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 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 sourcedmust 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 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.
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 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
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
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
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
Comment (bot-summoned) I'd not be inclined to support this for the following reasons: (1) The origin of the statement is not referenced; at the very least, the original interview needs to be available for verification. (2) The Yahoo News links do not work for me, so I cannot verify that source. (3) This BBC piece gives a detailed elaboration of Stamer's (and Labour's) position, which does not exactly accord with the text above. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Starmer's reply speaks of "biological women's spaces", not "women's spaces". Whatever one thinks of the qualifier, he has not answered Rowling's question directly; so I do not support the text. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Times, per the link above, says that Rowling asked Labour on X: "Do biological males with gender recognition certificates have the right to enter women-only spaces? It’s a simple yes/no question." They go on to say that Starmer answered: "No. They don’t have that right. They shouldn’t. That’s why I’ve always said biological women's spaces need to be protected."
The answer is equivocal, ambiguous. Is he affirming... "existing government guidance [that] allows for single-sex spaces, such as restrooms and changing rooms, to be restricted based on sex when deemed necessary."? ("Who is Britain’s new prime minister Keir Starmer and what's his LGBTQ+ rights record?" The Advocate) I think the sourcing indicates his position has shifted (ie more equivocal) over the years on the issue of trans rights in general (The Advocate, BBC, Pink News) but on the basis of current sourcing I do not think Wikipedia voice should be used to state Stamer uneqivocally believes "transwomen do not have the right to access women-only spaces". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not our job to analyse the answer, but we can allow readers to form their own interpretations by giving the question and answer in the voices of the questioner and the answerer. These get weight from the secondary sources that support them, and are clearly verifiable from the primary sources.
But the removed text was an analysis of the answer in Wikipedia voice and elided Starmer's qualified, full response. I don't in principle have any problem in including text on Starmer's changed position regarding trans rights, the sources clearly indicate he has moved from one of broad support to equivocal support. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Goldsztajn It doesnt say he "uneqivocally believes transwomen do not have the right to access women-only spaces". It said that he responded "No. They don't have that right. They shouldn't" in july 2024 when asked by jk rowling. A SocialistTrans Girl10:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do not restore Per Balancing aspects, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject." Based on the sources used, this story lacks weight for inclusion, considering the coverage Starmer has received on numerous stories, of which only the most significant belong.
Due to the scant coverage of Starmer's comment and the lack of context, we don't know what he actually meant. One editor suggested we add his quote and allow the reader to decide, but the reader requires context and preferrably the opinions of informed observers in order to make this call.
It may be that the story becomes significant, Starmer is asked to clarify his comments and political supporters and opponent weigh in. In that case it may be due for inclusion.
For background, the extreme right has recently become obsessed with what bathrooms transexuals are allowed to use and have little interest in getting their facts right. But the mainstream has mostly ignored the issue.
It seems that this is a well-sourced comment. I disagree that the topic is a minor aspect of the views of the Prime Minister of a nation, particularly a western-democracy where discussions about transgender topic are increasingly common, and yes, even in "mainstream" sources. In the past year, BBC has reported on issues regarding transgender individuals and bathrooms no less than seventy-six times. 151 times for The Guardian. Increased reports of anti-trans hate crimes (rose by 11% in 2023, pushing level to the highest they've been since 2012) have also brought the issue into increased political relevance.
All to say, this factual, and well-cited, short sentence on a world leader's position on a modern and pressing political issue is appropriate for this article. Jcgaylor (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Quote magnets add a lot of clutter in some political pages and in principle we should not cover every quote or opinion on an issue unless it has been picked up by enough sources. I am honestly asking if this quote has been picked up by more than two sources because that would help us understand if it is right for this page. If it is included we do not need like a dozen sources on the actual article page but I am asking for the sake of this talk page. Jorahm (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This sentence was recently added to the lead: Starmer has said the first budget under his premiership will be in October 2024 will be "painful", while promising "national renewal".
I genuinely don't think an out-of-context quote, mentioned only once in the article, is WP:DUE for the lead, especially as it doesn't tell much about what the budget plan will actually be. Furthermore, quotes and promises about future policies are usually not fit for an article lead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Upon further consideration, I understand where you are coming from and I'll remove it from the lede. Perhaps we could reach a consensus to include reference to the October budget in the lede once it has been presented, given the first budget under Starmer will signal the direction of his government. Please could others share their views? TheHandofFear (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This section is already ridiculously bloated at barely eighty days in. Also, I cannot see how "Acceptance of gifts" and "Resignation of Rosie Duffield" are part of Starmer's "domestic policy", unless I somehow missed that in the manifesto. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The categories "Labour Party prime ministers of the United Kingdom" and "21st century prime ministers of the United Kingdom" used to be on this article, but have now been removed. Why is this? 150.143.27.224 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect 2TK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 28 § 2TK until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)