This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smerus (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 3 April 2021 (→My incorrect reversion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:24, 3 April 2021 by Smerus (talk | contribs) (→My incorrect reversion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | BBC Low‑importance |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC | | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. | | Tasks for WikiProject BBC: |
|---|
|
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
| |
|
|
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Journalism |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism | | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
|
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | LGBTQ+ studies |  | This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies | |
|
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | London Low‑importance |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related | | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. |
Archives
|
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The Enemy Files
User:SquisherDa has sought to provide a commentary/analysis on this programme with details of its arguments. Such details belong in an article about the programme, not in an article on the biography of its presenter. I have therefore removed his analysis. If we had details of every programme MP has presented the article would be absurdly unbalanced. The best course therefore is I think to leave such details to appropriate articles. If someone wants to start an article The Enemy Files, then User:SquisherDa's comments would be appropriate there, and it could be linked from this biographical article. Discussion of course is invited.--Smerus (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers for setting up this Talk-page section, Smerus. My aim was, yes, to provide commentary / analysis on the programme - but really only to try to reconcile two earlier versions which were (to my eye) shockingly selective.
- It seemed to me very necessary to include either both or neither.
- I favoured both. They are both interesting and valuable points. And in combination they cast valuable light on this interesting man and the depth of his political and historical thinking.
- For that reason I thought you and @Johnbod, in particular, might welcome a fairly high level of detail - because of the point he made a while back about the article’s lack of coverage of Portillo’s policies. (You too seemed to feel more would be better though energy was currently lacking?) You’re obviously right tht any similar level of detail across the range of programes Portillo has presented would overwhelm the article in a thoroughly bizarre way - but (eg) the railway stuff offers no great window to the workings of his political mind. (And the Irish Times is a mighty handy source on Enemy Files.)
- My conclusion: Enemy Files is worth fairly close attention - but in the context of Portillo, and therefore here, within this article.
- I may have overdone it a bit, here, mind. And I’ve nothing against a “see main article” type of approach.
- So, as I see it
- the earlier versions, each noting the Irish Times source very selectively, are unacceptable;
- your version, mentioning Enemy Files but saying little about it, is OK but . .
- . . misses an opportunity; and
- maybe I’ve overshot in the other direction and we should perhaps seek consensus on some intermediate level of detail?
- An Enemy Files article may be a good idea - I’ve no strong view on that.
- -07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I really believe the best answer is a separate article, with (as at the present version) no commentary on the MP page. Otherwise we open the gates to floods of analyses/comments on all the other programmes; and that is I think clearly overkill. I would have thought you could perhaps create an article, even if it's just a stub, on the basis of your version, which could give a link. There is a need maybe to say more in the article about MP's policies - but his views on the Easter Rising, whilst illustrative, are not I think core to this topic.--Smerus (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Easter Rising itself is obviously hugely important, and I trust it’s already well covered. But I have doubts whether this particular programme about it is notable enough for an article? (And I don’t know how widely it was reviewed? Would we be trying to build an article on a single source? When I suggested a “see main article” approach I hadn’t really thought about this.)
- Anyway, for me the aim was to clear the POV problem in the Portillo article - the alternate highly-selective quotes underrepresenting his sympathy for the complexities. And I don’t think I’d engage effectively with the new-article process, so I don’t plan to go with that idea myself, even at stub level. I’d be happy for you to do that, of course, if you think it can be tried. Back on Portillo, though, the need I was seeing is now met.
- But I would have preferred to keep a bit more of other people’s work. You’ve given us the ‘neither’ option . . I’d prefer the ‘both’.
- Your point about floodgates is a good one. If the various programmes mentioned in the article began to attract detailed comment the article would become incoherent. Worse - any attempt in that situation, to pull all those comments together into a coherent whole, would be OR. But do you think we could agree on an intermediate level of detail for Enemy Files? Something tht doesn’t invite a flood but does capture both those POVs? - and thus, but *tacitly*, conveys the complexity of Portillo’s thinking?
- - SquisherDa (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- My best suggestion would to include something about the programme in the 'Legacy' section of the Easter Rising article, and give a reference to that section (Easter_Rising#Legacy) in the Portillo article. The fact remains that any analysis of the programme is not relevant (or is WP:UNDUE) to MP's biography, which is what this article is about.--Smerus (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Great Australian Railway Journeys
This article mentions how, following "Great British Railway Journeys" and "Great Continental Railway Journeys", Portillo has presented programmes about railway journeys in other countries, such as "Great American Railroad Journeys". It could also mention that, in October 2019, he presented a programme called "Great Australian Railway Journeys". Vorbee (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
OK I see that is mentioned now. Vorbee (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Name pronunciation
Could someone who knows for sure add a note on how to pronounce his name? A British person with a father from Spain leaves no clue for the uninformed as to whether he uses the Spanish or an Anglicized pronunciation. Half an hour on YouTube yielded no examples of him saying his own name, though it may be there somewhere. Other speakers using his name mostly used the Anglicized, but not always. Kalimac (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is the Anglicised form (unless he is making fun of himself). Unfortunately I cannot cite third-party evidence of this, unless someone has a way of citing the BBC or Times Radio announcements of his programmes.--Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are videos of the announcement of the results of Enfield Southgate in the 1997 general election such as this one on youtube. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
New infobox proposal
@Smerus: I stumbled across the page today and was surprised at the changes to the infobox (I was not active on political wikis back in 2017). I looked at the page history and I thought I'd chime in with a proposal to, as the outcome of the original talk page determined, have his political offices offset by his primary notability of being a television host and historian. And I think a collapsed module, per Winston Churchill's page, appearing beneath personal details, per Justin Welby's page, would look very neat and very much to the taste of my politically inclined friends on the wiki as well as you and your friends too. This was not an option discussed in the original forum and I think it might be ideal. Thoughts? Alex (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is my proposed infobox layout. Due to technical restrictions, I had to remove the website since for some reason it appeared beneath the collapsed offices but this can be moved to the External links section of the article. Alex (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for this sensible proposal. It's OK by me; what do others think?--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I like it, thank you, Alex. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I like it except for having the shadow chancellor post expanded: can that be collapsed into another box (Shadow offices?). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jonathan A Jones: Absolutely, I hope you like this new version (I also shortened Conservative Party (UK) to Conservative per the lead) and I'll upload that one to the page and if anyone else has any comments, we can go back to to the talk page. Alex (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I would put "shadow cabinet" between "ministerial" and "parliamentary", but otherwise looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jonathan A Jones: Done, since there was no objection. Alex (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- His primary notable is as a politician. That is just absurd.--86.144.191.234 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure why the politics had to be removed from infobox. He may have been out of politics for years, but his political career is probably what he's most well known for.73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The political offices are still there in the collapsed infobox tabs. Please familiarise yourself with the consensus before making a new proposal and stop your disruptive editing or you risk being blocked. Alex (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Lead
The lead needs to be concise and should not contain info or comments which are not in the article. I've therefore adjusted Alex B4's recent revision in this respect. If there is any source re antagonism between Hague and Portillo, then this info should be in the article and cited, although it is not imo of suffcient significance to be in the lead, as it seems to have had no further consequences. --Smerus (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The Rt. Hon.
