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 Low-importance). Politics of the United Kingdom High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Ben Leach and Rebecca Lefort (10 July 2010). "MPs' scandals covered up on Wikipedia". Daily Telegraph.

I'm not convinced that the 'Controversies' section helps the article; it pulls anything arbitrarily considered 'controversial' (though only from his Speaker career - controversies from his MP career are in the Political Career section) out into a completely different section of the article from anything else he was doing at the time. I'd have thought it would be more sensible to put the article basically into chronological order and merge in the controversies when they happened, with appropriate headings.

Any objections? TSP (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CHill1045 and 62.178.67.134: Please, explain why Bercow's possible retiring would happen in the summer of 2018 instead of 2019. As I said in the reversion summary,

Reference was posted after the summer of 2018. Besides, it says: “His departure, in June or July, would coincide with his tenth year in office.” The election took place in 2009.

Until so, I'll be reverting these edits. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eduardogobi:

I'm not going to get into any wars over this. The thinking behind my original edit, however, was not that Bercow would retire in 2018 but that it had previously been his stated intention to retire in 2018. This is mentioned in the BBC News article you cite: "When he took the job in June 2009, Mr. Bercow said his intention was to quit by June of this year [2018], after nine years in the chair."

The story was covered in the papers last year, for example in The Times: "When Mr. Bercow stood for the speakership in 2009 he said he would serve for no longer than nine years, which elapses on June 22 [2018], next Friday."^[1] And Politics Home: "Speculation has been mounting in recent months over when Mr Bercow is due to stand down, having initially pledged to quit the role after nine years - a deadline which passes on 22 June [2018]."^[2]

Here's what he said to parliament in 2009: "Speaker Onslow was elected at 36 in 1728 and he stayed in situ for more than 30 years — not a danger in my case, given my commitment to serving no longer than nine years in total"^[3]

In light of all this, I'm not sure the paragraph makes sense in its current form - because, as I hope has been established, Bercow had originally said he would leave in the summer of 2018. CHill1045 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CHill1045 has shown comprehensively in his post above that Bercow said he intended to resign in 2018. It is possible, looking at what Eduardogobil said in his edit summary, that he misunderstood the reference in the BBC report to "this year". Though posted after the summer, i.e. in October, "this year" still refers to 2018. The paragraph is currently irrational as it suggests that "June or July 2019" is contradictory of the phrase "the summer of 2019". CHill111045 has totally made his case and I intend to edit accordingly.Aineireland (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am tagging this page because the lead is supposed to have four paragraphs at maximum. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, could you please DISCUSS the matter here, rather than just keep edit warring to force in your preferred version?
Bercow has made thousands of decisions in his role as speaker. We do not report each and every one of them, particularly in such detail as the edit you are trying to force in. By concentrating so much on this one point you add too much WP:WEIGHT to one small aspect of his biography.
You cannot complain that I have rolled back your edits with no explanation, "just acronyms with no meaning". They do have meaning, and you have to read the policies and guidelines to find out what we do and why we do it. WP:BRD tells you not to editbwar, but to discuss the issue if your edit is reverted, and WP:STATUS QUO says to leave the old version in place while it's being discussed. Given that, rather than edit war: please DISCUSS your proposed changes to gain a consensus, rather than just edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I pull out of that text something resembling a justification for rolling back a researched, concise and cited edit; it is that the subject is not deemed important enough to justify a paragraph? If that is your position, I'm struggling to understand how you've come to that conclusion given the magnitude and significance of the event in question. Hence why there's a cited link where the event is front page news in several national publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.194.98 (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

IP, not everything that you deem "important", nor everything for which a reliable source can be cited, belongs in an encyclopedic article. Come down off your high horse and make your case, if you can, for keeping the content. Lack of consensus can be reason enough here not to keep challenged content. Review the policies described at the links that Schrocat has provided you first, however, so that you'll understand what our policies are. General Ization ^Talk 01:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, please remember that this is Bercow’s biography, not the history of the Brexit saga. It may be an important point from one angle: it loses much of that importance from another angle. We don’t, for example, record how each MP has voted on each amendment, which is a similar parallel to this. - SchroCat (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I asked you to tell me why you persist in reverting my edits, you said the subject wasn't deemed important/notable enough. Now you appear to have changed your mind and the subject can be included in Wikipedia, I presume you have new reasons to prevent an accurate portrait of events being recorded. Please explain yourself and make your true motives clear as I suspect they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy.46.208.194.98 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, much of this is way too much for what is a biography of Bercow. This article is not a history of the parliamentary clusterfuck of Brexit votes, but a biography. It probably shouldn't be there at all (which is why I took it out yesterday), but if it is going to be in, then it has to be only a brief mention, rather than the bloated mess you seem to want to force in. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I would simply ask you, can you remember how many times the actions of the Speaker of the House made front page news and dominated the news and political agenda? Is it something which occurs often, infrequently or hardly ever? The answer is the latter.

