Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg

Missing children

His children are missing from the article, which is an unusual omission for a Wikipedia biographical article.

Perhaps someone could add them. Their names are:

1) Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius,

2) Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan,

3) Peter Theodore Alphege,

4) Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam,

5) Mary Anne Charlotte Emma,

6) Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher.

See [1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40506109 81.154.4.27 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

They are deliberately not named in the article, see WP:BLPNAME. This wouldn't add significant value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the latter point. Those names will be a big enough burden for the brood to bear throughout their lives, without even more people finding them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.78.33 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You say that the children are "deliberately not named in the article", referring to WP:BLPNAME, and that naming them "wouldn't add significant value". Can you explain why it is different for Truss' predecessor as PM, Boris Johnson, whose children are named?

The names of Johnson's children are given in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Relationships) as

1) Lara Lettice,

2) Milo Arthur,

3) Cassia Peaches,

4) Theodore Apollo,

5) Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas,

6) Romy Iris Charlotte.

This is trying to make WP:OTHERCONTENT into a reason for having the names in this article. In line with WP:BLPNAME, it isn't necessary to name children if they are not notable in their own right.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Using your justification, please could you explain why the following children of notable politicians are named?

- David Cameron (Ivan Reginald Ian (deceased), Nancy Gwen, Florence Rose Endellion, Arthur Elwen)

- Gordon Brown (John Macaulay, James Fraser)

- Tony Blair (Euan, Nicholas, Kathryn, Leo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.4.27 (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We could play this game all day long, but the fact is that WP:BLPNAME discourages including the names of children if they are not independently notable. As it says, "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Jacob Rees-Mogg is notable because of his career as a politician, his children aren't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. You haven't addressed the question of selective and inconsistent application of the policy that you quoted at all. It's not clear that you even recognised it. I might have misjudged your efforts and you might be on a mission, even now, to apply the same policy elsewhere. Perhaps you have started by removing the names of the children of Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair... Surely you wouldn't show an 'editorial' bias such as would be implicit in only applying the policy to one particular politician, would you? 81.154.4.27 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd never really given it much thought until it was raised in this thread. We've both had our say on this, so there needs to be input from other editors to get a WP:CONSENSUS on whether the names of the children are notable enough for inclusion. Personally I think they aren't, but that's just me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that the names of his children aren’t notable, and have removed them from the mother-in-law article. KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This example of editorial inconsistency is hilarious: the article on Mogg's father lists his children in great detail, including the subject of this article. One might surmise that the father is unashamed of his children's names and the supporter of the omission of the subject of this article's children is somewhat embarrassed by the, ahem, 'quirky' choice of names which does, to be fair support the subject's pseudo-self-gentrification striving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.135 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

GB News

Rees-Mogg regularly presents a show, each evening Monday-Thursday, between 8pm and 9pm: [2], where he generally spouts his provocative and reactionary twaddle on a wide range of controversial subjects: [3]. I think this should be added. Possibly also needs a mention in the lead section. Thanks. 86.170.226.56 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like someone's butthurt 2.127.10.155 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Currently the article doesn't even say he works for them. Some people might even see that as a second job? "If anyone deserves to make £802 an hour, then surely it’s this multimillionaire Tory." 86.187.230.148 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Misleading point in "Social Issues"

This article describes, and I quote, him "directly profits from the sales of abortion pills through investments made by his investment company Somerset Capital Management". This is misleading as the very next line introduces the fact of the matter which is that these pills are not for abortions. I propose, as I cannot edit this, that this is rewritten to say "He directly profits from the sales of stomach ulcer pills used, in some places, as improvised abortifacients through investments made by his investment company Somerset Capital Management". The context added is better than nothing, but the current phrasing could lead people to believe something that isn't true. 2.127.10.155 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

BroomJH could you explain why you deleted this, with no explanation:

"He directly profits from the sales of abortion pills through investments made by his investment company Somerset Capital Management."

In the meantime, perhaps another editor could restore it? Thanks. 86.187.175.85 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this particularly encyclopedic content or noteworthy? Its inclusion appears to be solely to make a point about the subject. Given that the pills in question were used to treat stomach ulcers but were being used to trigger abortions seems largely unrelated to Rees-Mogg. — Czello ^(music) 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Rees-Mogg may indeed not have been directly involved, but I would suggest the entire incident deserves mention, because of the widespread reporting by the media and because of Rees-Mogg's previous very controversial comments on abortion e.g. describing it as "a death cult". The article from The Independent, used as the source, seems perfectly fair and well balanced. Maybe that text needs to be amended, and it should certainly not appear to be made in wiki-voice, but it should not simply be removed without any discussion. I might suggest something like this:

"In November 2022 he was accused of hypocrisy when it was revealed that Somerset Capital Management had invested £5m in the Indonesian company Kalbe Farma which manufactures medication to treat stomach ulcers that has also been used to trigger abortions." Thanks. 86.187.175.85 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I did read the article, which is why I replied. It strikes me as a storm in a teacup. He has investments in a company that produces stomach ulcer pills which can induce an abortion. Us including it just because of his own views on abortion smacks of a "gotchya". — Czello ^(music) 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: Evening Standard, Catholic Herald, Bristol Post, Daily Mail, Somerset Live, The Guardian, Metro, LBC, Elle. So quite wide coverage. Seems notable. 86.187.175.109 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes - sorry for not leaving an explanation. It seemed a superfluous and rather opinionated comment, since the truth of the matter (i.e., that a company he has interests in sells pills for stomach ulcers which some people use to induce abortion) is covered in the next sentence. As Czello says, it does rather smack of a "gotchya". The matter is certainly worth mention, but in a more balanced tone, such as you have suggested. I'll leave it to another editor to make the final decision! BroomJH (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Has the knighthood been bestowed by the King yet? 84.64.20.120 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Interfering with Partygate probe

The BBC reports "Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg accused of interfering with Partygate probe". Sir Jacob calling the Privileges Committee "a political committee against Boris Johnson" on GB News. This should be added. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

On 22 March "Rees-Mogg told Radio 4 the committee 'makes kangaroo courts look respectable'": [4]. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)