provide a screen cap of if there is any problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrspy (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Put Kingston-upon-Hull in heading

His title is Baron, etc. of Kingston-upon-Hull. So put it back in the first sentence as you know perfectly well this is his title.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. His title is Baron Prescott, the territorial designation in his Letters Patent is "of Kingston upon Hull in the County of East Yorkshire". See the list of members of the Lords here. [6] Note is has, e.g. Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, but just Lord Prescott. See also here [7] and the report in Hansard here [8]. Note that only once does it mention Hull:

John Leslie Prescott, having been created Baron Prescott, of Kingston-upon-Hull in the County of East Yorkshire, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Lord Dixon and Lord Grocott, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Note the comma after Baron Prescott. Now compare it to Lord Davies of Stamford's introduction above:

John Quentin Davies, having been created Baron Davies of Stamford, of Stamford in the County of Lincolnshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Temple-Morris and Lord Radice, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Note it says "of Stamford", then a comma, then "of Stamford in the County..." after that. If Prescott's title was "Baron Prescott of Kingston upon Hull" it would say the name of the place twice.

Unfortunately, the media don't have much of a clue about this. I've given up reporting errors with peers' titles to the BBC website, and as for the Guardian, I wouldn't trust a republican newspaper known for its bad spelling to use titles correctly. JRawle (Talk) 09:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The custom is that the title is just the plain name, without territorial addition, if that's the 1st occurrence of the title, i.e. if there's been no Lord Prescott before, unless it's the name of a Scottish clan, in which case only the clan chief could have the plain title. Subsequent grants of the same title would have teritorial additions. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Changes made to the infobox were one of the countless little things to be improved on this article. As they have been reverted, it appears that discussion is now required. Firstly, I don't believe it is controversial to state that Prestatyn is in Denbighshire per WP:UKPLACE, (although I would accept it saying Prestatyn, Wales). So why was it reverted?
Secondly, I understood from the discussion above that opposition to stating John Prescott's nationality related to a perceived confusion arising from the juxtaposition between 'Welsh' and 'politician', or something similar. Please explain the problem now? Daicaregos (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I accept Kotniski's point about Denbighshire. It should say Prestatyn, Flintshire (although I would still accept it saying Prestatyn, Wales) . Daicaregos (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Prestatyn, Flintshire or Prestatyn, Wales - i can live with. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) @DC- there's also some discussion on this in a thread up above. It could link to Flintshire (historic), which is locationally correct in a way that Flintshire is not - but can we all accept "Prestatyn, Wales", for simplicity if nothing else? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The thread above deals with the introduction and is far too cumbersome anyway. This discussion concerns the infobox.
I accept "Prestatyn, Wales". However, there is no reason not to state John Prescott's Welsh nationality in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of Welsh in the infobox. If Welsh needs to be there the fact he is a British politician should be added to the first sentence of the introduction. He is Welsh and British. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's try not to go back to the introduction. In the spirit of compromise, is there any support for the idea of putting both Welsh and British (or British and Welsh) in the infobox? He is both Welsh (by self-identification, as explained in the article) and British (by legal nationality). Or, if not, just leaving it blank? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support Welsh and British. I think that is how the infobox should be handled most of the time when dealing with the English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish or British issue. But i wouldnt support Welsh there alone and not mentioning it would seem like the easiest and less controversial compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Welsh and British...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

