Talk:Neil Kinnock

Untitled

Re. Neil Kinnock. Was he already Transport Commissioner when he was first convicted of exceeding the speed limit on a British Motorway? What was the date of his first conviction and what was the fine?

I've cut the section which gives details of the wrongdoings of other members of the Commission, and then says that NK was completely innocent (in which case there's no need to bring it up in the first place). Markalexander100 04:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Inserted headings, but the details around the mid-eighties still seem jumbled. Philip Cross c22:11 (GMT)

Shame there isn't a photo. Could someone who's experienced with the copyright annoyances and setting up a nice image box do this? http://europa.eu.int/comm/mediatheque/photo/commprodi/kinnock/kinnock_1_h.jpg is reasonable, here is copyright info: http://europa.eu.int/comm/avservices/copyright_en.htm --- don't know if this could be made to work. Perhaps an earlier picture would be more appropriate anyway.

The age Neil Kinnock joined the Labour Party

According to Robert Harris, 'The Making of Neil Kinnock' (Faber and Faber, 1984) at page 32, referring to a family friend called Bill Harry: "Kinnock first met him when he was fifteen .. Kinnock remembers him as the man who first persuaded him to join the Labour Party". Inconceivable then that he could have joined at 14. David | Talk 22:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am starting to think you are doing this on purpose David. Inconceivable? I have a handwritten letter from Neil Kinnock himself confirming that he joined the Labour Party at the age of 14. The letter is dated 1984, it is in Neil Kinnock's handwriting, entirely written and signed by him. Will you accept this as evidence, or must you see something 'in the press'?

If by 'in the press' you mean publicly available, then yes we must. A private letter, which has never been published, contradicts published sources and only ever seen by you (and possibly Neil Kinnock if he did indeed write it) isnt a valid source for a factual encyclopedia. Iain 13:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've also checked the more recent Martin Westlake biography which states that Kinnock joined the Labour Party as soon as he was able to. That's "as soon as", not "before". David | Talk 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding of the licence that those photos are perfectly OK for WP use. I may be wrong. If I am, revert me. Ben-w 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty

According to Proteus and Dbiv, Neil Kinnock is not Lord of Bedwellty. According to them, the BBC is wrong in referring to mr. Kinnock that way. Are the British Council and Cardiff University wrong as well? In other words: what do they base their certainty, that Neil Kinnock is not Lord of Bedwellty, on? Would they be so kind as to share that with the rest of the Wikipedia community?

Crown Office

House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW

28 January 2005

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 28 January 2005 to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon the Right Honourable Neil Gordon Kinnock by the name, style and title of BARON KINNOCK, of Bedwellty in the County of Gwent.

There you go. (Yes, the British Council and Cardiff University are also wrong. And he's "Lord Kinnock", not "Mr Kinnock".) Proteus (Talk) 21:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As a Dutchman, I have no experience with the British peerage system.

So I hope you will pardon my ignorance on this. I have two questions:

1. Is there a vital difference between Lord and Mr?
2. According to your (highly relevant) source, Lord Kinnock will become

(or has become, rather) Baron Kinnock, of Bedwellty in the County of

Gwenty. Doesn't that make him Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty, or is that a

too liberal interpretation? Aecis 08:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to the first question, he's a peer below the rank of duke, so should referred to as "Lord Title" (in this case "Baron Kinnock", so the reference is "Lord Kinnock"). "Mr" is only used for men who have no higher title (or who have very low titles such as "The Honourable" which are not used in speech). As to the second question, this problem comes up a lot here, so I've just created an article which I hope will explain it: territorial designation. In this case the title is "Baron Kinnock" and the territorial designation (a feudal relic which is not part of the actual title) is "of Bedwellty in the County of Gwent". If he were "Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty", the "of Bedwellty" bit would be in capitals and before the comma in the announcment in the London Gazette I quoted above. Proteus (Talk) 09:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. I stand corrected. Aecis 09:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should the caption to the photo therefore be "Baron Kinnock" rather than "The Right Hon"? He was Rt Hon when leader of the opposition, but I'd have thought the article should use his current title. Anyone know? TrulyBlue (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier biographical information?

