Jump to content

Talk:John Bercow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Bercow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Bercow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Bercow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Bercow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

[edit]

I'm not convinced that the 'Controversies' section helps the article; it pulls anything arbitrarily considered 'controversial' (though only from his Speaker career - controversies from his MP career are in the Political Career section) out into a completely different section of the article from anything else he was doing at the time. I'd have thought it would be more sensible to put the article basically into chronological order and merge in the controversies when they happened, with appropriate headings.

Any objections? TSP (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to avoid edit war

[edit]

@CHill1045 and 62.178.67.134: Please, explain why Bercow's possible retiring would happen in the summer of 2018 instead of 2019. As I said in the reversion summary,

Reference was posted after the summer of 2018. Besides, it says: “His departure, in June or July, would coincide with his tenth year in office.” The election took place in 2009.

Until so, I'll be reverting these edits. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eduardogobi:

I'm not going to get into any wars over this. The thinking behind my original edit, however, was not that Bercow would retire in 2018 but that it had previously been his stated intention to retire in 2018. This is mentioned in the BBC News article you cite: "When he took the job in June 2009, Mr. Bercow said his intention was to quit by June of this year [2018], after nine years in the chair."

The story was covered in the papers last year, for example in The Times: "When Mr. Bercow stood for the speakership in 2009 he said he would serve for no longer than nine years, which elapses on June 22 [2018], next Friday."[1] And Politics Home: "Speculation has been mounting in recent months over when Mr Bercow is due to stand down, having initially pledged to quit the role after nine years - a deadline which passes on 22 June [2018]."[2]

Here's what he said to parliament in 2009: "Speaker Onslow was elected at 36 in 1728 and he stayed in situ for more than 30 years — not a danger in my case, given my commitment to serving no longer than nine years in total"[3]

In light of all this, I'm not sure the paragraph makes sense in its current form - because, as I hope has been established, Bercow had originally said he would leave in the summer of 2018. CHill1045 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CHill1045 has shown comprehensively in his post above that Bercow said he intended to resign in 2018. It is possible, looking at what Eduardogobil said in his edit summary, that he misunderstood the reference in the BBC report to "this year". Though posted after the summer, i.e. in October, "this year" still refers to 2018. The paragraph is currently irrational as it suggests that "June or July 2019" is contradictory of the phrase "the summer of 2019". CHill111045 has totally made his case and I intend to edit accordingly.Aineireland (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]

Lead to long

[edit]

I am tagging this page because the lead is supposed to have four paragraphs at maximum. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latest to-and-fro

[edit]

