Talk:George Osborne/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

cokehead and John

what about the allegations of georgey porgey snorting drugs and sleeping with prostitutes? abc news even did a report, but big cover up in uk http://www.theduckshoot.com/ex-prostitute-natalie-rowe-blows-the-whistle-on-chancellor-osborne/

I'm not sure theduckshoot is from a wp:Suggested sources. See wp:BLP Might suit the Daily Mirror but I want to know about this guys policies and his abilities. JRPG (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that parts of Osborne's misspent youth are already legend, the allegations about Coulson's involvement are more interesting. The attributed media source [1] might be a bit more Wiki-worthy but you'd still question the *origins* of the accusation.
You might wish to know about this guy's policies and abilities. Others might wish to know about his cocaine habits. That's actually specifically why I came to the page, and there is no mention of the situation on the page. If the allegations are not true, then the page can at least give the fact that the allegations were made, and then say they're not true (if that's the case). An MP repeated the allegation against him on the floor of parliament, which I think at least makes it somewhat noteworthy, even if (or maybe especially if) the allegation is false. What does Wikipedia have to do with you wanting (presumably only wanting) to know this guy's policies and abilities (particularly given the fact such things are already amply mentioned on the page)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.132.97.26 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the Guardian no longer a reliable source?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/george-osborne-politics-hypocritical-miserable It's just that there's nothing in that two year old article to suggest the subject of the article did not take drugs and consort with prostitutes. And I'd have thought that was notable, given his position. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

So because there is no proof that Osborne did not take drugs or consort with prostitutes, you think this article should state that he did? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It should state that (apparently) there has been talk about it. I came here to find out what the deal was, and no mention is even made of the allegations. This is something that's out there - I clearly picked up on it - and I came to Wikipedia to find out what happened. Not necessarily the truth of the allegations, but merely the fact that allegations where made, that this is apparently a thing some people have been talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.132.97.26 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request, please, re Osborne and the 2003 Iraq invasion

Help, please. I will make an argument of sorts, with opinions expressed that would have no place, rightly, in the body of the article.

In the wake of the Chilcot Report, I've more than once run into the text of a speech Osborne gave from the floor of parliament on October 22 2003, i.e. fully half a year after the war had begun. Addressing critics of the war who still insisted that the wrong decision had been taken, Osborne, now privy to events as they had unfolded, still insisted that the anti-war contingent had been proven massively mistaken as they had been right fom the start. I quote, verbatim:

>>Moreover, those who supported the decision should not feel defensive about saying that those who opposed the war in that vote were wrong. They were wrong when they prophesied a long and bloody war of attrition. They were wrong when they prophesied a mass slaughter in Baghdad. They were wrong when they forecast a humanitarian catastrophe, which never arose. They were wrong when they predicted an exodus of millions of refugees, which did not happen. Indeed, they are wrong now when they say that post-war Iraq is a disaster and that the world is a more dangerous place because we have got rid of Saddam Hussein.<<

This seems hugely damning to me, stunning in how wrong -- wrong -- Osborne was, and continues to be proven to have been. It is among the most horribly wrong assessments ever given by any public figure on any matter of public import that I've ever read -- the words were demonstrably wrong when he spoke them and have proven to be even more so with the passing of each tragic month into another tragic year. This speech should rank notoriously along with Chamberlain's "Peace in our time."

What edits I've ever made (dozens) at wikipedia I've normally done as an anonymous, IP only user. Somehow, I recalled this user account which I created years ago, and wracked my brain to bring back the login information that now brings me here, as you see it. The Osborne entry carries a semi-protected rating and I can't for the life of me figure out how to make any edit here on my own. I had thought having an actual login account would have sufficed, but if that is the case I still remain thwarted. Were I able to edit myself, I would add time date details of Osborne's floor comments and add his words verbatim just as you see above. Neutral neutral neutral, but shocking even more at this remove. I would add the quote in the brief "Member of Parliament" section of the entry, just after the existing sentence which reads "Osborne was a strong supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq." That sentence is footnoted with a link to the official transcript of Parliamentary debate at which same source, same place exactly, you will find the quote just as I've posted above. Here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031022/debtext/31022-29.htm#31022-29_spnew4

I will continue to try to make this straight-forward edit (verbatim addition) myself but others reading this might find it probably a minute or two -- no more I bet -- a brief minute or two well spent, worthwhile.

