Talk:Home Secretary

Old discussions

What the hell does it mean to say that the Lord Chancellor is unelected? All British cabinet ministers are unelected... john 08:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He hasn't been elected as an MP (he's a hereditary peer IIRC.)

Well, I guess. But historically, most Lord Chancellors have been MPs when they are made Lord Chancellor. Then they are granted a peerage. Just about every Lord Chancellor, save Lord Bathurst, who inherited his title after he ceased to be Lord Chancellor, has been a peer of first creation (well, the 2nd Lord Hailsham is weird, because he renounced his hereditary peerage and then was granted a life peerage in order to become Lord Chancellor). At any rate, it's utterly insane to say that the office is bad because its holder is unelected. Whether or not someone is elected as an MP, I don't see what that has to do with the selection process for ministers, who are all chosen by the PM, at this point (and officially chosen by the Queen). At any rate, this is an issue from two months ago, so no real need to do anything about it - I already corrected the article. john 00:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

annointment of bishops

Should this be anointment or appointment? I don't think Church of England bishops are normally an(n)ointed! rossb 16:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bishops are annointed, it's part of their investiture ceremony Gymnophoria (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move to Home Secretary

• Support Common name jguk 23:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• support. I know we don't always use common names for offices, but this one's formal name is only used in really formal documents issued by the government. Pretty much every link to it will want to use "Home Secretary" as the link text, it would be easier this way. Morwen - Talk 23:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - agreed. violet/riga (t) 23:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, though the formalism sits well with me. ;-) James F. (talk) 09:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Even the Home Office website calls Clarke "Home Secretary". The official title is too obscure as the ministry is now called the "Home Office" not the "Home Department". Timrollpickering 09:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, standard usage. Berek 12:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - "common names" rule. --rbrwr^± 13:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Gareth Hughes 15:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support rossb 16:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support john k 16:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) (should we combine Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Foreign Secretary? Of course, even Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is already not unique, since the French had one in the 18th century, and foreign secretary might apply to German State Secretaries for Foreign Affairs of the late 19th/early 20th centuries)
  • Both "Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs" and even "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" are often still used in common discourse and a lot lists that aim to use the formal title (whereas this post is often formalised to "Secretary of State for Home Affairs"). But I'd agree with merging the pages in - the formal merger isn't that major a landmark in the history of the position and a continuous list from Fox to Straw is more useful. Timrollpickering 19:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Should we put the whole list at Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and simply explain that it used to be just the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? That would pave the way for turning Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs into a disambiguation page, which it probably should be...although we'd need to change a lot of links to do that, I think. john k 20:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---Discussion---

• I am a bit cautious about this move. The title Home Secretary may well be used by cabinet ministers of other countries, particularly Commonwealth countries. Therefore, even the present title might show limited geographic bias. Gareth Hughes 00:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the term is used elsewhere. Can you cite an example? jguk 09:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statistics from the top 200 of a Google search[1], using www.google.com/nsr to reduce bias towards Britain:

• • 180 (90%) refer to the British minister.
  • 7 refer to counterpart ministers outside Britain.
  • 4 use the phrase "Shadow Home Secretary".
  • 1 refers to the "home secretary of the National Academy of Sciences".
  • 8 (4 in the top 10) talk about secretaries working from home.

Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it looks like the UK is the only country to have a Cabinet minister titled Home Secretary: I'll add my name to support. Gareth Hughes 15:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

as a matter of interest, what countries did the 7 ministers outside Britain represent? rossb 16:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

India, France, Nepal, either Pakistan or Pakistani Punjab, also in Pakistan, Czech Republic, and Indian Punjab. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

France doesn't have a minister actually called the Home Secretary. They have a Minister of the Interior. So, I would imagine, does the Czech Republic. I am uncertain about Nepal, India, and Pakistan. john k 20:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over N. Ireland?

Is not Northern Irish law also separate from English law? Does the Home Secretary have jurisdiction there too? --Jfruh 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Social policy

The section on social issues needs changing - social exclusion has never sat with the Home Office, and voluntary sector and race policy has now moved. I'll look to change this as soon as I can. Greycap 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving this out again

The page's been moved here and has been comfortable for over a year. But all things change, WP grows, and the time has come to recognise that while no other country has a cabinet-rank internal affairs minister who calls himself the home secretary, several other countries have very prominent officials who are known as the home secretary. People should prepare themselves for a change to this page in the near future. Hornplease 06:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Home Secretary" is, I think, a primary usage for the British cabinet member. john k 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Separation of justice issues from home secretary

