Select Page

Talk:Keir Starmer

Wording in lead

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

Hi Mb2437. I am aware of WP:EDITORIAL, 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]

"When Donald Trump backed Boris Johnson for the Conservative leadership"

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]

"While initially indicating support for transgender identities in 2022, Starmer has since indicated on multiple occasions that the definition of a woman only includes "biological women", a term that has been criticized by multiple advocacy groups for its transphobic connotations."

Is this necessary for lead inclusion? Find another current world leader article with transgender views in the lead like this. This would fit better in the lead for the article about his views rather than this article about the man. 195.99.227.83 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead in general is quite bloated. Yue🌙 03:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no it is not necessary, but wikipedia's official policy is that "trans women" are "women" which is not true, but even then i'm not sure if it's neccecery considering that the trans community always bangs the drum against anyone who goes against that mantra 80.46.119.108 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case we can all agree that this sentence is undue for lead inclusion, especially on this article about Starmer; the man. On the lead for the article about his views, it would be better served there rather than here. This sentence was added by a user without any talk page consensus, but the reactions here now say it all; this sentence has been unanimously agreed to be not necessary for lead inclusion. Starmer is not widely known for his transgender views in the same way J. K. Rowling is, thus his views on the matter (as is the case with his views about anything else) are better served in the lead of the article about his views instead of here. --195.99.227.83 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
exactly 80.46.119.108 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, this bias sentence has since been removed. --87.114.4.246 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should America be included in the lead?

On one hand, I feel it might be notable enough to mention his diplomacy/relations with America (specifically the current admin) in the lead, but on the other hand there's already been numerous discussions over the lead, and the general concensus has been that it's already too long. Additionally, this page shouldn't come off as America-centric. GrandDuchyConti (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"has also called for [Calls for a ceasefire during the Gaza war|an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip]] since February 2024"

This sentence contains a broken link. It should be "has also called for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip since February 2024". 87.114.4.246 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The return of the sausages

Noteworthy gaffe at the last Labour conference, but would it warrant inclusion here? I'm not sure on that one. 87.114.4.246 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]