IP, could you please DISCUSS the matter here, rather than just keep edit warring to force in your preferred version?
Bercow has made thousands of decisions in his role as speaker. We do not report each and every one of them, particularly in such detail as the edit you are trying to force in. By concentrating so much on this one point you add too much WP:WEIGHT to one small aspect of his biography.
You cannot complain that I have rolled back your edits with no explanation, "just acronyms with no meaning". They do have meaning, and you have to read the policies and guidelines to find out what we do and why we do it. WP:BRD tells you not to editbwar, but to discuss the issue if your edit is reverted, and WP:STATUS QUO says to leave the old version in place while it's being discussed. Given that, rather than edit war: please DISCUSS your proposed changes to gain a consensus, rather than just edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I pull out of that text something resembling a justification for rolling back a researched, concise and cited edit; it is that the subject is not deemed important enough to justify a paragraph? If that is your position, I'm struggling to understand how you've come to that conclusion given the magnitude and significance of the event in question. Hence why there's a cited link where the event is front page news in several national publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.194.98 (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
IP, not everything that you deem "important", nor everything for which a reliable source can be cited, belongs in an encyclopedic article. Come down off your high horse and make your case, if you can, for keeping the content. Lack of consensus can be reason enough here not to keep challenged content. Review the policies described at the links that Schrocat has provided you first, however, so that you'll understand what our policies are. General Ization Talk 01:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, please remember that this is Bercow’s biography, not the history of the Brexit saga. It may be an important point from one angle: it loses much of that importance from another angle. We don’t, for example, record how each MP has voted on each amendment, which is a similar parallel to this. - SchroCat (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, I asked you to tell me why you persist in reverting my edits, you said the subject wasn't deemed important/notable enough. Now you appear to have changed your mind and the subject can be included in Wikipedia, I presume you have new reasons to prevent an accurate portrait of events being recorded. Please explain yourself and make your true motives clear as I suspect they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy.46.208.194.98 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, much of this is way too much for what is a biography of Bercow. This article is not a history of the parliamentary clusterfuck of Brexit votes, but a biography. It probably shouldn't be there at all (which is why I took it out yesterday), but if it is going to be in, then it has to be only a brief mention, rather than the bloated mess you seem to want to force in. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, I would simply ask you, can you remember how many times the actions of the Speaker of the House made front page news and dominated the news and political agenda? Is it something which occurs often, infrequently or hardly ever? The answer is the latter.
John Bercow very much likes drawing attention to himself so there's much to cram into his Wikipedia page but this isn't just his typical attention seeking or playing the role of a Shakespearian villain. The repercussions of the actions in question continue to be felt today, they are not a brief aside and will be what he is most remembered for, like Tony Blair and the Iraq War despite many other notable events. 46.208.194.98 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your own personal opinion of Bercow is as meaningless as anyone else's (including mine). I doubt Bercow's role will be remembered much if Brexit goes through - it'll be largely forgotten. Again, this isn't an article on the history of Brexit, but Bercow's biography, and is supposed to be an encyclopaedic summary of his life, not a 500-page all-encompassing biography of every step he took and every decision he made. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours

[edit]

" ... was rumoured to be likely to defect to the Labour Party." Unsourced(!) rumours(!!) in the lead section(!!!). Are we kidding? 188.218.87.79 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see, it's the BBC that's spreading rumours. Hahaha ... Great. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serving "under" PM?

[edit]

The fifth para of the lead refers to Bercow serving "under" four Prime Ministers. Is that correct? I would not have thought he serves "under" them - though clearly his tenure has overlapped with four PMs. What is the correct wording to use? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's wrong. I can't think what the right wording would be. Anyone? MPS1992 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he’s served “with” them? Naihreloe (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was changed to "alongside..." last month. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education - Tennis record

[edit]

In reference to:

"In his youth, Bercow had been ranked Britain's No. 1 junior tennis player, but came down with bronchial asthma and was unable to pursue a professional career.[15][16]"

Citations do not appear to support this.

Citation [15] suggests that Bercow was "too wee to compete as an adult" and "would never have been more than a good club player..." This seems likely - Google lists Bercow's height as 1.68m which equates to approximately 5ft 6inches.

Citation [16] links to a private YouTube video.

There are various claims online that Bercow was "Britain's number one junior tennis player" but are there any official records to substantiate this?

As a novice Wikipedian, I am just getting to grips with the platform and reluctant to edit the article, therefore seeking guidance from those more experienced please.

Sierraechoromeo (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure of article?

[edit]

Hey all. I have some reservations about how this article is structured, it is highly fragmented; it's broken up into more sections than necessary - I think, at least, wondering what others feel. I drafted different restructured edits myself, but decided it's probably best to seek consensus as to how to approach it in the first place. The 'Political career' super-section: now, should it even be called that. The speakership is a part of his political career, no? How about Frontbench career? Conservative career? Anyway, consists of a lot of section that are only a few sentences. Would it be reasonable to absorb them into just three or four sections? The super-section on his speakership, I'm not even sure it should be first-term-second-term-third-term, or have these sub-sub-sections of a few paragraphs. Maybe it should be flatted into topical sections (Election, Brexit, etc). Just some thoughts, would be great if anyone has better ideas. Thanks. Derick1259 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have clear ideas on it, it's best you just go ahead and then see what people think. Hopefully we won't all decide your ideas are crazy and thus waste the work you do. From what you say, your ideas sound sensible to me. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe work on the changes in your sandbox (which you can find using the button at the top right) and we can comment on them there? Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the tips, will look into it. Derick1259 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of retirement not accurate

