Talk:Michael Portillo

Incorrect reversion

I may be missing something obvious, but can I ask why you made this revert [1] at Michael Portillo? The IP's edits just converted redirects to direct wikilinks, and I couldn't see anything wrong with them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; apologies, I was asleep at the wheel. I have re-reverted.--Smerus (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Annington Homes

@Smerus: Can I ask you to elaborate on your somewhat gnomic edit summary here? I'd argue that generally the parties in any transaction are relevant to a discussion of that transaction; that something is sold often doesn't mean much without specifying to whom it was sold. In this case the "to whom" is the focus of the extensive coverage in reliable sources that exists, and, as I argued in my own edit summary, linking to the Annington Homes article, which contains more extensive discussion of the matter, provides a useful service to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Arms & Hearts. There is no cited evidence that Portillo was "a party to this transaction". He was Sec of State at the time but we do not know what (if any) was his involvement in this matter. The event itself is arguably of encyclopedic interest, and as you say is covered in the article Annington Homes. But it would be WP:UNDUE to go into it in any detail in the present article unless you have cites that show Portillo was in some way involved in it.--Smerus (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies for the delay in getting back to you Smerus. I'm a bit puzzled by your reply – if I didn't think there was a clear connection to Portillo then I'd conclude that the content didn't belong in the article at all, rather than taking exception to that specific link. But to answer your question, there's a multitude of reliable sources making the connection clear:

  • The Guardian, 25 April 2017 (cited in the article) quotes notes to Portillo about the deal by civil servants
  • The Guardian, 27 January 2022 (also cited in the article) says "In 1996, under the defence secretary Michael Portillo, the Conservative government sold 57,400 houses used by military service men and women and their families to Annington Homes"
  • The Times, 30 January 2022 mentions "a portfolio of 57,400 military properties sold off by then-defence secretary Michael Portillo in 1996."
  • The Times, 11 February 2022 has "Michael Portillo, the defence secretary, pressed ahead, signing off a £1.6 billion sale and leaseback agreement with Annington"
  • FT, 27 January 2022 says "The deal was struck by the then defence secretary, Michael Portillo"; echoed in FT, 2 February 2022, which tells us "the 1996 agreement [was] struck by then defence secretary Michael Portillo"

  This list could probably be a lot longer; there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt that Portillo was directly involved. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Absence of 'reason to doubt' on the part of one editor is not quite the same as proof. (Indeed it is borderline WP:OR). The 2017 citation mentions that someone sent Portillo a note that an unnamed person wanted to have a conversation with him. I cannot see that this proves anything. The 2022 Guardian quote confirms that the deal was done while he was Defence Secretary. I don't have access to the other quotes. It is debatable whether the language they use means that he was personally motivated to advance the deal or whether he signed off on the advice he received. 'Direct involvement' has a suggestion of initiation or advancement, rather than passive signing of paperwork. There does not seem to be any suggestion that Portillo acted against advice at the time. You should bear WP:BLP in mind. In my opinion, to note this episode as part of Portillo's record is correct, but to go into it in detail in this article is WP:UNDUE. I should be interested in comments of other editors.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I take the view that either the link should be included to provide minimal context or the whole sentence should be removed.I really can't see any reason for including it in its current form. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Absence of doubt is indeed not proof; attestation in six reliable sources published over five years is pretty good going though. Whether he was personally motivated to advance the deal or whether he signed off on the advice he received doesn't strike me as at all relevant; nor does the possibility that Portillo acted against advice at the time, which as far as I'm aware no one but you has raised. But this is getting away from my primary point above: why, if you have doubts about the relevance of the content to the article, does that lead you to conclude that the material belongs in the article but on the proviso three words and one link are removed? That's what I continue to be baffled by. (If you want I can send you the contents of the Times and FT articles, or could point you to a handy browser extension...) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It may not strike you as relevant whether or not Portillo was personally motivated, but you are up here against the rules of Wikipedia. WP is not your personal blog. You can't under WP:BLP use material that is unsourced. You also have to ensure that material is relevant and not WP:UNDUE for an article. The citations you present seem either ambiguous on the level of MP's personal involvment, or irrelevant. If you had concrete and citeable third-party evidence that MP was personally motivated, you might want to include such comment and citation in the article, although WP advises that potentially libellous material should not be included. If he was not motivated, then any detail is undoubtedly WP:UNDUE - not least because it carries superficially some implication that he was. --Smerus (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll give this one more go: why, if you have doubts about the relevance of the content to the article, does that lead you to conclude that the material belongs in the article but on the proviso three words and one link are removed? Having an RfC over those three words feels like overkill, but that's where we're heading if you continue to refuse to answer simple questions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Your allegation that "I refuse to answer simple questions" is extremely unpleasant to me and contrary to WP:AGF. I don't particularly feel this matter belongs in the article. It is about something which happened on Portillo's watch (as did countless other things during his tenure); but he does not seem to have been personally involved in proposing or driving it. None of the citations you mention suggest this; and, once again, I refer you to WP:BLP. My conclusion is that this affair is very tenuously part of Portillo's story and therefore it could be held to merit mention in the article. On those grounds I have not sought to remove it. The only other editor commenting in this thread appears to share my opinion. It is of course up to you whether you take this to RfC. There seems little point in continuing the present thread.--Smerus (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