Is this really that unusual? The Home Secretary is like a continental interior minister, not a justice minister, and most continental countries have a separate justice minister who deals with such things. john k 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JohnSimon.JPG

The image Image:JohnSimon.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Lord Henry Petty.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong dates

The terms of office had Kenneth Clarke and Kenneth Baker as Home Secretary at the same time, and David Waddington and Douglas Hurd overlapping by several months. I have corrected these. If anyone finds any more, please check against the ref I added. Richard75 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was unanimous support for move now and unanimous support for move in 2005. This is essentially a revert of an undiscussed page move that was against consensus (and the relevant guideline) when done, though it likely the mover was not aware of prior discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Home Secretary"

This was proposed back in 2005, but it seems to have been moved back despite positive concensus for the initial move. "Home Secretary" is much more commonly used, and Home Secretary already redirects here. "Secretary of State for the Home Department" is a pretty ugly formulation. YeshuaDavid (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

To answer Septentrionalis, there was a minor debate before on this page about other countries using the "Home Secretary" title, but given the redirect already exists I don't think that's a major issue. The "interior ministry" page only designates Britain as having a Home Secretary by that title. Many countries such as France designate their counterpart as an "interior minister", or some such similar title.YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, "Home Secretary" much more common YeshuaDavid (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support; the only question is whether other countries have "Home Secretaries"; probably not, from the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

Secretary of State for the Home Department → Home Secretary — This page was moved without warning a couple of days ago by User:Jimmi Hugh to "Secretary of State for the Home Department", despite two consecutive move requests, in 2005 and in May this year, that have seen universal support from other editors. I would like this article to be moved back to "Home Secretary", and for it to recieve move protection. I have posted a comment on Jimmi Hugh's talkpage, although he received a 24hr block from something unrelated to this page shortly after making the move, and it looks like it has only just expired. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've started a thread at ANI asking for this to be speedy closed as too close to the previous discussion as I suspect this would be if it was an AfD or similar. Obviously the result of the previous discussion would then stand and this would be moved back to Home Secretary. Dpmuk (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree with move, Support it being returned to Home Secretary. The naming conventions are very clear - WP:COMMONNAME says that when titling an article one should "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article". "Home Secretary" is certainly by far more commonly used and known than Secretary of State for the Home Department. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  I've now returned it to Home Secretary with the summary "Both consensus and WP:COMMONNAME are clear ("title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article"). Consider this the Revert stage of the WP:BRD process". Obviously it explains itself. Consensus is clear on the matter, and the initial move was made against that consensus. Ironholds (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

stub

This tells you little about the office and should be treated as a stub. The list of home-secretaries belongs on a page of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Home Secretary. 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/20130808012131/http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/elmr/minister.nsf to http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/elmr/minister.nsf

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} 23:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Style

I've noticed someone has edited the style for all cabinet ministers and added "Mr/Madam Secretary" - this sounds terribly American so I will change this within the week unless a source is provided to support this style of address.

Loobeloo (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've worked for many years in the Home Office and other Government departments as well. Secretaries of State are never referred to as Mr or Madam Secretary. In speech or writing she would be addressed as Home Secretary. Source: http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/professions/government-and-civil-service/ministers-hm-government . The Right Honourable is a personal honorific for a Privy Counsellor, and may be acquired before becoming a cabinet member and retained after leaving office. The style is not associated with the ministerial position. So both need removing. 2A02:C7F:A60D:8D00:419F:2465:B71C:F7A2 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Globalization

I've placed a {{Globalize/UK}} template on the article, because the UK isn't the only country in the world with an office known as "Home Secretary". Bangladesh, India, and Australia, at the least, have government officials with that title. Largoplazo (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose moving this page to Home Secretary (United Kingdom), and then converting this to a disambiguation page with links pointing there as well as to new redirects for Home Secretary (India), etc., each leading to the appropriate section of the article on the respective country's counterpart to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Largoplazo (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose in English the British Home Secretary would be the common name and none of the others have an article named "Home Secretary (foo)" so I dont see any reason to move this one. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A topic doesn't have to have an article if it's discussed somewhere here and if it's a legitimate target for an ambiguous term. It's a fact that Wikipedia explains at least four different Home Secretary offices. We help users find information whether or not a whole article is devoted to it. If there's consensus that for Wikipedia users, the British Home Secretary is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then I can see not moving this one and, instead, putting an "other uses" hatnote at the top that points to a disambiguation page. But I'm a little doubtful that such a consensus would be achieved, as there's no reason why the UK Home Secretary would be any more the "regular" one than any of the others. Largoplazo (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with you adding a disambiguation page link to Home Secretary (disambiguation) to the top of this article but as none of the other articles are named "Home Secretary (foo)" you would have to check that dab page rules allow this. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to check the rules. I started this discussion knowing full well that the rules encourage and discuss the preferred approaches to this. :-) See MOS:DABSECTION. Largoplazo (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Home Secretary. 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/20081122101358/http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1371.asp to http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1371.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417204845/http://www.ukpol.co.uk/mediawiki/index.php?title=List_of_Home_Secretaries to http://www.ukpol.co.uk/mediawiki/index.php?title=List_of_Home_Secretaries

