Talk:Victoria Starmer: Difference between revisions

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: June 30 to July 6, 2024

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 3 July 2024 by reviewer Theroadislong (talk · contribs). Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish Women Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: #1day1woman (2024) This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2024. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2024. The result of the discussion was Draftify.

Why is her year of birth not confirmed yet? SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it says here she's 60?

Check this SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SferaEbbasta87, last week's Guardian said that the (very few) articles saying she's 60 are off by a decade. See here for the Guardian article and also the first reference where it says that she elected Unveristy Student union president in 1995 at the age of 21. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Tatler article gives her age as 49 in January 2023, supporting a 1973 birth date. We could do with a better source though, if there is one. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of rummaging finds this Companies House record of a "Vicky Alexander" (born June 1973) as a sabbatical officer at Cardiff student union in 1995. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-de-Nivelle, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we can't use public records as sources. The current age is taken from a biographical article referenced in the article. Its not exact but approximate and matches the age in the Tatler article you have linked. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we shouldn't use public records as sources, but can't we make use of them informally to determine which of the published dates are plausible? If Companies House gives a date of birth in 1973, but some sources are giving her age as 60, I'd be inclined to disregard those sources. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starmer being aged 60 has been debunked in more recent articles, including the Guardian one in my initial reply so we can safely rule that out. I can't be 100% certain even then whether 1973 is correct or not. My stance is that the exact date of birth should replace the approximate one.

I'm on the lookout for it though. Hopefully she sits down for an interview of sorts or something. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/lady-victoria-starmer-keir-starmers-wife/ Well this source does not seem that reliable but it states her year of birth as being 1963. It's quite surprising that the exact birth year is also not available to the reliable sources such as well-known newspapers and websites. Are there any books on her ? Looking forward to your responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, there's a book on Keir Starmer by Tom Baldwin but not on Victoria though I'm sure she is mentioned in it.

And yes, the Guardian did debunk the polticics.co.uk age which, as you will have noticed, didn't get her title right either. So definitely not reliable. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're curious, you'll find a full date of birth in the filing history of UNIONFINCH Ltd. for August 1995. I presume there's no reason a jounalist or biographer couldn't have found the same information, but as "Omnis Scientia" rightly says, we should wait until they do before adding it to the article. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-de-Nivelle, likely and understandably because books aimed at writing about her husband will write about her in relation to him rather than focus on her. They will give the basic biography of her but not all of it. She is also quite private.

Also journalists are seldom interested in wives of politicians, unfortunately. They don't make the news unless they do something big or outrageous. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious as to why it's perfectly fine to provide linkifcation in this article to the National Health Service, Gospel Oak, World War II, Judaism, Hodge Jones & Allen, street crime, 10 Downing Street, Channing School, Highgate, London, Keir Starmer, Doughty Street Chambers, Cardiff University, student union, Essex, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, John Patten, Buckingham Palace, Charles III, Shabbat and the Liberal Jewish Synagogue but when I provided linkification on 11 July 2024 to Victoria Starmer being a vegetarian, it was reverted in less than 30 minutes.

I'm not a vegetarian myself. Is there something wrong with vegetarianism that readers shouldn't click on the article to read more about it? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in British English, and I would suggest that the majority of sources written in British English use "King Charles" when introducing him in their articles with respect to Keir Starmer, and not just "Charles III", or even "King Charles III" (I could list 100s of examples, but that proves nothing). This may be different in US sources of course. The context disambiguates it - Starmer wasn't PM during the reigns of either of the other two King Charleses.

Hence I propose dropping the "III" and using just "King Charles" when referring to him in this article, and not referring to him as just "Charles III".

What do we think? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections in a week so implemented. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Charles III is implemented more commonly across Wikipedia just like Elizabeth II, George VI and so on. The sources use "King" so that the majority of the audience can understand it better. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, we shouldn't limit our vocabulary to just the terms used in Wikipedia article titles, we should write prose in natural English. "Charles III" is unnatural and unclear - readers should not need to click the link to understand that this means King Charles. Please revert your change and wait to see if you get a consensus for your view on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty, DrKay, Keivan.f Opinion? MSincccc (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, how did you select those three to invite - have they been involved in discussing it in this article previously? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are familiar with British English articles especially Tim and Keivan. Omnis Scientia and ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter may also be invited for the same reasons, and the fact that they have contributed to the article in the past, like me. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's better to be clear up front, to allay any suspicion of canvassing. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Charles III or King Charles III but not simply King Charles. The numerical should be there as it is consistantly with other articles mentioning monarchs. Its best to even avoid even the slight chance of confusion because Charles III is far from the only King Charles in history even if he is the only one at the moment (as far as I'm aware; does the King of Sweden - Carl - count?).