My order of preference here is (1) complete removal followed by (2) inclusion with the link; the current (3) inclusion without the link strikes me as just silly. So I'm going to boldly remove the whole thing for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies again for the delay. I appreciate the clarification that you no longer think the material belongs in the article – a certain amount of confusion could, I think, have been avoided if you'd made that clear to begin with and/or edited to that effect, but that's by the by. I'll open the RfC in a moment. As I'm only able to edit intermittently at the moment, I'll add that if anyone has anyone issues with the wording of the statement they should feel free to make any changes themselves. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The RfC below has expired without any particularly clear consensus. I think it would be worth restarting it for another month. Does anyone have any objections or other thoughts? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be closed as no consensus - which means leave the article as it is. As it has been publicised on the aprpopriate project pages, it is clear that anyone who wants to say anything has done so.--Smerus (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You'll want to request a closure then. I suppose we could give it another 24 hours either way to see if anyone else weighs in here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

24hrs is fine by me Smerus (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that means that we simply leave the article as-is. It means we continue with WP:BRD, which would then be to either continue discussion or cycle with another bold edit. Reliable sources mention this in the context of Portillo as a significant part of his tenure in office, so I think we would have to see a justifiable reason for going against what reliable sources say. BeReasonabl (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks BeReasonabl. What do you think about restarting the RfC for another month? Pinging participants Jonathan A Jones, Pincrete, Levelledout and Darwin Naz as well in the hopes they can help us arrive at a consensus on how to arrive at a consensus (!). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

My first take is that there is no consensus to be had here, and the question is how one proceeds in the absence of consensus. And my second take is that I don't think this question is as important as the amount of time so far devoted to it suggests. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a fine take to have, but if the question is so unimportant and it's included in reliable sources, then I'd think the preference would be to include the information, not to exclude it. BeReasonabl (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Ministry of Defence housing sale

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this RfC, editors discussed whether or not the 1996 sale of the Ministry of Defence's housing stock should be mentioned in this article.

Editors opposed to including the information primarily based their arguments through application of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, saying that on balance sources do not mention Portillo's involvement in the sale, drawing attention to a a 2017 Guardian Long Read.

Editors in favour of including disagreed with that argument, drawing attention to five reliable sources (one published in 1996, four in 2022) that do directly link Portillo's involvement in the sale.

Overall, there were more editors in favour of including the sale than opposed to it. However consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and not as a result of a vote. Through that lens, and on balance of the sources provided weighed against the arguments, editors achieved a rough consensus that the information should be included per option C.

- Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Should this article discuss the 1996 sale of the Ministry of Defence's housing stock, and if so, in what form?

• Option A: the article shouldn't mention the sale.
• Option B: the article should mention the sale without specifying to whom the homes were sold, as in this edit.
• Option C: the article should mention the sale and specify that the homes were sold to Annington Homes, as in this edit.

– Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option C (second choice B): The fact that Portillo was directly involved in the sale of MoD housing is supported by multiple reliable sources (linked above) published over the course of several years. The sources are clear that he oversaw, enacted and took responsibility for the policy. This is the principle of individual ministerial responsibility, but it’s also the common-sense conclusion that anyone would arrive at from a disinterested reading of the sources. The arguments made above for not including this material, which ask us to disregard these unimpeachably reliable sources as ambiguous on the level of [Portillo]’s personal involvment [sic], or irrelevant, are very far from convincing. The claims in the sources are, on the contrary, both entirely unambiguous and abundantly clear on Portillo’s involvement: the Financial Times, for example, bluntly tells us that "The deal was struck by the then defence secretary, Michael Portillo", and this is one of many making broadly the same assertion. That numerous high-quality reliable sources reported on that involvement 20+ years after the fact also attests very strongly to its relevance to this article. Finally, if the sale is discussed in the article it’s useful to the reader to include a link to Annington Homes, because describing a sale without specifying the buyer unnecessarily leaves out useful information, and the linked article contains more detail on the subject which may be of interest to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option A (second choice B). It is not at all evident to me that "the sources are clear that [Portillo] oversaw, enacted and took responsibility for the policy." Nor, for that matter, does it seem to me that the opinions or insinuations of journalists must be automatically be held to be "unimpeachable". Of course Portillo must take responsibility as the minister who signed off the decision, as he must for every decision he signed off during his tenure. In that sense, the "deal was struck by him" - but that does not mean that it was his idea or proposal, or that he took particular steps to drive it. We have no reason or evidence to suppose that he was not simply acting on the advice of his civil servants - which in Britain is the way in which most ministerial 'decisions' are taken; nor do we have any evidence that his civil servants were opposed to, or advised against, this decision, for that matter. The decision was certainly in retrospect a bad one - but we have no evidence to suggest that it was a consequence of Portillo himself. I am therefore not of the opinion that it serves any purpose to cover it in detail in the article. As regards the "numerous high-quality reliable sources report[ing] on that [imo supposed] involvement 20+ years after the fact" - the original Guardian article of 2017 which analyzes the deal in detail does not even mention Portillo's name. To give this topic prominence in the article on Portillo by covering it in detail is imo WP:UNDUE, has more than a suggestion WP:COATRACKing, and would be against the policies of WP:BLP, in suggesting or implying an action or initiative on the part of the subject which is not reliably (or even unreliably) evidenced. I edited Arms & Hearts's original edit as per his Option B above, leaving one of the newspaper references as a citation. Another editor subsequently removed the entire topic (Option A). I think there is a marginal argument for Option B, but I am not unhappy with Option A. I think option C is quite inappropriate for the reasons I give above.--Smerus (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option A (second choice C). I do not think the information belongs in the article, by the arguments of Smerus. But if we do incude it then it seems frankly bizarre not to enable the reader to gain relevant context by reading the slightly more detailed treatment at Annington Homes as suggested by Arms & Hearts. Either the information belongs here or it doesn't. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option A (second choice C) I'm not overfond of either Portillo or of "selling off the family silver", in general … BUT sources don't seem to draw attention to Portillo's involvement, merely mention in passing, so I agree with Smerus that this is probably UNDUE and borderline COATRACK. I also agree with Jonathan A Jones, that if there is going to be mention at all, then include the link to the property company, but really this isn't sufficiently important to be on this 'biog' article. Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option B (second choice C) It would seem to me that the sale of such a large amount of public housing stock being overseen by his ministry, is relevant enough to him and his career, to be included. I don't see how the buyer is relevant to the subject of the article. At least not without some sort of non-commercial link between the buyer and seller, which there doesn't seem to be any suggestion of. Levelledout (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option C (second choice B): I agree with the first point raised by Levelledout. However, the buyer is relevant in my opinion due to the impact of the sale. As the source cited, it made Annington the largest owner of residential property in England and Wales. It provides context to the adverse consequences of the sale to the military and taxpayers. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per Darwin Naz. This seems to be a not-insignificant part of his career in the ministry, backed up by WP:RS, which say things such as, sold off by then-defence secretary Michael Portillo [2] or the man who approved the sale-and-leaseback [3]. The reliable sources seem to be of the view that whether or not he was acting on the advice of his civil servants seems to be irrelevant, because he was the one who is ultimately responsible. Further, to mention that it was sold without to whom it was sold seems both incongruous and unexplanatory. BeReasonabl (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option C Although reasonably insignificant in Portillo's overall career, multiple RS specify Portillo's involvement in the sale [4] [5] [6] [7]. I agree with others above that, if included, it's important that the full context is given. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox consensus (another discussion)

I've read the infobox proposal section that led to the current consensus for the infobox, however I'm still a little confused why this was proposed in the first place. He was an MP for 13 years, served on high profile cabinet positions such as Defence Sec. of State and Chief Treasury Sec. He is clearly a notable politician, much more than George Stephanopoulos, Joe Scarborough and Jerry Springer (who's political offices are noted in their infoboxes *not hidden*). If Springer's one year stint as Cincinnati mayor, Scarborough's six year tenure as U.S. Rep or Stephanopoulos 3 year tenured offices at the White House can be noted on their infoboxes, why can't Portillo's much longer MP tenure or other political posts be noted on the infobox (not hidden). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• There is no cause to be confused. MP's political offices are not 'hidden' as you suggest, you just have to click on the links in the infobox. Anyone who wants to see them can very simply do so. As regards your other examples: Jerry Springer's political offices in his infobox take up 4 lines; Joe Scarborough's take up 3; George Stephanopoulos lists only his political offices, not his other career(s): they don't seem very helpful or relevant in the circumstances. To list all the political offices of MP would make the infobox enormously long, clunky and confusing - exactly the things that proponents of infoboxes say they are intended to avoid. The present set-up has a consensus - you offer no reason to start again.--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Observation

I’m pretty sure this bloke paid someone to write his Wikipedia article. Isn’t that illegal? Cheers Greg von Bock's illegitimate son (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I very much doubt that - he is (or was until recently) on non-political tv a lot, & has many fans and anti-fans. See in the history how many have edited the article. Illegal, no (are you an Elon Musk follower?). Against Wikipedia rules, more or less. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)