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) 23:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• William Bridgeman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• J R Clynes.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Baron Butler.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Robert Carr2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• David Maxwell Fyfe.jpg
• Donaldsomervell.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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

• David Maxwell Fyfe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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

• Robert Carr2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Secretary of State's Official Title

I made edits on each article for the Secretary of States for the Home Department to change it to that name as it said 'Home Secretary'. I have found that all my edits were reverted because 'the official name isn't usually used'. I don't believe that the Foreign Secretary is usually referred to as 'Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' yet that's what it is called on the Wikipedia page. Will someone please back me in changing the name to 'Secretary of State for the Home Department'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanofpolitics (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please look above at the section Talk:Home Secretary#Move to "Home Secretary" above. It is very clear that there has been strong support and consensus for the term "Home Secretary". Dormskirk (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep; doubts about this article’s name are clearly a recurring thing, but the main guideline is "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used"; and in this case consensus (again clearly) always favours following the guideline. – 00:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

PS (meant to say these the first time!):

a) Thanks for coming to the Talk page rather than re-reverting / edit-warring. And for asking explicitly about support. It’d be good if more people did it your way! I think of myself as basically a newbie, and I’m always rather uncomfortable tht WP:BRD lays the onus to go to the Talk page on the 'victim' - the contributor whose work has been cancelled - rather than on the reverter.

b) re Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: yes, the setup there is inconsistent with this article, and with the guideline. Do you want to raise the question on that Talk page? There was a brief discussion there in 2009, but the guideline went unmentioned, except by a contributor who had missed the closure. 2009 is long ago enough to reopen. Generally, consistency between articles seems to be considered a weak argument, on Wikipedia - perhaps because guidelines are seen as emergent, reflecting established practice after it has become established. But (for that reason?), once a guideline is in place it seems to be a strong argument. And to me, the complicated pattern of the history of the Foreign Secretary post (Colonial Secretaries etc etc) suggests to me tht the term in current common use, Foreign Secretary, needs to be the reader’s starting-point there and should be the article name.

– SquisherDa (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Reginald Maudling.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there too much focus on current Home Secretary as opposed to the office?

I am not sure the paragraph in the opening section relaying current Home Secretary Priti Patel's significance as the 4th female/2nd BAME Home Sec is appropriate, nor the section outlining her stance on the 'Black Lives Matter' protests. The paragraphs would seem to paint a the latter comments in a positive/neutral light when they were not uncontroversial and would benefit from further contextualisation in a more appropriate space, namely the biographical entry for Priti Patel. This article is about the office, not the individual currently holding it who has her own Wikipedia entry - These extra biographical details were not provided when Sajid Javid held the office, for example, which merely stated that he was the current Home Secretary and had held the office since 2018 with a link to his personal biographical entry. 92.232.192.53 (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed that, suggesting that the Patel article would be a more appropriate location for the material. EddieHugh (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of lede

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, references to titles are not capitalized except in very particular circumstances, such as before a name. User:DuncanHill apparently feels strongly that an exception should be made for this article, because in "the article title, Secretary is capitalised." Of course, in every article about an office, the article title is headline-style capped, while references to the office in the text of the article, including the lede sentence, are lowercase unless they meet the very particular exceptions in MOS:JOBTITLES. Unless User:DuncanHill can think of a reason why this article is different from all the other articles about offices, there is no reason to make an exception in this particular case, and the MOS rule should be enforced.

Interested users are welcome to peruse my edit history or User:Eyer's for instances of the appropriate application of MOS:JOBTITLES in article ledes and elsewhere.

Wallnot (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Just following up on this. If any interested editors could chime in, I'd appreciate it. The consensus process is impossible if interested parties refuse to participate in discussion at all, much less in good faith.