Aside from the talk page's rather impassioned discussion of when Kinnock joined the Labour Party, there seems to be little information here on Kinnock's life before entering parliament at age 28. Anyone want to contribute? Ferg2k 05:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Could also do with some detail of what he did in the 1974-9 parliament. Did he decline junior office? Wasn't he Michael Foot's PPS at one stage? Didn't somebody (?Foot) call him "The worst PPS in history"?

We're not all right?

Does the article underestimate Kinnock's personal responsiblity for Labour's 1992 defeat? Surely the disasterous Sheffield rally's pivotal moment wasn't so much the general "triumphalism" but Kinnock's almost jaw-dropping personal rock star vanity ("We're all right!"). Kinnock may like to claim that Labour looked like losing the election before the rally, but I wonder if that's wishful thinking on his part.

I can think of only two other moments in recent years when a politician's prospects have so publicly reversed in mere seconds: Ceausescu in front of the Bucharest crowd just before the December 89 revolution and Howard Dean's unfortunate "...send him back to Crawford, Texas" rant in 2004. Ferg2k 05:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Kinnock and Devolution

Nothing here about how Kinnock was against Welsh devolution in 1977, sabotaging the process and setting it back 20 years, which in turn led to the fall of the Labour government. Not being an expert on the subject of Kinnock, i do know he was rather instrumental in the 'No' campaign of '77, though this is not reflected in this article. GarethRhys 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a little on it. I am no expert either, so I took all the facts either from the Wales referendum, 1979 article or from the BBC. There's a couple of recent(ish) interviews with him where he still expresses doubt about the Assembly, in a "well, we have it now, so we'd better make the most of it" way, but I couldn't see an appropriate place to mention those. I don't know how closely connected the no vote was with the 1979 election results (by comparison with, eg, "winter of discontent", general swing to the right in several countries) so I omitted that. Telsa (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes needed

for numerous things. - Kittybrewster 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear disarmament

I would dispute the claim that the British people favoured nuclear weapons. I don't think that that there was majority for Trident nor do I accept that most British people favoured Cruise missles. I think Kinnock just abandoned his principles on this like on everything else. SmokeyTheCat 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Cruise but I've never seen an opinion poll which showed majority support for unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain but I have seen polls which showed majority support for Britain's nuclear deterrent. The reason Kinnock "abandoned his principles" was because they were unpopular and in order to have a chance of winning a general election he needed to adopt more popular policies.--Johnbull 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If we accept that the majority of Britons didn't want Cruise missles how did Kinnock abandoning his principles to accept them make him more electable?SmokeyTheCat 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about policies over a whole range of areas, not just defence. I guess by the end of the 80s when the Labour policy review was operating Cruise wasn't as big an issue as it was earlier in the decade.--Johnbull 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Kinnock is one of the most famous faces of modern British politics. How can his photo be missing?!

Geelin 03:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neil kinnock.jpg

Image:Neil kinnock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Self??

Why mention Will Self? When Kinnock accepted the peerage most of the population must have thought him a hypocrite considering his well known past stance on the issue. So why mention Will Self as though his opinion is somehow of mega signifcance? (Goldmanuk (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

It's a Wikipedia thing. Your, or my, opinion may be that it was a disgrace for Kinnock to have been ennobled, after all he'd said. But, our opinion would simply be WP:POV, and could not be accepted on the article. However, if a newspaper, or some other publication quoted one of us as saying how hypocritical it was that Kinnock should accept a peerage and you could never trust the man again etc, then it could be quoted, and cited with a source. Will Self was quoted in a publication, and so it is perfectly legitimate for his opinion to appear in the article. The answer is, Goldmanuk: become famous, have journalists quote you, then anyone can cite your opinions in Wikipedia articles (if they're interesting enough). Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Biden plagiarism section