Given that all other Privy Councilors have the Rt. Hon. in their infobox (see for examples Richard Aikens, Tony Baldry, and Wyatt Creech, to name a few), is there much of a reason why this article should be singled out as not having it? 73.110.217.186 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- There was extensive debate about the present infobox before it reached its present format, and that format represents a consensus. What happens in other articles is not a reason for changing this one. See WP:WHATABOUT. Nor do I (or you) have any evidence in any case that "all other Privy Councillors have Rt. Hon. in their infobox." As there have been many thousands of PCs over the centuries, you might find that checking this claim is rather burdensome. The article is not 'singled out' by not having it; what you should seek to demonstrate (if you could) is in what way it would improve the article for WP users if it were present. As MP's membership of the Privy Council is not a major part of his life or raison d'etre these days, a stronger case imo could be made for omitting it - as you may not have considered that users of WP on (e.g.) mobile phones may find the infobox taking up their entire screen, and the largely irrelevant fact that MP is a PC will then occupy an inordinately disproportionate amonut of the information presented. Have a look at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." --Smerus (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the old debate, someone pointed out that its absence could potentially be misleading, as it might imply that he resigned his privy council membership, which is not true. Furthermore, if such styling is not appropriate in the infobox, then a lot of articles would need to be changed, so it doesn’t make such sense just to leave it at one being changed and leaving all the rest. Perhaps this would require a something to be decided among what the standard format for such figures is. 4.71.249.245 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- While I have been supportive of the general move towards a simpler infobox I tend to agree with this proposed addition. Portillo remains a member of the Privy Council, and this is not simply irrelevant. As a small sample I have checked the first 27 names at List of current members of the British Privy Council (all those starting with "A") and 25 have The Right Honourable in their infobox, the sole exceptions being Sarah Asplin, who does not have an infobox, and Michael Ancram, who gained the superior title of The Most Honourable when he succeeded as the Marquess of Lothian. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, what happens in other articles is not an argument for what should happen here, WP:WHATABOUT. Were I interested in the other articles and not in possession of a real life, I would raise objections there where appropriate. The point to be considered here is in what way this title could be considered a 'key fact' as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I invite editors to read this MOS guidance. The argument that "its absence could potentially be misleading, as it might imply that he resigned his privy council membership" is simply unfounded, as it assumes without any justification that those looking at the infobox would have been aware of it in the first place. His membership of the PC is mentioned in the article amongst 'honours', together with the fact that he is a Freeman of the City of London, an FRSGS, and has an honorary doctorate at American university; readers are apparently able to survive without this other info being in the infobox either. Being a member of the PC is simply not a 'key' element of MP's life. It's mentioned once in the article, and no event of his life in the article refers to it or is connected with it. --Smerus (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the "its absence could potentially be misleading, as it might imply that he resigned his privy council membership", the poster who brought it up in the old discussion specifically compared it to Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, both of whom resigned their privy council membership.73.110.217.186 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- You have said that very clearly, and I understood your position perfectly well when I made my comment. Other editors might or might not not share your view. But there's no need to repeat it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was in fact replying to 4.71.249.245 who apparently had not read my earlier contribution. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, the other figures mentioned by the other post mostly have The Rt. Hon. listed in their infobox, with the noted exceptions having nothing to do with its notability. Once could argue that for people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, their membership in the privy council isn't key information, yet they still have the Rt. Hon. listed in their infobox. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Smerus: I actually support inclusion on the basis that I, when looking at the infobox, thought that he might have resigned from the Privy Council like John Prescott had done. So I think it's relevant so as not to confuse people. Also, with what we've done previously to the infobox, the politics information is still less prevalent than before so this shouldn't violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Alex (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect reversion
I may be missing something obvious, but can I ask why you made this revert at Michael Portillo? The IP's edits just converted redirects to direct wikilinks, and I couldn't see anything wrong with them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out; apologies, I was asleep at the wheel. I have re-reverted.--Smerus (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
.svg){kind=small}
Portillo in 2017