I think one mention of the numerical, the first time, is enough then they can be referred to as Charles or King Charles simply. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the context (Starmer becoming UK PM) and the link to the 'Charles III' article would be sufficient for clarification, without the use of the unnatural "III" in the prose? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be. The previous monarch of the same name was known as Charles II. Hence, just mentioning Charles III here won't be an issue. The 'King' can be simply omitted as has been done in the articles of multiple British premiers and their spouses. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington was PM only under George IV. But there are five other Georges so we mention the "IV" even though, in context, we know it can't be the rest of them due to two being dead before George IV was born and two coming long after him and his father, George III, being incapacitated for ten years during which Wellington was off to war anyways and not even close to entering politics.

It just clears up confusion. I don't see it as a big deal since it will be mentioned once. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either “King Charles” or “the King” with a Wikilink to “Charles III” are equally acceptable. The identity of the King is obvious from the context - if there is any doubt in the reader’s mind, the Wikilink will clear that doubt. For the record, the opening words of the court circular in today’s Times are “The King received …”. 2A00:23C8:1DAE:2401:EDA5:8A0:BE94:82BA (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's court circular in today's edition Times newspaper so its pretty obvious who "the King" is to anyone who is reading the Times newspaper. This is a wikipedia article and the goal is to avoid confusion and make it clear for someone who isn't as well-versed in this stuff as you or others in this chat may be. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting, @DeFacto, that this is a small page so its unlikely that your enquiry would get an answer unless you ping someone into the convo and start a debate. No answer does not automatically mean people won't have objections. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should use Charles III or King Charles III. I'd like to point out that this is an encyclopedia that is read not only by British people but by people from all around the world. The term King Charles is vague. There have been dozens of kings named Charles throughout history. So from a historical perspective and for better accuracy it's better to have the regnal numbers attached to his name at least in the very first instance when his name is mentioned. We can then switch to "the King", "Charles III", "Charles" or even "King Charles" subsequently. Keivan.f^Talk 14:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan.f The background is as follows -

1) I had retained "Charles III" in the article.

2) DeFacto added the term "King".

3) I have twice removed the "King" leading to DeFacto starting this discussion.

Hence the question that lies ahead of us is whether "Charles III" or "King Charles III" is used. The former was used in the article as it has been done for multiple other premiers-Cameron, Truss, Johnson,etc.

Hence looking forward to the community's consensus. MSincccc (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of King Charles III since it reads in a flow and also establishes his title and leaves no ambiguity -- only in the first instance, mind you. Then, as Keivan.f suggests, we can move to "the King" or simply "Charles". Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I personally have no strong preference as long as it is clarified in the first instance that the king in question is "Charles III". I should also point out that we don't have a rule which says the prefixes "King" or "Queen" cannot be attached to a monarch's name. We have several articles that refer to his mother as "Queen Elizabeth II" rather than "Elizabeth II". Both convey the same meaning. So as Omnis Scientia said, we can go with "King Charles III" in the first instance and then switch to something shorter. Keivan.f^Talk 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, Charles has been mentioned only once in the entire article. By the way, Omnis Scientia and Keivan.f what is wrong with just mentioning "Charles III" as done prior to DeFacto's revision? Looking forward to your responses. MSincccc (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that too. As long as the numerical is there. I don't have particularly strong preference other than that the numerical be there in the first - in this case, so far, only - instance. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Keivan.f^Talk 17:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then should I revert back to Charles III by dropping the "King" as it was previously? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, Charles III is too vague and is not so common in British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f, King Charles is no more vague than Charles III, and at least with the former it is clear that it is a king, without clicking, whereas the latter could be any of these. I'd settle for King Charles III though as second best. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto, sorry but I don't see how it’s MORE vague. It’s the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and also the name alone eliminates every other "Charles" not "the Third". Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it could mean any of these without clicking the link to see who it actually is. Don't you think it's better to include 'King' to narrow the field a bit, and to follow the British English convention more closely? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong preference, as I said, as long as the numerical is there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is "King Charles" less ambiguous than "King Charles III"? It's simple math that the regnal numbers alone eliminate dozens of other monarchs named Charles, including various people named Charles I and Charles II. The current king is not the only English/British monarch to have been named Charles. By all means, keep it as King Charles III. After all he is the king and can be called as such. Keivan.f^Talk 21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said King Charles is no more vague than Charles III, and although I prefer the former of those two, I'd settle for "King Charles III" as second choice. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, can you give a more detailed link to the discussion you allude to in the edit summary of this edit please. I can't see anywhere saying not to include his title in the link text. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto If you were to ask me, I personally feel that just Charles III will do here without causing any sort of confusion. He is the only King of his name with the regnal number "III". Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, so what do you think was wrong with my edit which embraced his full title into the link text that it needed reverting, and what on the talk page were you referring to? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the King is not really required. Also, the present version was fine as it is. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus was to include "King" in his title, so why would would we exclude it from link text - it looks ridiculous outside of it? And you didn't tell me what on the talk page you were referring to in your edit comment. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be in favor of King Charles III since it reads in a flow and also establishes his title and leaves no ambiguity -- only in the first instance, mind you. Then, as Keivan.f suggests, we can move to "the King" or simply "Charles". Omnis Scientia
• Again, I personally have no strong preference as long as it is clarified in the first instance that the king in question is "Charles III". I should also point out that we don't have a rule which says the prefixes "King" or "Queen" cannot be attached to a monarch's name. We have several articles that refer to his mother as "Queen Elizabeth II" rather than "Elizabeth II". Both convey the same meaning. So as Omnis Scientia said, we can go with "King Charles III" in the first instance and then switch to something shorter. Keivan.f