If anyone has any objections to my proposed addition, could they spell them out here, please, as I will continue to check this spot just as I attempt to make the edit myself. Either way, I appreciate your time in reading this and promise to take any comments you leave here with the same thoughtful consideration that you make them. Please comment, he said longwindedly, as well as thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandiareii (talk • contribs) 18:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iandiareii, unfortunately you will need a secondary source to add this, as per WP:OR material that is sourced through primary sources only should not be added. If you can find a newspaper article or similar which quotes Osborne as having said this, then you can put it in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Absolutelypuremilk. The idea that an edit couldn't cite to e.g. the U.S Congressional Record strikes me as absurd (although reading through the link you provided and beyond suggests that primary sources may sometimes be used, with caveats). This isn't the place for that discussion. Sorry to be so tardy in my reply, and thanks again. Iandiareii (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No problem, yes primary sources can be used sometimes. My interpretation (and most other editors that I have seen) is that primary sources can be used whether the thing that they are being used to cite is both clearly notable and an opinion is not being made from it. So if you had a primary source that said Osborne was born in xx on xx day of the month then that would be fine as clearly this is notable without the need for a secondary source to show that it is notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition of editorialising content

Wildcursive has added editorialised content, presenting opinions as fact in the addition of the "Criticism" section. Firstly, content should not be added in a "Criticism" section, but rather worked into the rest of the article, for example in a "Hinkley Point C" or "Nuclear power" section. Secondly the wording is very dubious, for example "George Osborne strongly support People's Republic of China's involvement in sensitive sectors" whereas the Guardian article in fact says that Osborne "backed the project heavily". Then the rest of the paragraph is simply criticism of Hinkley Point, without giving any countering arguments or (more pertinently) a quote from Osborne on the project or any content specifically related to him. Lastly, there is far too much content in here for how relevant it is to Osborne, with as much here as in the entire "Political views" section. I will now trim this massively, please reply here on the talk page if you disagree. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Osborne. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Osborne. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinking "Member of Parliament" to "House of Commons of the United Kingdom"

I see that this change was made a short while ago. While I certainly see the connection between the two things, I suspect that it will puzzle readers unfamiliar with British politics, and I wonder whether it really meets WP:MOS - isn't it something of an Easter egg?. I invite any and all comments. Harfarhs (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That was the link being used prior to the recent flurry of editing, eg in this version from a year ago. It was only switched a couple of days ago and lasted a couple of hours before I restored the HoC link. I appreciate it's a bit of an easter egg, but there is no "UK MP" page, and a link to the Parliament of which he is a member seems to make more sense than one to a generic page that explains what an MP is. I'm not sure what tends to happen on other pages, but Cameron's page for example links to the UK subsection of the MP page. N-HH talk/edits 17:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes/flipping versions

I'm not sure this is worth edit-warring over. Either way, I can't see that the changes are an improvement particularly, and several of them are for the worse. It's usual for example to include the country as well as the city of birth in an infobox (and let's not argue about whether it should be England or UK) and at the risk of cluttering it up, the First Secretary job/title seems worth noting there and in the lead. And this phrasing – "In March 2017, it was announced that his application to be the Editor of the London Evening Standard was successful" – is just weird, frankly. As between the two alternatives in the diff, "had been successful" would be better in pure grammar/tense terms, but it's needlessly convoluted to start with. Just say he's been appointed editor (albeit not due to start just yet). N-HH talk/edits 18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely agreed. Thanks for the "..due to take up" phrasing, I was looking for something like that earlier :) Harfarhs (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@User:N-HH I'm quite happy to accept your views on name frequency and commas—though they're slightly different from mine!—but your other edit, removing "as well as", seems to have changed the meaning of the passage. If you look back to the diffs from before the abortive edit war, you'll see the phrasing

"..to Douglas Hogg at the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and worked at 10 Downing Street as well as for Prime Minister John Major's campaign team in the party's unsuccessful 1997 general election campaign.." which to me implies that he did other work for Major as well as the 1997 campaign, whereas your wording seems to say Osborne only worked for Major on the campaign. Not that any of this seems to be well sourced, but.. Still, I've removed the error in the phrasing of the sentence about Douglas Hogg—I really ought to have spotted that a long time ago! Harfarhs (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought having an "also" (which was added recently) and an "as well" in strict succession in that sentence was a bit wordy. However, the solution would have been to roll back the addition of the "also" – as you say, removing the "as well" has changed the meaning, inaccurately of course as he wouldn't have worked on an election campaign at no10. As for sources, I assumed they were in the body, but they don't appear to be in the relevant section. As a start, I'll see if I can just tag on a ref from one of the profiles already used on the page. N-HH talk/edits 18:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request Political relationships

I have a link to all of Osborne's witty comments, including the one listed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laTi2pNjWSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith50000 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Osborne. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

POV tag

Reaganomics88 added a POV tag to the article. Could you explain why you think the article is POV and what we can do to fix it? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Osborne/Archive_3&oldid=1166671736"