This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom List‑class Top‑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 articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This page should only list the Secretaries for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The previous offices (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State for the Colonies, etc.) should have separate articles. john 23:51 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Why? They are vastly equivalent roles! Anyway, this has a precedent elsewhere, see Secretary of State for International Development TreveX^talk 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really sure what the deal was - it was almost three years ago, and there were a lot less articles to take precedents from. As long as it's made clear that the two offices are different, and that the current office includes the gobbled up Commonwealth Affairs Office (which was itself the amalgamation of the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office), I don't really care if it's decided to merge. john k 00:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reformatted the big list(section 1), but it's badly spaced out, I would fix this but I only did this to show how notepad + copy & paste can do, appologies if this messed anyone elses hard work, please revert if you don't like it, and feel free to fix the spacing --86.133.59.208 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without the little-used status column the list could be shorter because we could spread out the dates onto one line, though I don't want to (and am not sure how to) make that change on my own. Ddye 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the status column, I think it looks much better now, as it is shorter and easier to understand.--86.133.59.208 11:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've lost Jack Straw! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.119.84 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the discussion is now closed, but I'd suggest that this decision is not comsistent with established naning conventions. Wikipedia articles are not based on official names - they are based on commonly used names. See WP:COMMONNAME:

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline) (emphasis added)

AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 11:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most important thing is that Foreign Secretary continues to redirect here, i dont have a problem with the full title being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 09:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which name should be used for Foreign Secretaries who inherited or were granted a title/higher title during their time in office? This would apply to Carmarthen/Leeds, Castlereagh/Londonderry, Dudley, Russell, Grey, Curzon, and Eden (who was made a knight during his last tenure at the foreign office). Currently, I believe all except Grey are listed by their highest title, but I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. It means, for instance, that the word "Castlereagh" does not appear in our article about British foreign secretaries. I'd suggest some mechanism to include both, with possible preference for the form at time of appointment as the main one displayed. john k (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Boris Johnson MP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be an issue of contention with the capitalisation of the titles of certain positions in the British government on this page. As of right now, I'm currently in an edit war with Wallnot over how both 'Foreign Secretary' and ' ' should be capitalised, with an example of Wallnot's revision with their capitalisation as follows:

The secretary of state for foreign, Commonwealth and development affairs, also referred to as the foreign secretary, is a secretary of state in the Government of the United Kingdom, with overall responsibility for the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.[1] Seen as one of the most senior ministers in the government and a Great Office of State, the incumbent is a member of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, fourth in the ministerial ranking.[2]

I disagree with the capitalisation in the following manner, because it isn't consistent (why is 'Commonwealth' capitalised, but 'Development Affairs' not if they're both proper nouns within a title?); it misunderstands MOS:JOBTITLES since 'Foreign Secretary' isn't being used as a common noun or denoting an office, but a title (e.g 'Madam Foreign Secretary' would be capitalised because it refers to a title held directly by a person--in this case, the Foreign Secretary); and finally, it isn't how the British government itself capitalises the title, as can be seen in this or this official government gazette release.

This was my revision:

The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, also referred to as the Foreign Secretary, is a secretary of state in the Government of the United Kingdom, with overall responsibility for the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.[1] Seen as one of the most senior ministers in the government and a Great Office of State, the incumbent is a member of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, fourth in the ministerial ranking.[2]

I can't see any issue with my revision, since it's consistent with articles over the rest of wikipedia (e.g, The Minister of Foreign Affairs for Pakistan, or the Foreign Secretary of India. When I asked Wallnot why proper nouns that referred to job titles were capitalised, I was referred to MOS:JOBTITLES but not given any additional clarification. Seeing as my edits didn't disagree with the MOS, I then re-inserted the capitals into the source, which prompted Wallnot to threaten me on my page with WP:ANI, while again linking MOS:JOBTITLES while once again failing to highlight what it is that would make it suitable to place proper nouns and job titles in lower capitals on the article.

With that said, I request intervention for comment to see what other users think, since I can tell this is a particularily contentious issue for this user. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion, @PeaceThruPramana26:. A few initial points: First, we aren't in an edit war—edit-warring users ignore WP:BRD. Second, it is hard to see how your edits are consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES. One of the examples on the MOS page is as follows: "Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom." When a title is preceded by a modifier, including a determiner such as "the", it is lowercase under the MOS. In this instance, "foreign secretary . . ." is preceded by such a modifier, so it ought to be lowercase. Additionally, re your question why "Commonwealth" is uppercase: the Commonwealth is a separate entity, so its name is capitalized as a proper name, just like, e.g., United Kingdom. Under the MOS, job titles are typically not treated as proper nouns, so "foreign" and "development affairs" are rendered in lowercase. Thanks again. Wallnot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But in all the aforementioned instances, 'Foreign Secretary' refers to a job title. If it was referring generically to 'the foreign secretary', but it's not being referred to as the office, but the job title: Hence, it would be 'Foreign Secretary' even with a modifier, which is why in my linked references above, you can see that it is consistenly capitalised:

This afternoon the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab joined a meeting with counterparts from the US, Canada, the EU, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, NATO, Qatar and Turkey about the situation in Afghanistan.