MSincccc (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I did in my edit was move the link brackets back one word to include his full title - changing "King [[Charles III]]" to "[[King Charles III]]". I didn't change the visible text at all, just the span of the blue of link, so I'm not sure what your objection to my change is or what relevance those extracts have. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto, @Omnis Scientia, @ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter, and @Keivan.f What's wrong with using only Charles III in this case? It will not be ambiguous as he is the only King of his name with that regnal number. Looking forward to your responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct form is King Charles III if you have to write it like that. I would note that we already had this convo in August as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia I am aware of the previous conversation. It was DeFacto's recent revision which included "King" within the second bracket (and which stays in the article) that prompted me to ask for opinion once again. MSincccc (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc Ah I see. I think "King" should remain outside the link then. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia How do you explain that to user DeFacto? He was the one who made the revision. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say its the same reason why we write President Joe Biden rather than President Joe Biden: the title is not part of their common name. Hence why they are redirects and not the titles of the articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, that if the title is used in a grammatically correct way, it should be included in the link. This would include for presidents, popes, lords, emperors, etc. as well as for kings. Why would we want to artificially separate their title from their name? Otherwise, why do the redirects exist, if not for including the title in the link without having to pipe it in? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the title IS seperate from their name! And they are redirected because its one of the common names and people do, on occassion, link them as such. Doesn't mean you have to link it as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of the title and name is commonly used as a single proper noun to address the person, so it is logical to link the whole proper noun, not just one component of it. Look up where the redirects are used and you will see that it is common and normal practice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto I disagree. Keep the title seperate. Its not part of their name, plain and simple. Omnis Scientia (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia, what do you disagree with - is it that "King Charles III" is a single proper noun? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that? I disagree with the full linking, with the title as part of the link. You say its common but I don't recall ever seeing it as such and I'm often on articles like it.

Again, the title is not part of their name even if it is a single proper noun. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia, it was a question, not an accusation. The title is part of his name when used in this way. Writing "King Charles III" is equivalent to writing "Pope John Paul II" or "General Eisenhower" or "Sir Winston Churchill". Why would you when you can write "King Charles III", "Pope John Paul II", "General Eisenhower" and "Sir Winston Churchill"? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You actually can't write the last one as such. See MOS:SIR. Also the "Pope" is actually part of the article title.

As for the rest, I've already explained why. I won't explain it again. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia, you have misread MOS:SIR - all it says is don't add it when it wasn't originally there. but it also says don't remove it if it's originally there. Article titles do not dictate grammar, they generally reflect the consensus of what the common names is, so are not a name usage guide. Your POV holds no water though. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto, I haven't misread it, I just know that everytime its linked as such, the "Sir" is either removed OR is not linked and MOS:SIR is cited for it. I know its usually not written at all.

Seriously though, I only gave my opinion as I was asked to. I don't think the titles should be part of the link because a title not part of that person's name. Plain and simple. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia, you said "You actually can't write the last one [Sir Winston Churchill] as such", citing MOS:SIR, yet MOS:SIR does not support that, and that form of his name appears in hundreds of articles. Also, MOS:SIR does not even mention links, let alone prohibit includung "sir" in the link text.

Also, your argument for not including "King" in the link is illogical and unsubstantiated, as I've shown. You seem to be confusing article titles with permissible or preferred name forms. See WP:COMMONNAME - it only applies to article title. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, as I noted and have given an explanation for, I think that "King" shouldn't be linked. I personally try my best not to use redirect names in any case. I don't know about your opinion there but that's my view of it. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia and @DeFacto, What is wrong with mentioning only Charles III in this case? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, see MOS:RETAIN. It's because there is nothing wrong with using King Charles III, it's used abundantly in the sources (and is possibly used second only to just "King Charles" in British English sources), and there is nothing wrong with using it in Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]