[edit]

The cause of retirement in the article is said to be "due to claims of bullying not adressed by senior parliament officials" or something of the sort. After his retrirement now, not only is that shown to be untrue, but the article cited is not consistent with what is stated in the article[1]. I would move to put this to a vote if at all possible for it may be a difference in opinion which has lead to this discrepency.

The article, says this: In October 2018, it was reported that Bercow intended to step down as Speaker in the summer of 2019, due to a report on the failure of high-level figures in Parliament to deal adequately with bullying of staff at Westminster and due to allegations of bullying made against him personally. Is this the sentence you are objecting to? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the one. Sorry for the late reply
The cited source does not state that his suggested retirement was "due to" the bullying allegations, so I've removed the claim. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much

Crest

[edit]

This blog [[4]] shows a depiction of Bercow's arms which includes the crest. Unfortunately there's still no blazon. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crest remains wrong despite ample access to a correct version. 00:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.119.86 (talk)
For the record - in case it is not clear - someone with appropriate skills is going to have to edit or redesign the SVG image of the crest that is presently in the article; one cannot directly lift an image from any those links, they are covered by copyright. The delay for a correct version is forgivable. JAYFAX (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45880134

Edit wars over the "Professor" part in the infobox?

[edit]

Couldn't help but notice, the "Professor" part after "The Right Honourable" seems to be getting repeatedly added and removed. What is the reasoning behind those changes? It seems that the title would still be applicable unless circumstances have changed.

[Kristina B.] / Kristina0 05:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Professor" is an academic post not an honorific. Frank and Andrew ,for example, never had this added to their infoboxes. Bercow doesn't even need a trim. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that one addition, and one removal, not subsequently challenged, counts as an "edit war"! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PMs in info box

[edit]

Why are we listing Prime Ministers in the info box on pages about Speakers? The PM is an unconnected office? Littlemonday (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. Infoboxes should be concise but these offices are connected by centuries of convention. Alex (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what convention links the Speaker of the Commons to the PM of the day? Littlemonday (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
State opening, loyal address and prorogation to name a few. Alex (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we list the Monarch on speaker's pages. It would be more logical to list the Parliament's (in this case) as 54-55-56-57 but I understand that would look ugley in an info box, I genuenly don't see why we include the speaker here. The Speaker is neither appointed by or answerable to the Prime Minister. If they were there would be an argument to list speakers in PM's info boxes but no one is suggesting that. Littlemonday (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The initial question was of whether they are connected offices they are, regardless of who is accountable to who. Alex (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead

[edit]

Should "Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead" be included in the infobox?

In modern times, it's purely used as legal fiction and other MPs who have resigned in a Parliament, like Heidi Alexander and David Cameron, don't have it in their infoboxes.

FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Its inclusion is inoffensive but unnecessary and confusing. Alex (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done FollowTheTortoise (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic

[edit]

It has been revealed police attended Bercow's house over a domestic incident and an allegation of common assault, having been called by his wife Sally. This happened in August of last year. This is a sort of an add-on to the bullying allegations, but I am not sure it is due: no charges were brought, no arrest. It has been picked up by The Times.[5] Would welcome some comments. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think per WP:NOTNEWS we should be including that sort of thing. It's very much a judgement call but given this was in August and only raised now, why the rush? WCMemail 14:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilt votes in the 2015 election

[edit]

Is this really worth mentioning? Less than 1300 ballots is a tiny fraction of the total. WP:TRIVIA, surely? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Bercow&oldid=1257223924"