John Bercow very much likes drawing attention to himself so there's much to cram into his Wikipedia page but this isn't just his typical attention seeking or playing the role of a Shakespearian villain. The repercussions of the actions in question continue to be felt today, they are not a brief aside and will be what he is most remembered for, like Tony Blair and the Iraq War despite many other notable events. 46.208.194.98 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your own personal opinion of Bercow is as meaningless as anyone else's (including mine). I doubt Bercow's role will be remembered much if Brexit goes through - it'll be largely forgotten. Again, this isn't an article on the history of Brexit, but Bercow's biography, and is supposed to be an encyclopaedic summary of his life, not a 500-page all-encompassing biography of every step he took and every decision he made. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" ... was rumoured to be likely to defect to the Labour Party." Unsourced(!) rumours(!!) in the lead section(!!!). Are we kidding? 188.218.87.79 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see, it's the BBC that's spreading rumours. Hahaha ... Great. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• John Bercow Speaker's Chair.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth para of the lead refers to Bercow serving "under" four Prime Ministers. Is that correct? I would not have thought he serves "under" them - though clearly his tenure has overlapped with four PMs. What is the correct wording to use? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's wrong. I can't think what the right wording would be. Anyone? MPS1992 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he’s served “with” them? Naihreloe (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was changed to "alongside..." last month. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to:

"In his youth, Bercow had been ranked Britain's No. 1 junior tennis player, but came down with bronchial asthma and was unable to pursue a professional career.[15][16]"

Citations do not appear to support this.

Citation [15] suggests that Bercow was "too wee to compete as an adult" and "would never have been more than a good club player..." This seems likely - Google lists Bercow's height as 1.68m which equates to approximately 5ft 6inches.

Citation [16] links to a private YouTube video.

There are various claims online that Bercow was "Britain's number one junior tennis player" but are there any official records to substantiate this?

As a novice Wikipedian, I am just getting to grips with the platform and reluctant to edit the article, therefore seeking guidance from those more experienced please.

Sierraechoromeo (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. I have some reservations about how this article is structured, it is highly fragmented; it's broken up into more sections than necessary - I think, at least, wondering what others feel. I drafted different restructured edits myself, but decided it's probably best to seek consensus as to how to approach it in the first place. The 'Political career' super-section: now, should it even be called that. The speakership is a part of his political career, no? How about Frontbench career? Conservative career? Anyway, consists of a lot of section that are only a few sentences. Would it be reasonable to absorb them into just three or four sections? The super-section on his speakership, I'm not even sure it should be first-term-second-term-third-term, or have these sub-sub-sections of a few paragraphs. Maybe it should be flatted into topical sections (Election, Brexit, etc). Just some thoughts, would be great if anyone has better ideas. Thanks. Derick1259 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have clear ideas on it, it's best you just go ahead and then see what people think. Hopefully we won't all decide your ideas are crazy and thus waste the work you do. From what you say, your ideas sound sensible to me. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe work on the changes in your sandbox (which you can find using the button at the top right) and we can comment on them there? Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the tips, will look into it. Derick1259 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of retirement in the article is said to be "due to claims of bullying not adressed by senior parliament officials" or something of the sort. After his retrirement now, not only is that shown to be untrue, but the article cited is not consistent with what is stated in the article^[1]. I would move to put this to a vote if at all possible for it may be a difference in opinion which has lead to this discrepency.