That said, under the terms of the Manual of Style, there is no requirement that an editor seek consensus on an individual article's talk page before applying an MOS rule. In fact, the opposite is true: the editor seeking an exception is required to obtain consensus on an individual article's talk page (see MOS:VAR). Indeed, requiring an editor to seek consensus before applying an MOS rule would make the entire MOS project rather pointless.

Regardless of who is responsible for seeking consensus, there is no reason to make such an exception here. DuncanHill contends that my attempt to lowercase the title in the lede sentence of this article is an unforeseen "obnoxious result" of an otherwise applicable MOS rule. This is, of course, false; this is a pretty basic application of a longstanding MOS rule. Though users who are unfamiliar with conventions of style often mistakenly uppercase titles in the lede sentence of articles about particular offices, the rule is that these are lowercase—DuncanHill's contention that. Many editors, myself included, devote our time to applying this rule and correcting misconceptions about it. There's no reason to make an exception to this rule in this one particular article about a title; i.e., there is nothing about "home secretary" that justifies its being uppercase while, say, "United States secretary of state" is lowercase.

If DuncanHill or others with to change this rule, they are welcome to seek consensus on the MOS's talk page (again, see MOS:VAR, "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or—if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself—at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style."

Note also that I am not proposing to change the title of this article. Convention on Wikipedia is that the titles of articles about offices are headline-capitalized, while the references to those offices in the lede sentence of an article are sentence-style capitalized. DuncanHill's observation, "I don't know if you've seen the article title, Secretary is capitalised," is therefore irrelevant.

Thanks in advance for contributing to this discussion. Wallnot (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style concerning the capitalisation of UK political offices. If you're interested, you can find it here. I think that this is an interesting issue to discuss, because it seems that a lot of people feel very strongly about it and it seems to come up all the time. For my part, I've put forward three reasons why MOS:JOBTITLES should be changed, at least for UK political offices. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Following up here to link to the discussion FollowTheTortoise started at the MOS talk page, which did not result in a consensus for changing MOS:JOBTITLES. You can find the complete discussion here.

To summarize everything that has been discussed here and there: editors seeking an exception to an MOS rule are required under MOS:VAR to establish a consensus for that exception on an individual article's talk page, or else by seeking consensus for a change to the rule itself at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. However, the conclusion of the discussion FollowTheTortoise initiated showed a strong consensus in favor of continuing to apply MOS:JOBTITLES to articles about UK political offices. If any editor still wishes to change how the lede of this particular article is capitalized, they should try to obtain consensus for that change on this page. As the rule currently stands, however, the lede will not be capitalized.

Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wallnot. I am by no means an expert in styling documents, so I appreciate you directing me to MOS:JOBTITLES. However, I stand by my belief that "home secretary" should be "Home Secretary". Regarding the comparison with "United States secretary of state", I would say that should be capitalised: "United State Secretary of State". Ditto for "Home Secretary". The fact that Wikipedia, Oxford, Chicago, etc. have a particular convention for capitalisation is irrelevant if that doesn't accurately reflect the English language. Given the fact that every edition I can see of this page used the styling "Home Secretary" until 30 January 2021 (perhaps I'm wrong), I think it's clear that capitalising the title is normal practice. As for MOS:JOBTITLES generally, and I will add this there at some point, I think they should always be capitalised, whether "Home Secretary", "United States Secretary of State", or "King of France". GibbNotGibbs (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I second Wallnot's points. We have a centralized consensus, recently confirmed, on the matter of style at hand here. I have not seen any compelling reasons to stray from MOS:JOBTITLES. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Government bodies habitually capitalize titles. Academics habitually do not. Wikipedia chooses to go with the latter, presumably because it is supposed to reflect academic sources more than government bulletins. For British English usage in particular, see the Oxford Style Guide, which says that job titles should not be capitalized. Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@GibbNotGibbs: You’re entitled to that belief, but unless you obtain consensus for it at the MOS’s talk page, it will remain lowercase Wallnot (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I respect your opinion Wallnot, but in this case it doesn't seem sensible. The Home Secretary is always referred to in capital letters on all news sources I have ever seen. If you don't believe me, do a Google news search. I have taken this to MOS, but I will be, respectfully, reverting you. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have cited two manuals of style, including Wikipedia's own, that state job titles should be lower case and I can cite more. My Google search suggests that your examination of usage in news sources is not accurate. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That seems a bit absurd. Are you saying that all news sources are wrong in the way they capitalize the position? Even a cursory search of Google news finds no cases where it is "home secretary". This is a case where convention dictates that it is actually "Home Secretary". - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have rereviewed the news sources, you are correct. I was about to revert myself, apologies. I will not make any further changes to capitalizations. But in the lead, it should be "Home Secretary". Does this mean that the article title is wrong? I do note that the MoS only handles when it is used in sentences for specific people. It says nothing about it in the bold part of the lead section. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