Please, let us have some sense of balance and proportion about this. Of course, this episode is important and needs to be covered here, but the length of the section (about 5600 bytes in a 28000 bytes article) is certainly too long and covered well out proportion compared to other aspects of Kinnock's life and career. Right now it is certainly a substantial WP:UNDUE/WP:BALANCE problem. In particular, I don't think that all the long quotations given in the section are really necessary. Also, the correct spelling is "plagiarism", not "plagierism". Nsk92 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to cut it. All of it if you like. I thought it was interesting, after I saw an edit cut from the lead for not being referenced. It's ok if you disagree. I also thought it was a good way to introduce what was probably his best speech into the article. I've corrected the typos. I don't think anyone would have objected had you done that yourself, and would have taken less bytes than pointing it out on this page. Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the incident was notable in the context of Joe Biden's career but barely rises above trivia in the context of Kinnock's own life. LeContexte (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The speech itself, however, is notable in the context of Kinnock's own life/career. Daicaregos (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinnock's speech? Of course! Biden's speech? Not so much... LeContexte (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Daicaregos (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, given recent events, that we should revisit and expand this section, and add to it the friendship that subsequently developed between Kinnock and Biden. -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 18:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Rt Hon as well as PC?

Is it right to put PC after his name when he is already Rt Hon? Don't they mean the same thing, i.e. member of the Privy Council, or have I got that wrong? Alarics (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Most or all peers are "Rt. Hon." by virtue of their peerage anyway, so peers in the Privy Council add "PC" after their name to clarify they are. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Extreme views

I have reinstated the phrase [He] 'held extreme views on Wales'. Replacing [He] 'dismissed the idea of a Welsh identity'. As Kinnock self identifies as Welsh, it follows that he must believe in the idea of Welsh identity. His views were described as extreme by Gwynfor Evans, the highly respected Welsh politician. In the forward to his book 'The Fight for Welsh Freedom' (published in 2000), Evans noted that 'Today few, even among the most extreme of British nationalists, would venture to insult the national memory of Wales as coursely as that.' with reference to Kinnock's (Wales has no history) statement. Does anyone think it should be attributed? Daicaregos (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

'Ergo' and 'it follows' are clear signs of original research. Find a source that says explicitly that he held extreme views on Wales and if the source qualifies as RS, it can be used. But no interpretation of sources or comments, please. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide your source for the statement that he 'dismissed the idea of a Welsh identity'. Daicaregos (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no sign of a source that says explicitly that he 'dismissed the idea of a Welsh identity'. Does one exist, or is it original research/complete fiction? Daicaregos (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

British

I've changed "Welsh politician" to British because of course whilst Kinnock is undoubtedly Welsh, he was Leader of the Opposition in the British (UK) parliament, and never a member of the Weslh Assembly. To give a parallel, William Hague, although undoubtedly English, is described, correctly, as a British politician, not an English one. Ausseagull (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back per WP:UKNATIONALS. As you say "Kinnock is undoubtedly Welsh". To give a parallel, Jacques Delors has been President of the European Commission twice and he is described, correctly, as a French economist and politician, and the current President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek is described, correctly, as a Polish engineer, academic lecturer and politician. Any changes noting Kinnock's nationality will need to gain consensus here first. Daicaregos (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'll start changing British politicians to "English" ,if that applies, starting with Wm Hague.

I presume you're not claiming that English=British=English? In Aus they certainly think that, eg "St George is the patron saint of Britain". And, best of all, I was told, "Lloyd George was Welsh, but had to become English to join the English parliament." Ausseagull (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What has Australian ignorance got to do with editing Wikipedia? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not much, but I've come across a Welsh poster who referred to the British invading Wales in the seventh century. So don't assume it's only the Aussies who are ignorant.

