Talk:Keir Starmer

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keir Starmer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Keir Starmer. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Keir Starmer at the Reference desk.

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 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. This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. 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 is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Want to add new information about Keir Starmer? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Premiership of Keir Starmer Starmer ministry Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition Shadow Cabinet of Keir Starmer Legal career of Keir Starmer Political positions of Keir Starmer 2020 Labour Party leadership election (UK) 2024 United Kingdom general election Thanks!

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Rebecca Speare-Cole (19 December 2019). "Sir Keir Starmer at centre of Wikipedia 'millionaire' row ahead of expected Labour leadership bid". Evening Standard. Retrieved 19 December 2019. But Sir Keir - who this week insisted he came from working class roots - has already found himself at the centre of controversy after a reference to him being a "millionaire" was added and removed several times from his page. Alex Matthews (19 December 2019). "WIKISNEAKS Sir Keir Starmer's Wikipedia page edited to remove reference to being a 'millionaire' ahead of Labour leadership bid". The Sun (United Kingdom). Retrieved 19 December 2019. SIR Keir Starmer's Wikipedia page has been edited to remove a reference to him being a "millionaire" ahead of his bid to be Labour leader. The text was taken off the site early on Tuesday morning and was reportedly tracked back to an internet address in North London. Carly Read (19 December 2019). "Who doesn't want to be a millionaire? Labour leadership contender Keir Starmer in Wikipedia WAR over how rich he is: Claim is added then removed three times in two days". Daily Mail. Retrieved 22 December 2019. Sir Keir Starmer is at the centre of a 'Wikipedia-war' today as the word 'millionaire' was repeatedly removed from his official page. Alex Matthews (20 December 2019). "Labour's Keir Starmer embroiled in row after 'millionaire' reference on Wikipedia removed". Daily Express. Retrieved 22 December 2019. But he has already found himself embroiled in a scandal after a reference to him being a millionaire was added and removed from his Wikipedia page several times.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 30 to July 6, 2024 (2nd) July 7 to 13, 2024 (11th)

Hey guys, I've noticed that all the UK prime ministers do not have a order listed (e.g., 57th prime minister of the United Kingdom)? Is this a consensus thing that I am unaware of or is this just something no one has gotten around to doing. Canada has there PM's orders listed. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 05:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a recent prime minister given a number like this. It's just not really something that anyone does, as far as I can tell, so it wouldn't make much sense for us to start doing it here. If nothing else, the fact that it's not widely done would make it difficult to find sources in cases where the numbering is not clear. Pink Bee (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no, I wouldn't start with Starmer. If it were to be done, it would have to be done to all the former PM's as well. However, I wouldn't want to do that level of an edit without a consensus; I have no idea of a past discussion has taken place on this. In Canada it's pretty common to use the order when referring to PM's as it is with US presidents. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 00:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PMs are never ordered in the UK. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not clear who was the first PM, it' hard to count them. Canadians btw don't obsess about numbering PMs either. TFD (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Joe Biden was the 46th US president, do PMs in the UK also have an ordering system? If so, would it be appropriate to write "Keir Starmer is currently serving as the Nth Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"? MilaKuliž (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the UK has never had an ordering system. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thank you! MilaKuliž (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about these edits: [1] [2] [3].

Hi

, but it does not forbid the use of "though". I do not think the word is in any way persuasive when used in this sentence:

Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory at the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative Party governance, though with the smallest electoral vote share of any majority government since record-keeping began in 1830.

Without it, the sentence is potentially confusing, as it almost makes it sound like there is a link between the "landslide victory" and the "smallest electoral vote share":

Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory at the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative Party governance, with the smallest electoral vote share of any majority government since record-keeping began in 1830.

The word "though" makes clear the contrast between the party's electoral success and the record that it set for having a small vote share, not a large one (as one might expect to be the record set by a landslide victory). The sentence still makes sense without it, but I think it's less confusing with it.

If adding the word back in constitutes persuasive writing [4], then what is it trying to persuade the reader of? It can't be that the election win was insignificant, because the first half of the sentence directly contradicts that by calling it a "landslide".

Cheers. Pink Bee (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It portrays a false balance between their landslide victory and having the smallest vote share of a majority government. I don't see why we cannot remove "though" here? The prose still makes perfect sense, it just isn't arguing with the reader that they did this but they did that. The word "though" is absolutely persuasive, just as "but", "however", "despite", etc. would be in this context. Either way, I am concerned mentioning this here at all fails

WP:DUE alongside their election victory. MB2437 16:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

As it happens, in what I was going to write above I initially described it as an "(interesting, but arguably trivial) record" rather than just a "record". So we are perhaps agreed that it would be best to remove it anyway? Pink Bee (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it belongs in the body. MB2437 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it, and I see that it is already mentioned in the body: Keir Starmer § 2024 general election. Best, Pink Bee (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence doesnt fit in the foreign policy section as Trump endorsing Boris Johnson is not relevant to Starmer's foreign policy as prime minister. Neither Starmer or Johnson were PM at the time and Starmer wasn't even the opposition leader at the time. This sentence fits better on the sub article about Starmer's political views rather than here. 195.99.227.24 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed the paragraph but did not move it anywhere because it already exists at Political positions of Keir Starmer. Yue🌙 04:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]