yes BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

...or even British...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Id rather it was to the British people article than to the nationality laws article although in this case i wouldnt be opposed to it if it got consensus. I think Welsh, British there looks good. I have never understood why the advice tells us to choose between one or the other when in many cases so much conflict could be avoided by just saying Welsh, British. English, British. Scottish, British except in cases where they only really identify as British or reject British all together. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For me, leaving out the nationality parameter would be a far better choice. It's clear from his political offices that he's British; it's far from convincingly documented in the sources that he's Welsh (one isolated quote, given to a Welsh audience by someone who is - how can I put this nicely - a politician). Having given his place of birth as (in) Wales, we're not giving the reader any additional useful or reliable information by trying to state a nationality on top of that.--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Its down to self-identification and citation. Its not our place to speculate as to why he said something. My view is that British is a default unless there is clear self or third party identification with Welsh, English or Scottish. --Snowded ^TALK 13:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept that sort of view when it comes to someone like Sean connery who clearly identifies and is identified as Scottish and has been for decades. One specific interview doesnt seem enough to me to justify exclusion of British. THe easiest option is to leave it empty as it was until earlier today when it was stable. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded: We've surely been through all this, at length, above. WP:UKNATIONALS (which I assume is the basis for your statement that "It's down to self-identification and citation") is a useful essay, but it is not advice, not guidance, and the general consensus on this page (not complete, I accept) is that in this instance it is not fully adequate. In relation to politicians notable at UK level, self identification (in one reliable source, but in an interview that was specifically discussing the man's ancestry and family background) needs to be balanced against other considerations, including legal citizenship and other background statements (such as his reported statement: "Why are you asking me about this, I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician."). In these circumstances, one instance of self-identification and citation should not override all other considerations - it needs to be given due weight. Hence, the suggestion that the words in the infobox should be both or nothing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We went through this at length, and the general consensus on this page, related to the inclusion (or otherwise) of his nationality in the lead paragraph, due to a perceived confusion arising from the juxtaposition between 'Welsh' and 'politician', or something. There can be no confusion here. As for his reported statement: "Why are you asking me about this, I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician." - it sounds like he's saying he isn't interested because his job is in the British government, so he can't do anything about devolved matters anyway. Daicaregos (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There can always be confusion if we start telling a story that the sources don't. We have this quote about his supposed Welshness in the article, but to use it as a basis for calling him "Welsh" in the infobox is giving it very undue weight - for a man of his prominence, a reader would expect such a statement to be backed up by at least a sprinkling of reliable third-party sources.--Kotniski (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing supposed about it. How could it possibly be more explicit? The reliable sources noticeboard accepted the source as a reference for the previous lead. If there is any doubt as to whether it would be sufficient for the infobox it should be raised there. Otherwise it is a source, and it is not your place to decide if it is correct or not. Daicaregos (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was accepted as a reliable source - which wasn't really in dispute anyway among those of us who accept that he has said "I am Welsh", etc. It wasn't necessarily accepted as a basis for the wording proposed in the introduction, because that wasn't a matter for that forum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say (or even imply) that it was. Kotniski appears to be saying that it isn't a good enough source for the infobox to show his nationality. As I say, if there is any doubt as to whether it would be sufficient for the infobox it should be raised at the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise it is a source, and that's enough. Daicaregos (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources that say many things - we certainly quote from this source in the article, but we don't have to put every scrap of information in the infobox. In this instance I don't see enough (or indeed any) third-party support for stating as a plain fact that "Prescott was Welsh". Our job is to reflect the totality of reliable sources, not just those that support our own personal wishes (and I can't help noticing from your user page that you seem to have a bit of a Welsh nationalist slant).--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a third party source. John Prescott said it on a BBC TV programme (which I saw, btw). It was reported in the newspaper, and that is the source we are using. If you have any sources quoting John Prescott saying he is anything other than Welsh; lets hear them. If you doubt the source is reliable enough; take it up with the noticeboard. Otherwise, this is the totality of reliable sources of John Prescott self-identifying his nationality. It is notable and should be noted in the infobox. And seeing as you are passing comment on the editor as opposed to the edit, may I ask your reason for mentioning my user page here? Daicaregos (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

a bit?? lmao BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"lmao"? Grow up. Daicaregos (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Just that having strong national biases might cloud someone's judgement as to what is a fair representation of the entirety of the sources. No-one's questioning the reliability of the source - I'm sure Prescott really did utter those words - but a single act of self-identification doesn't necessarily make it so. If it's correct to say "Prescott is Welsh" in the way our readers will understand it, then we must expect at least a few of the many independent reliable sources about him to actually say that he is Welsh (not just say that he once said that he was Welsh). --Kotniski (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