I've noticed that Michael Howard is referred to as a "British" politician, so I've changed it to Welsh. Or perhaps he isn't Welsh enough for you guys?Ausseagull (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't assume that Australians were ignorant until you pointed it out. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll know my views on this topic. Therefore, I won't repeat them. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say in this case British again would be the more appropriate term to use however its certainly debatable unlike in the case of Howard who without doubt should be described as British. When it comes to political figures i would rather British be used for UK parliament MPs, and Welsh / Scottish used for those in the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament. I think that would make more sense, but i wont change Kinnocks back to British. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Although i would say comparisons with the French man is completely off topic. People should not be called "Europeans" in their intro no matter how pro europe they are. Any person with a British passport should be considered British by default. Then other matters should be taken into account about what they are most known for, if they are separatists and what sources describe them as. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it really nessasary for a specific sub-group of WikiProject:Wales members to always make these kind of crankish national attacks on the colonial cousins? Last week it was Dai saying "North Americans are ignorant", this week its Jongleur100 with "Aussies are ignorant". Somebody needs to teach them the concept of decorum. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the conversation carefullly you will see that it was not I who introduced the concept of ignorant Aussies, but Ausseagull himself. I merely asked what that had to do with the subject in question. I then went on to say I did NOT assume that Aussies were ignorant. I have never been rude and aggressive and I think an apology is in order for the suggestion that I am. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 09:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've been given a rap over the knuckles in my own discussion slot too. Having surfed around wiki a bit, it's quite clear that the whole "English/Scottish/Welsh cf British" issue is very confused and subjective, and being rude or aggressive won't solve the problem. Ausseagull (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. See my response to Yorkshirian. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 15:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinnock is clearly Welsh, Howard British, Haig probalby British --Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and how do you come to that conclusion? And why is William Hague "probably British" and not English? And when I changed Lord Howe of Aberavon's nationality from English to Welsh, someone changed it back. More interesting still is that Leo Abse, a Welsh Jew like Michael Howard, is referred to as Welsh (as are his brothers), but George Thomas, Lord Tonypandy, as British. It's all a bit silly, of course, because all the above are/were Welsh and British, except William Hague who is English and British. Ausseagull (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the references from Dai. A lot depends on how they self-idenitfy or are described/perceived. Lloyd George for example, the first and so far only welsh prime-minister is welsh. If you know south wales it would be no surprise to find that George Thomas described himself as British (plus royalist and a few other terms). Hague is interesting as talks of England but his wife is Welsh. Its a matter of deciding case by case. In this case its Welsh. --Snowded ^TALK 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd George? But he's described as a "British statesman". Looks as if you ought to edit that entry, Snowded. But perhaps if Neil Kinnock had become PM, he'd have become British. But then he is British, isn't he? Ausseagull (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And who decides? And what about Lord Howe; and Leo Abse? And does being "royalist" make you British? And who is allowed to be called English not British? And what about people who identify as both?Ausseagull (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus decides. If you want to make such broad changes to a wide number of articles you need to get a broad consensus first, perhaps through the creation and adoption of a new policy or a debate at the Village Pump. If you want to change individual articles without a new policy/convention then you should follow current practices and get a localised consensus for each article. Road Wizard (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Labour reference in the intro

The article says that "Kinnock is seen as the last leader to preside over 'Old Labour' before his successor John Smith began the party's transition to a more moderate ideological direction". In many ways it could be argued that Kinnock, not Smith, began that transition, particularly in the confrontation with Derek Hatton and Militant.

This view is supported by the Labour Party (UK) page, which states that "'New Labour' was first termed as an alternative branding for the Labour Party, dating from a conference slogan first used by the Labour Party in 1994, which was later seen in a draft manifesto published by the party in 1996, called New Labour, New Life For Britain. It was a continuation of the trend that had begun under the leadership of Neil Kinnock." [My italics].

Any views on amending the wording of the intro slightly to reflect Kinnock's role in that transition? Peteinterpol (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Resignation?

Didn't Kinnock resign as a PPS or some such over policy during the Callaghan government? There's little here on what he did in the 1970s. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncited historic references to "Private eye" and "Spitting image" "satire" in BLPs.