The article, says this: In October 2018, it was reported that Bercow intended to step down as Speaker in the summer of 2019, due to a report on the failure of high-level figures in Parliament to deal adequately with bullying of staff at Westminster and due to allegations of bullying made against him personally. Is this the sentence you are objecting to? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the one. Sorry for the late reply

The cited source does not state that his suggested retirement was "due to" the bullying allegations, so I've removed the claim. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

This blog [[4]] shows a depiction of Bercow's arms which includes the crest. Unfortunately there's still no blazon. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crest remains wrong despite ample access to a correct version. 00:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.119.86 (talk)

For the record - in case it is not clear - someone with appropriate skills is going to have to edit or redesign the SVG image of the crest that is presently in the article; one cannot directly lift an image from any those links, they are covered by copyright. The delay for a correct version is forgivable. JAYFAX (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't help but notice, the "Professor" part after "The Right Honourable" seems to be getting repeatedly added and removed. What is the reasoning behind those changes? It seems that the title would still be applicable unless circumstances have changed.

[Kristina B.] / Kristina0 05:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Professor" is an academic post not an honorific. Frank and Andrew ,for example, never had this added to their infoboxes. Bercow doesn't even need a trim. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that one addition, and one removal, not subsequently challenged, counts as an "edit war"! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we listing Prime Ministers in the info box on pages about Speakers? The PM is an unconnected office? Littlemonday (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. Infoboxes should be concise but these offices are connected by centuries of convention. Alex (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what convention links the Speaker of the Commons to the PM of the day? Littlemonday (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State opening, loyal address and prorogation to name a few. Alex (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we list the Monarch on speaker's pages. It would be more logical to list the Parliament's (in this case) as 54-55-56-57 but I understand that would look ugley in an info box, I genuenly don't see why we include the speaker here. The Speaker is neither appointed by or answerable to the Prime Minister. If they were there would be an argument to list speakers in PM's info boxes but no one is suggesting that. Littlemonday (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The initial question was of whether they are connected offices they are, regardless of who is accountable to who. Alex (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead" be included in the infobox?

In modern times, it's purely used as legal fiction and other MPs who have resigned in a Parliament, like Heidi Alexander and David Cameron, don't have it in their infoboxes.

FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Its inclusion is inoffensive but unnecessary and confusing. Alex (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done FollowTheTortoise (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been revealed police attended Bercow's house over a domestic incident and an allegation of common assault, having been called by his wife Sally. This happened in August of last year. This is a sort of an add-on to the bullying allegations, but I am not sure it is due: no charges were brought, no arrest. It has been picked up by The Times.[5] Would welcome some comments. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think per WP:NOTNEWS we should be including that sort of thing. It's very much a judgement call but given this was in August and only raised now, why the rush? WCM_email 14:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really worth mentioning? Less than 1300 ballots is a tiny fraction of the total. WP:TRIVIA, surely? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some random Facebook video. It is the official Channel 4 page that published the full speech and the only place it is available in full.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=772790906466283

"If a notable person, speaking about a subject within their professional expertise, uses youtube or facebook as their publication platform, then that is ok to cite." see also the policy for YouTube "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." @Martinevans123 @JMF Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources So source publishing about itself in effect. newsjunkie (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of WP:RSP? It has an entry for Facebook, which says this: "Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to add an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite Facebook as a source, and no consensus on whether Facebook citations should be automatically reverted with XLinkBot." Do you understand what that means? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what that means,but a) there is no consensus on automatically reverting as it says, and b) I believe the same policy as Youtube applies. "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability". This is a verified official account from Channel 4, which broadcast the content in question. newsjunkie (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, Instagram and Facebook." It is information about itself in that it is Channel 4 that broadcast the content in question and it is their official page. newsjunkie (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You understand what the pink background, and "Generally unreliable", and the symbol means, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement being cited is this:

• "Later that month, he delivered the Alternative Christmas message on Channel 4."