FFS, it should be self-evident to the one hold-out here that the issues that virtually every other editor here - not to mention common sense - might have had with a definitive statement to the effect that "Prescott is Welsh" in the first sentence of the lead on the basis of a single comment also apply in precisely the same way and for precisely the same reasons to saying the same thing unadorned in the infobox, even if it at least jumps out a bit less down there. No one is saying he is not Welsh, or that he did not say he was Welsh on one occasion, they are just saying that as ever identity is more complicated than that, and that one on-the-record statement on the subject by an otherwise prolific British politician is not enough to exclude, replace or ignore all other identities that he might assign himself or that others might place on him. If he and third party sources all constantly highlighted it, fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so we shouldn't here. There is no need to fight this battle all over again. Look at how much space has been gobbled up above by this nonsense (which I am now adding to). All this flag waving nationalism tends to make WP a very tedious place at times. One wonders why Welsh nationalists are so keen to claim him anyway - most people would rather keep it quiet. Anyway, having said all that, I'm fine with the current "Welsh, British" formulation as a compromise for the infobox that covers all the obvious/possible points, until northeastern English regionalists arrive to complain that it's concealing his "Humberside" identity. N-HH talk/edits 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts pretty much exactly, except that I'm not all that fine with the "compromise" formulation (we shouldn't have to compromise with people whose objectives are not objective). "Welsh, British" is what general readers would reasonably expect to see written about, say, Neil Kinnock. To say it about Prescott is still misleading.--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree in that I'm not entirely sure you can describe someone's "nationality" as "Welsh" (or English, or Scottish or whatever), but maybe I'm just confusing citizenship (or subjectship?) with nationality, and I wouldn't want to open up that whole discussion anyway. It seems an OK compromise, or at least not an entirely fraudulent one, which seems worth it for the sake of peace, and not a huge deal anyway. What's really odd is that Nye Bevan's page has him - quite accurately - in the intro simply as a "British .. politician", and his nationality in the infobox as "British", but without any explicit "Welsh" additions. You'd have thought his Welshness was far more worth highlighting, and that he'd be a greater prize than Prescott to boot. Oh well. N-HH talk/edits 18:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Even more amazing - given the length of this discussion - is that there have been no comments on that article's talk page for over three years....!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Its got to be one or other not both. Normally we use British unless the person is clearly identified as Welsh, English etc. Personally I would have thought he was English (assuming Yorkshire is really English) but the citation is the evidence we have to go from. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He is Welsh and British. In this case the simplest solution is to avoid mentioning it. Welsh was only added to the infobox a couple of days ago by Dai when the consensus was clear for its removal from the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The convention is that only one is listed per my comment above. Start listing two here and we will have changes being made over thousands of articles. The only citation we have is Welsh. I am surprised by it, I have no particular desire to claim him but Wikipedia runs from citations, I suggest you try and find some. --Snowded ^TALK 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule that says only 1 must be listed. Putting both was a compromise that was being tested if you had taken the time to read this section. Clearly if we want to follow convention we should simply remove the nationality listed. Dai added Welsh to that infobox without consensus, atleast two editors disagreed with it being there alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just have a look at all other articles BW - how many have two nationalities? Dai had a CITATION in which Prescott clearly says he is Welsh, that trumps two editors who disagree unless they can find material. --Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have to say, from the available sources, it does look as though Prescott claims to be Welsh. Not quite clear though why calling him "British" would cause an overturn in thousands of other articles Snowded? Why does this one set a precedent - aren't special cases allowed? Also not clear why you are so anxious to have Prezza as one of yours, although personally I am relaxed about the transfer. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above I personally think he is a Yorkshireman, the problem was the only citation says he is Welsh and its a legitimate claim as he was born in Prestatyn (although if I am parochial I would say that is as good as being born in England). As to the precedent, I know what will happen, we will have editors hitting every article that says Welsh, Scottish or English and adding in British. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And that would be bad because....? Doesn't it in fact say "British Citizen" on all our passports? Not that I am keen on opening up another area for dogfighting, but in principle I can't see what's wrong with it - most people in these islands have multiple identities, as do many around the world. It seems a shame to restrict that. I consider myself a Midlander of Yorkshire and London origins, English, British and European. I suppose infoboxes are meant to be succinct summaries though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And I would choose Welsh and European, there are simply too many. One nationality (that is the label) and its another of those UK problems that don;t impact elsewhere in the world. We need to remember the WIkipedia is international in scope--Snowded ^TALK 13:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If we were going with standard international definitions, it is surely more likely we would all be down as either UK or British, depending on what usage was operational, rather than Welsh/English, etc. I can see the point though about having too many identities - most people have lots. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, please review the discussion above before making edits such as this, which leave it as his being definitively "Welsh". Yes WP runs on citations, but we also have to exercise some judgment - short of outright original research - into how we present and apply the information contained in sources. Whether he is Welsh or not, he is also British. If we want a simple one-word description here, we then have to choose which. As discussed at slightly bizarre length above, we have only *one* statement from this high profile and noisy politician that he considers himself Welsh - we do not have any suggestion that this excludes or overrides the default position that his nationality should be described as British (even if we accept that nationality can be "Welsh" or "English", which is another whole debate). Nor are we are talking about someone who regularly and explicitly asserts his Welsh identity, or about someone where third party sources - who also count when it comes to this sort of thing - focus on his "Welsh nationality". To be a little flippant, I'm sure there's a quote from him saying "bloody hell, I'm an idiot". That doesn't mean we describe his as such here, unless we find a counter-quote asserting he's not one. I'm sure he's also said "I'm a man". That, in turn, doesn't mean he is not a "human being" unless and until we find a second quote from him confirming that. N-HH talk/edits 14:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ps: I've put it back to British, pending agreement on this. That's the way it was for a long, long time I think. It's the default nationality and includes Welsh within it of course. If we only want one nationality, that's the one it should stay at for now, pending such agreement to change it. We seem to have somehow crept from from "British" to "Welsh, British" to "Welsh" over the last couple of days, without any consistent logic or discernible consensus. N-HH talk/edits 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for the first time, an editor here has chosen to believe what they want to believe, without bothering to make even the most basic checks. Before I added John Prescott's nationality to the infobox, no nationality was noted there at all. I have restored the cited information. Daicaregos (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You had no consensus to add Welsh there the first time, you only did it because the majority of people here disagreed with you over its inclusion in the introduction. The stable version before your actions should be restored, where NO nationality was mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I "believe" that Prescott is "British", both by way of general description/identification and as a specific assertion about his legal nationality? Yes I do. In fact, I know it. I'm not sure why that should be a reason for criticism or for an insinuation that I'm some kind of fringe theorist or fantasist who hasn't bothered to make "basic checks". The idea that we need sources for that, or, say, that someone needs to personally verify his passport, is preposterous. What makes editing here often so difficult is people demanding sources for the simple and the obvious, while shoving in far more complex and contentious words and material as definitive fact on the basis of one purported magic trump card. One thing I should have checked though is what the infobox actually said - I did assume that the older version before all this nonsense started simply put his nationality as British. N-HH talk/edits 17:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have. You didn't bother. A simple apology would have been appropriate. Daicaregos (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Apologise" for what? The information I put in was accurate, and entirely legitimate as content. Most Britons' infoboxes have their nationality, oddly enough, as British. I just got it wrong when I said that it was there in the previous version. I've already acknowledged the error in that side observation. This is a utterly minor tangential point to the substantive issue. Don't be so silly in demanding an apology for it. N-HH talk/edits 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't demanded anything. You just can't seem to stop making things up. Please be more careful. Daicaregos (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is like discussing something with a petty, literalist, pedantic point-scoring child. Slight - and transparent, for effect - exaggeration of another's words is not "making things up". N-HH talk/edits 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just did some fairly close searching of his blog and also past statements in Labour Party-related sites to see if he makes any other statement as to his national identity. He uses the word "British" a lot in his talk but never once phrases like "as a Welshman", etc. Just an interesting thought. I agree with N-HH's last edit reverting it to the long-standing British categorisation - I think we can overlook this one statement as an all-encompassing source as to his Welshness and he is pretty widely seen as a British/English politician. Short of asking him personally, that seems to be pretty much it. Wales by the way is part of Britain, legally and officially, absolutely regardless of any local POVs we editors may have on that point. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And in any of those statements did he self-identify as British? Daicaregos (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And if he didn't, would that mean he wasn't? And if we're going to be pedantic about sourcing, is there a source where he or anyone else specifically says that his nationality is Welsh? N-HH talk/edits 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox works if the word "Nationality" is replaced by "Citizenship". Do others think that would be a solution? The template at Template:Infobox person suggests that one or the other should be used - "Nationality: May be used instead of citizenship or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result." Citizenship is certainly less arguable in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We do seem to be conflating issues of "identity", "nationality" and "citizenship" here. The three are not the same. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, although in these sorts of cases the easiest to way avoid the dispute continuing would be for it to avoid mentioning Welsh / British, like it did for a long time in a stable way until Dai decided by himself to add Welsh to the infobox the other day. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Either of the above would work for me. Just please make it stop ... N-HH talk/edits 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ps: yes, identity is definitely a separate and much vaguer, more fluid, thing, but I'd have said that nationality and citizenship are usually pretty much synonymous, and much more easily settled as well. And, of course, we have no sources that state he is Welsh in either of those two categories, even if we do count them as different