I removed satirical material from this article following getting my knuckles rapped by Jimbo Wales for not removing similar material from Roy Hattersley's article. I put a question on WP:IRS with answers as below so please form your own opinion. JRPG (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize if this edit seemed like a "knuckles rap". I was just editing, man. I wasn't even critical of you! :) More comments below.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley have been the subject of "satire" which a reasonable person would find offensive but are well remembered in the UK from the 1980s. In Hattersley's case, I amended the article to show it was unfair but Jimbo Wales's edit .."unreferenced so per WP:BLP I am removing it for now", something I hadn't considered. In Kinnock's case, I've removed the uncited Private Eye reference to "Welsh windbag" on the same grounds. It might also now be deemed racist. Any thoughts or policy guidance appreciated. JRPG (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember the 'Spitting Image' satire well, and don't think that many saw it as that offensive. Kinnock and Hattersley were no more badly treated than Thatcher, and the way the vegetables cabinet were portrayed was if anything worse. Good honest knockabout comedy, in the tradition of political cartoons, or even of William Hogarth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These are notable portrayals of the politicians. We need to ensure that they are not given too much weight and that Wikipedia doesn't endorse the portrayals, and then the readers can make up their own minds what they think. There may be statements by the politicians themselves of how they considered these portrayals, and those should be included. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hattersley has regularly commented on his portrayal in Spitting Image, generally joking that he was the hero because his was the only image that actually spat. The expression "Welsh windbag" has a long pedigree predating Kinnock. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My view is that negative satirical material can be included in biographies, but there should be (at least) a few factors considered. First, the material should be cited - so that people can check for themselves whether it was actually said. Second, the material should be notable, and I don't think notability can be established solely by some of us remembering it - we need (as in this case) the subject themselves "regularly" commenting on it, or the portrayal being remarks upon by other reliable sources. And finally, per Itsmejudith, "We need to ensure that they are not given too much weight" - an editorial judgment call.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a useful clarification and I'm not at all offended. Re Wikipedia, I deeply regret it wasn't available when I was a kid and equally regret that I didn't invent such a truly brilliant concept. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Longest serving opposition leader

Surely this deserves some qualification? Lord Derby served as leader of the opposition for all but three years of the period from 1846 to 1866, so something like seventeen years. Atlee was opposition leader for slightly longer as well, though again totaling time for three separate occasions - over four and a half years before the war, two months after the end of the wartime coalition, and four years after the 1951 defeat. I assume two things are true - that Kinnock has the longest consecutive service as Leader of the Opposition, and that Kinnock has the longest service of anyone who never became prime minister. This ought to be clarified. john k (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neil Kinnock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130527221151/http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/kinnock-challenges-tories-to-call-election-1.548889 to http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/kinnock-challenges-tories-to-call-election-1.548889

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neil Kinnock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010722/ai_n14535294/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ffrf.org/day/?day=28&month=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206144303/http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/26842/reid-should-not-stand-in-browns-way.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/26842/reid-should-not-stand-in-browns-way.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Kinnock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927045158/http://www.ippr.org/staff-profiles/58/637/neil-kinnock to http://www.ippr.org/staff-profiles/58/637/neil-kinnock

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo

I intend to seek consensus on replacing the current infobox photo with one of Kinnock's official portraits in the European Commission. This would make Kinnock's article more consistent with other political articles, which typically use an official portrait for the infobox if one is available. There's two that I'm thinking of: Option A is Kinnock's official portrait from 1999 and Option B is his official portrait from 1994. Option C is the current infobox image. Not only are Option A and B official portraits, but they are also in colour unlike Option C. Personally, I'm in favour of Option B, as although it is older (usually the most recent official portrait is used) and of a smaller size than Option A, he is looking directly at the camera and has a more neutral facial expression. It also looks more professional than Option A and C. Feel free to add more options.

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C

ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)