That truth of that statement is fully attested by The Guardian report. The talk itself is not a valid citation per WP:PRIMARY at least. The statement only merits being included because The Guardian considered it significant. It is entirely irrelevant (per WP:OR) whether you or I consider it significant. Without The Guardian citation, we could not include it, even with the Facebook URL. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we *do* have the Guardian citation that considers it significant, but it is not the full speech. So in addition to the Guardian citation, and since it is the official page with the full speech, it should be included, so it is clear for research purposes where to access it, the same as if it had been published by Channel 4 on their official channel on Youtube. newsjunkie (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be included? It looks like too much detail. I didn't cause a huge row, or was followed by some raging scandal, was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a cited article is about a speech and the full video is available in a separate place from the original broadcaster on one of its official channels, it should be included as a reference. newsjunkie (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the original broadcaster doesn't have it available, on one of its official channels, perhaps it no longer consider it very significant, and/or they're happy for people to make the effort to go and find it on Facebook or YouTube, or wherever? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It *Is* their official page on Facebook from when the day it was originally broadcast. so that's why i think it be should be included as an *additional* source to complement the reported article where the full video/speech is not available. newsjunkie (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say above that you believe "the same policy as Youtube applies". So is that Wiki policy, or just your personal belief? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the policy is that this is how the policy applies to social media sites including to Youtube, Twitter and Facebook: If it's an official verified account than it is reliable since through the official source. It's not some random account. It's the official Channel 4 broadcaster verified page which posted it there the same day it aired on television. If we would allow it from the Channel 4 page/channel on Youtube, we can allow it here. If it's the official page of the broadcaster, one is not more reliable than the other. newsjunkie (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Is that written down as policy somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is how I understand the guidelines for self-published content that applies to social media that I posted before in combination with what it says for Youtube and what it says for Twitter. ""Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." Channel 4 is a reliable source and this is their own page where they posted their video that is identical to what they aired on TV. This is NOT some random person who uploaded own copy of a video. This is Channel 4's verified page where they uploaded their own video that was broadcast on TV and that is the subject of the Guardian article. newsjunkie (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, so that's your understanding about what it says Youtube and for Twitter. So you think the same should apply to Facebook, as it's a similar social media platform? That's just your personal view? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance on self-published platforms explicitly also mentions Facebook. newsjunkie (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is my interpretation of all the various guidelines, in that all three are basically equally unreliable or reliable on their own, with verified accounts from reliable sources treated as reliable. newsjunkie (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original note on Facebook refers to the self-published media guidelines, which name Facebook together with the similar websites. On this page Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it also mentions Facebook along with other user-generated content sites, but it has an explicit sentence "For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below." This is an official account from an organization, in this case Channel 4, that i think meets all the guidelines. It is simply a source for itself in providing a verifiable copy of the original video as an additional resource. newsjunkie (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the same video posted by Channel 4 page on Twitter: https://x.com/Channel4/status/1209896085595885568 I'm fine using that as well, just so that it is clear that there a reference to the *full* video. For Twitter it explicitly says "In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way." In this case the account is confirmed. I'm perfectly fine using either, but my understanding of the policies is that either one would be appropriate because it is the official page and the content in question is cited by the guardian. newsjunkie (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be included as a reference because, as I already explained, it is not a citation. Full stop. The fact that it is on Facebook is incidental though it compounds the problem. It would be the same problem if you had tried to use the original C4 programme. Best you go read what a citation is: I have left a suggested source at your tak page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC) revised --23:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you what you left. That guideline included this line "If a notable person, speaking about a subject within their professional expertise, uses youtube or facebook as their publication platform, then that is ok to cite." That is what this is. This is Channel 4/Bercow using Facebook as one of their publication platforms in addition to what was broadcast on TV. And references are not about just about an explicit citation, but can also be about providing additional information/resources, in this case to a verified copy of the full original speech. "By citing sources for Wikipedia content you enable users to verify that the cited information is supported by reliable sources – improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; Wikipedia:Citing sources newsjunkie (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the topic of the "family cat" that you removed, the page for current speaker Lindsay Hoyle mentions "Hoyle has described himself as an animal lover and has a number of pets, which he has named after notable figures in British political history. Amongst them are his parrot Boris (after former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson), his tortoise Maggie (after Margaret Thatcher) and Attlee (Clement Attlee), his brown tabby Maine Coon cat." Lindsay Hoyle Isn't a cat called "Order" (named by Twitter poll) just as relevant? newsjunkie (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that video a WP:PRIMARY source? The main concern here seems to be that it just provides too much detail for this article. This article is about Bercow, not the Channel 4 Alternative Christmas message, where the video itself is also not linked. (Also, I think any discussion about Lindsay Hoyle's cat belongs at Talk:Lindsay Hoyle, not here.) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it provides too much detail as just another second reference in addition to the Guardian article if guidelines for citations say "You also help users find additional information on the subject." We already have a Guardian article as a secondary source discussing the speech, but it is not the full speech and not in video format, so it is helpful for a reader to point to a verified link showing the full comments Bercow made for research purposes. This is only about adding a second citation/ reference to the full speech, not adding any additional other text.