I've reverted DC's latest change. We have two categories, potentially. "Citizenship", for which he is unambiguously (I hope we all agree) British. Alternatively, "in cases where any confusion could result", we could use "Nationality" - which is contested. I propose that the infobox says "Citizenship: British", and leaves the "Nationality" parameter blank. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's just leave it blank, as apparently it used to be (something I shamefully got wrong when I suggested/assumed it used to say British for his nationality). This is as nuts as it was two days ago. He obviously is British by legal nationality, and we have no reliable source that states his nationality - as opposed to possibly one aspect of his broader identity - is anything else, Welsh or otherwise, but I guess we can just say there's no need to state the obvious. N-HH talk/edits 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is always a risk when decisions are made other than on citation. Now OK, it can be argued that he said he was Welsh to a Welsh audience to make a point, but that is our opinion. What is clear (having done a few more searches) is that there is no clear identity in the way there is (to take two examples, Kinnock and Lloyd George who self-identify and are identified as Welsh). If he strongly self-identified as Welsh I would expect to see some other references. --Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's have another straw poll

Proposal: that we leave the Nationality parameter blank, but add, in the "Citizenship" parameter: British. NOTE: As a sub-poll, please indicate whether you think it should be linked to British people, or British nationality law. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Citizenship: British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with using neither parameter if that is the consensus view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Infoboxes should summarise the article's content, which, in this case does not mention his citizenship. And (tbh) it's not that notable.
  I have been pilloried here for being some wicked nationalist, plotting the downfall of the Western world in general, or the British government in particular, whose crime is being unable to see that the 'one true way' is to agree noting John Prescott's nationality in a way we have no way of knowing that he does himself, rather than in the way we can be certain that he has expressed his feelings of self identity. And mocked for wanting to 'claim' John Prescott as Welsh, despite not being such a great 'prize'. I have been further castigated for not realising that the arguments against including John Prescott's expressed nationality in the lead were also relevant to the infobox. However, those arguments were primarily that saying “John Prescott is a Welsh former politician/Deputy Prime Minister … “ could be confusing. But that argument could have no relevance to the infobox.
  The truth is that I saw the TV programme where John Prescott said how proud he was of Wales and to be Welsh, thought it was interesting and notable, and that it should be in his article. He is no hero of mine. But he feels Welsh, so his article should say so. It is a reliable source, suitable for the infobox and is the only source we have of John Prescott's self-identity (if there are sources saying he considers himself English/British/etc they can be considered if and when discovered). It should say his nationality in the lead paragraph per WP:MOSBIO, but I accepted consensus was against complying with WP:MOS. However, John Prescott self-identifies as Welsh and this should be reflected in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment that "Infoboxes should summarise the article's content" is not quite accurate; according to WP:IBX they exist "to present certain summary or overview information about the subject" - a slight but important distinction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's still not that notable that he is a British citizen. Indeed, as a former Deputy Prime Minister of the British government, it would be notable were he not. Daicaregos (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but we have to bear in mind that we have an international readership who do not necessarily understand the relationship between terms like "British", "UK", etc., and that there are some (but not necessarily overriding) benefits in consistency between articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not just reinforce people's preconceptions and prejudices. It is to educate and inform - the 'Oh, I didn't know that about ...' reaction. Otherwise, what is the point? Daicaregos (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The source and material put forward so far appear to be about Prescott's identity, not his nationality. Personally, from spending some time reading his rather tiresome blogs, etc, I am fairly convinced he sees himself as having British nationality and I am not convinced by the quotes put forward. Therefore a sensible default is to list his citizenship as British, with the proviso thaat this does not set a precedent for other articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There could be no such proviso. And we all know at least one editor who would quote such a decision on dozens (if not hundreds) of pages. Daicaregos (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view, we should treat this on a case by case basis, and revisit WP:UKNATIONALS if it proves necessary to do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds as if this will be used a a precedent for other articles (see comment above). Daicaregos (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty unique situation. Its rather rare we would be considering saying Welsh in the infobox based on just one interview he gave. Clearly this would not apply in situations like Sean connery or Alex Salmond who only identify and are identified as Scottish and reject being British. So its hard to see where this specific agreement could be repeated. I suspect in most cases where this might apply, it already states British as the nationality anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - saying citizenship rather than nationality should help address concerns by Dai and linking to the British nationality law page is fine with me. I do however still think the easiest and least controversial solution is to return the infobox to not mentioning British or Welsh as it did until Dai added Welsh without any consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, although even better would be to have neither a nationality nor a citizenship parameter.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I rather heavily approve of Kotniski's proposal for neither parameter to be included instead. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, better none that "citizenship" --Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If Dai is prepared to support that compromise of not mentioning either then i will support it too if it means this matter is resolved for the time being. It would provide stability and consensus that we should all be able to defend unless major new evidence for either side swinging the balance surfaces. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)