did you bother to read the discussion on this page or the linked page before editing? “Of course, in every article about an office, the article title is headline-style capped, while references to the office in the text of the article, including the lede sentence, are lowercase unless they meet the very particular exceptions in MOS:JOBTITLES.” There’s no need for a particular rule for the lede sentence of the article. Wallnot (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I did. In fact, this lack of capitalization is strongly disputed by many parties. I am wondering if it might be worthwhile taking it to the wider community with an RFC, because at the moment it seems to be only folks who are on the MOS pages who dispute it, and even there it is disputed. The MOS, after all, is only a guideline - a very good one, but there are exceptions. I personally believe this is one of them.

May I suggest, however, that you do not edit war. You have violated 3RR now against at least several people who believe the change is not correct. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand 3RR. Wallnot (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, and I agree that may be possible, then I hope the adjudication of the 3RR board will be fair. If I was wrong in my understanding, then I duly apologise. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• It should certainly be "Home Secretary"! Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As somebody somewhere mentioned (might of been me), WP:JOBTITLES needs an overhaul, big time. It's only earlier this year, that I began seeing its application to leads in articles (such as here) & then to sections & subsections of bio articles. Now, attempts are being made to bring lower-casing to the infoboxes. When/where will it end. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the heading of this article's infobox, might be next. If not the article name itself. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I can think of far worse things in life than having Wikipedia article titles and infoboxes conform to established academic practice. Surtsicna (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, are you suggesting "home secretary" conforms "to established academic practice"??? I take it you don't live in the UK. Try to find printed sources using it. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. See the UK's premier biographical reference work, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for a start. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If I may step in, editors might remember that I was wondering about this policy a couple of weeks ago. However, a firm WP:CONSENSUS that UK political offices shouldn't be capitalised was made here. I still might not agree with that consensus(!), but it is a consensus and I think that those of us who disagree with it should respect that. Decisions are primarily made by consensus on Wikipedia and we should respect that. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Further reversions on capitalisation on 19 October

• I have not been part of the back and forth on the capitalisation on this (although I have always thought the MOS was backwards on the way it deals with capitalising public offices), but if it is to be "The secretary of state for the Home Department, otherwise known as the home secretary", shouldn't the article title be "Home secretary", rather than "Home Secretary", and why is the IB title "Secretary of State for the Home Department", with capitals. Why is the post deemed to be lower case, but the Home Department needs capitalising? - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:ED3C:48F5:4E41:9785 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  No to both questions. The article title is capitalized because "Home Secretary" is not preceded by a modifier, including the definite article "the". In the lede, "home secretary" is lowercase because it is preceded by such a modifier. Same re the infobox. Again, see MOS:JOBTITLES. As to why Home Department is capitalized, the Home Department is the proper name of an entity—JOBTITLES only applies to offices/positions. Wallnot (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Of all the ridiculous nonsense I've read on WP, JOBTITLES is possibly the most tortuous and silly of the lot. To have the same terms capitalised and uncapitalised in such close proximity does nothing but add confusion to readers. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:ED3C:48F5:4E41:9785 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  The revision you just made is not a fix. "Secretary of State for the Home Department ... is a senior minister..." is not grammatical English. Please self revert as I am at 3 reverts in past 24 hours. I agree that JOBTITLES is broken but that's what the guideline says and coming up with contorted, nongrammatical constructions as a loophole to capitalize something that you prefer to see capitalized is not a solution. Wallnot (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Lede

I don't understand why all the SofS's pages say they are a secretary of state. It already implies it in the title and says so in the status box. Therefore that's why I have changed it AtishT20 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Suella Braverman portrait as Home Secretary, 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of titles

I've changed the capitalisation of the titles at the top of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Positions,_offices,_and_occupational_titles. Please note that the mentions at the top of the articles are titles, and should therefore be capitalized. An office holder of the job is, generically, a home secretary, but also, specifically, the Home Secretary. See the difference? — The Anome (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

In transition

Right now, for this moment, we are in Bizarro World where Cleverly serves as home secretary under Keir Starmer -- who has only just been appointed by the king. That won't last long, as Starmer's first official act will be to appoint a new cabinet. But it's a fun fact, just for these few moments. — The Anome (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)