(I had also added information about Bercow's cat that was removed, so I was just pointing out that Hoyle's page already had similar information about his pets and their names). newsjunkie (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And just because the speeches aren't linked on the Alternative Christmas Message page now, doesn't mean they shouldn't be added by somebody at some point to the extent they are available. This is a very straightforward primary source from a reliable source that adds context to the secondary source of the reported article. newsjunkie (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Bercow's cat needs any mention. I don't think a direct link to his Christmas message is needed - I'm sure people who really want to "research" that will be able to find it elsewhere very easily. Not sure I can add much more to this discussion and I don't see the point of just repeating the same points over and over. So happy to see any other editors' suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we assist people with research if possible if we can point to a verifiable copy of the video easily? And if Lindsay Hoyle's cats (and their names) are mentioned, why not Bercow's? newsjunkie (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no full ban on using primary sources. I'm not adding any additional analysis beyond what is attributed to the secondary source, it's only about adding a verifiable reference to the full speech newsjunkie (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page gives guidelines on "video links" and uses at the bottom an example a link to "opening testimony" from Anthony Fauci before the U.S. Senate. This is basically the same thing in that it is a link to a full video of remarks. (not a secondary source): Wikipedia:Video links newsjunkie (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way here is more breakdown of when Facebook, Youtube, Twitter links are acceptable: Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites

Facebook: As a reliable source: Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)

Twitter: As a reliable source: Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter's "Verified Account" mechanism currently identifies both notable figures and Twitter Blue subscribers, with some accounts also labeled as "Official"; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages. An alternative for people known for their Twitter presence is to use reliable third-party sources for their Twitter handle. It can also help to listen to interviews with the article subject, especially podcasts, as subjects often "plug" their Twitter accounts at the beginning and/or end of such audio recordings.

Youtube:

• As a reliable source: Sometimes. If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable.

newsjunkie (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. WP:BLUD. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You had asked the question specifically about Facebook before and the breakdown/explanation I posted above was what I was looking for but didn't refind until later. newsjunkie (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Facebook page is not "The official page of the subject..." If anywhere, that link might belong at Alternative Christmas message. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it is an official post by the network, and I would say in this situation it functions as his official communication since it is his message that he is conveying via Channel 4. Like newsjunkie (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is incidental (though you have misread it: what it is saying that the assessment of a subject expert is citeable, even if they used FB or X to publish it – it doesn't have to be a book). The same issue would arise if you could find the video on the C4 website: it is not a valid citation. Let's try a completely different example: take the statement Australia uses amber diamond traffic warning signs. A link to photo showing an amber diamond road sign with a kangaroo icon on it, would not be valid as a citation, because it is you who is making the judgement of the significance of the image. OTH, an RS that used exactly the same picture would be valid, because it is they who are making the judgement. To come back to the question of helping someone find the video, it is legitimate to give a link to it as a footnote (via {{efn}}), which is the mechanism we use for asides. Or put in in external links. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the guidelines for citations also say they can be for providing additional information, isn't that the case here? https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources And the Guardian article has already established the significance, so this is just providing the same information in context. The guidelines for video links warn in the context of references about "material in a video only available on YouTube <that> includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources." But this case it DOES provide content that also referenced in other reliable sources (and provides more detail). Wikipedia:Video links And their own example for a citation on that guidance is of a similar situation: A link to full testimony of Anthony Fauci testifying in the Senate that presumably is a primary source for his full remarks without analysis. That is the same case here. And the guidance for Youtube in some cases warns about cases of video providing less information than other sources, but in this case it provides more. Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube newsjunkie (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Guardian that is making a judgement of significance with its article, but including a reference to a the full speech is actually making less of a judgement because it's not about highlighting any particular part, but it does put what the Guardian cited and chose to highlight in context. newsjunkie (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, the link to the photo might notbe appropriate on its own, but depending on the source (like a government website of traffic signs) it might be appropriate in combination with another reference like an article about those traffic signs. (Maybe the article includes a photo of a new version of the sign, and the government website includes an old version or vice versa, or multiple additional valid signs). It's in addition to the existing source not instead of. newsjunkie (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even though the Guardian only quotes parts of it, they obviously were writing about the entire speech as significant, or they wouldn't have covered it at all. Just because they themselves didn't embed the full video themselves doesn't mean they didn't see the entire speech as significant. So the Guardian already made that judgement and the added reference just supports it. newsjunkie (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And isn't it always preferable to incorporate external information into the text if there is a reference point whenever possible? newsjunkie (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to discuss the content of the Guardian article. Let me repeat the fundamental principle of citations:

The statement being cited is this:

• "Later that month, he delivered the Alternative Christmas message on Channel 4."