The Foreign Secretary emphasised the importance of working with like-minded partners on safe passage and exit arrangements for eligible Afghans remaining in the country.

He affirmed Taliban assurances that foreign nationals and Afghan citizens with travel authorisation will be allowed to depart the country, but underlined we must judge them on their actions, and whether people are allowed safe passage to leave.

The Foreign Secretary also welcomed the participants’ unity of purpose and close collaboration on a wider new strategy for Afghanistan.

He explained the strategic priorities to prevent Afghanistan becoming a haven for terrorism, ensure humanitarian access, protect human rights and the gains of the last 20 years, preserve regional stability, and working with a range of international partners in order to exercise the maximum moderating influence on the Taliban.[1]''

My question is: Does a certain interpretation of Wikipedia style guidelines take precedence over the United Kingdom's own spelling and capitalisation of the title? I don't think it should.PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Under the MOS, job titles are typically not treated as proper nouns,"

I don't see this anywhere in the MOS; if anything, it says that about positions of office, not job titles. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the distinction you're drawing between the example I quoted and your uses of "Foreign Secretary". And yes, Wikipedia's MOS does take precedence over the United Kingdom's own spelling and capitalization. I just recalled that there was an RFC on this exact issue less than a year ago. You can find it here. While it's acceptable to challenge an existing consensus at any time, the burden is on you to justify the change. Note that this means there is currently consensus for my interpretation of the guideline. Wallnot (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the title being capped (like others at the disambig page), I'd think that we'd want to write the lead to use caps, in line with the MOS:JOBTITLE clause "Unmodified, denoting a title". But I'm unclear on what that means, exactly. We should either figure that out, or use lowercase in the lead, and maybe lowercase in the title(s). Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made an attempt at a lead rewrite. Please comment (and optionally revert if you disagree or have a better idea). Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the attempt at a compromise but I have two issues with the changes you suggest. The first is that it’s odd compared to every other article about a political office. The second is that I believe it contradicts MOS:FIRST, specifically, “Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.” (Apologies for the curlies, I’m on mobile.) Wallnot (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not looking for a compromise, but for a lead consistent with the title. The alternative would be to use a lowercase title here and on a bunch of other foreign minister articles. Which way are you thinking is more consistent with other articles? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Cinderella re comparison to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I don't think the lede need be consistent with the page title—the page title is uppercase because the job title it contains is unmodified; the lede is lowercase because the most natural way to phrase it (and the way most consistent with other articles about political offices) is with a modifier preceding the title, denoting it as an office. Wallnot (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow the lead at prime minister of the United Kingdom where I believe these things have been worked out already. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I agree with Dicklyon. Across Wikipedia, virtually all the articles of heads of office have the titles capitalised, and only the articles edited by Wallnot and a few others in concurment seemingly would make an exception to that rule, as you go across the wide breadth of wikipedia articles and see that all foreign secretaries and other such offices are always capitalised, e.g the Foreign Minister of Thailand has his title capitalised. I don't think it makes sense to have a handful of articles uncapitalised, while the vast majority already follow an interpretation of MOS that would render this one as unorthodox in my humble opinion. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phenomenon you mention—that most articles about political offices fail to observe JOBTITLES—is due to a simple fact: the vast majority of academic and journalistic secondary sources lowercase job titles in most instances (see, e.g., Britannica), but job titles are generally uppercase in daily/vernacular usage. But failure to observe the rule doesn't make the rule any less worth following. Wallnot (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, PeaceThruPramana26, I don't think you are agreeing with me. I support MOS:JOBTITLE generally. I'm just thinking that maybe we can write the lead to agree with the capitalization in the title, or we can downcase the title. Or we can not bother to make them agree, as is the case in many articles, including those you're referring to that Wallnot fixed. These are all viable options. Chucking MOS:JOBTITLE is not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallnot has successfully convinced me. No further complaints on my part to his/her editing. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Anthony Eden (retouched).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first part of Lloyd's stint as Foreign Secretary, from December 1955 to January 1957, was under Eden's premiership rather than Macmillan's. The table needs to be updated to reflect this (by someone who is better at editing tables than I am). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we really doing this again? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to try to change the community consensus at MOS:LINKCLARITY and MOS:LORD to add a further exception, you are free to do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOS:LORD doesn't say anything on this, neither does MOS:LINKCLARITY. There is no policy or guideline for "John Smith" vs "The Lord Smith of Somewhere". But I accept that you're just going to keep reverting, no matter how many editors make the change. Happy new year. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no value in simply denying reality. MOS:linkclarity addresses precisely this issue and it's the only thing it discusses: The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link. Happy new year to you too. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet you leave out the last three words, the piece relevant here: given the context. In the context of infoboxes, his formal title, and what is used throughout Wikipedia as demonstrated on Talk:James Cleverly and at the top of his own IB, is "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". You are correct that in prose it would be inappropriate, which is where MOSLC would be cited. Not here though. The style, for peers, is "The Lord Blank of Blank". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context. What makes you think a phrase not appearing in the article title and not the common name for the article subject would correspond more closely to the article linked to - David Cameron - than the words "David Cameron" i.e. the exact article title. I'll wait. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it wouldn't, and I've never claimed that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]