That truth of that statement is fully attested by The Guardian report. The talk itself is not a valid citation per WP:PRIMARY at least.

This is getting silly now. You clearly don't understand what a citation is. Come back when you have educated yourself. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the guidelines on citations "explicitly say" that they can also point readers to "additional information" going beyond just the plain citation: Wikipedia:Citing sources . And there is no blanket ban on primary sources either. newsjunkie (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thee restriction on primary sources warns against doing your own analysis. I am not doing that - it is simply an additional source in combination with The Guardian article. Primary sources can be used in some cases if they are straightforward and reliable and you are not doing your own analysis. newsjunkie (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the link you posted: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." That is what this is. It is supporting the fact of the speech in addition to The Guardian article. There is no further analysis being done so how does it go against the primary source policy? newsjunkie (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "fully attested" by the Guardian because the Guardian does not include the full video or transcript. An extra reference provides extra "independent" evidence of what was said. newsjunkie (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's easily possible to imagine somebody with a political persuasion who might doubt the Guardian's interpretation. With another reference available with the full speech, they could access another source on what was said. newsjunkie (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"And isn't it always preferable to incorporate external information into the text if there is a reference point whenever possible? No. See WP:Summary style. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by this in Wikipedia:External links "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." newsjunkie (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could do that in a very specific context. Suppose Bercow had used that broadcast to criticise an aspect of Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice. That would be in his area of expertise so you could cite as evidence of that criticism, attributing it to him. It would be valid citation in that case, which is why WP:EL invites you to use in such cases. It has no relevancy to this case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cite a particular thing he said (so was not exercising any judgement) but his expertise isn't limited to parliamentary procedure, whether one agrees or disagrees, he is obviously knowledgeable about politics and was speaking in that broader context about politics, nothing he said was *outside* his expertise. (like he would be if he was talking indepth about medicine or automobiles). It's a primary source providing further evidence of the speech and what he said, going beyond what is the Guardian. If the guidelines for citation say one can include things that point to further information and primary source citation is also allowed as I outlined above for clear factual statements, I don't see how this reference is not permissable. If I was writing an academic paper touching on the speech I would certainly cite an additional source that included the full speech in addition to the Guardian article with the understanding that it is always better to cite more than to cite too little. newsjunkie (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article for Bercow is not "an academic paper." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that is the context where rules about citation originate from and @JMF had shared a link on my page about citation in general (not from Wikipedia) newsjunkie (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link he shared was from Yale about academic writing. newsjunkie (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a consensus not to include. Your continued, extensive, arguments, including quite a lot of repetition, in support of inclusion, may persuade other editors. But they have not yet appeared to be persuaded. I fear that, if you continue, you may be sanctioned for WP:IDHT Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a message about this at the WP:BLP Noticeboard (and the only thing I know about John Bercow is that he was a contestant on the The Traitors). On one hand, providing a link to the full video is convenient for readers who want to view it without having to search for the video themselves. On the other hand, Wikipedia typically doesn't include links like that in citations. For example, you rarely (if ever) see something like: "Musician was featured in another musician's music video."<ref>[link to official music video]</ref>. If editors are objecting to the inclusion of the link to the video, then it would be best to exclude it. The only difference is that readers will have to search for the video themselves if they want to watch his Alternative Christmas Message (which can easily be found by searching on YouTube). Some1 (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This particular one is actually not on Youtube, only newer ones are posted there, it's only on the official Facebook/Twitter social media accounts of the British channel 4 where this speech was broadcast (and does not come up that easily on Google for whatever reason). newsjunkie (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or specifically, there's no official/authorized copy on Youtube. Compare Google search results: https://www.google.com/search?q=bercow+2019+%22alternative+christmas+message%22&num=10 https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+fry++2023++%22alternative+christmas+message%22 newsjunkie (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And a song might be a slightly different situation as a creative work and might have its own entry if it's prominent enough with a link somewhere. newsjunkie (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Channel 4's own page listing its speeches, 2020 (deepfake Queen) and 2019 (Bercow) are missing (deepfake Queen is on Youtube), the later ones are available there and also on Youtube as is 2018, but for the verifiability of what was said in the 2019 speech, the only source is Channel 4's social media accounts.https://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message And as the guidelines for primary sources say "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere." newsjunkie (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]