Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:George Osborne: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Off2riorob (talk | contribs)
80,325 edits
Iloveandrea (talk | contribs)
4,026 edits
Line 56: Line 56:


*The header suggests Osborne has a relationship, this already seems undue and leading to me ,is this relationship personal or private ...In July 2011, with the [[News of the World phone hacking affair]] drawing criticism of relationships between politicians and the media, particularly with [[News of the World]] owners [[News International]] - the opening leading comment sets the critical weight of the following detail - George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government. - is this really true, as a minimum it would need attributing to whose opinion it is, I note Osborne and this "faction" are not mentioned at all on the [[News of the World phone hacking affair]] and the so called faction is not mentioned on any of the alleged factions members biographies either.... - the leading assertion is that Osborne has done something wrong and that he is involved or responsible for the scandal which is just false' It goes on in the same titillating opinionated vague manner - Osborne supports David Camerons appointment of Coulson, this is a factoid also, no evidence that has anything ot do with anything at all. then it just says without explanation as to any wrongdoing or expiation at all that Osborne had meeting with some people - with nothing to explain what was the problem with these meetings or what these meeting was about, and then as a final piece de resistance you get the shopping basket of internal links to all the other people thatr are invo;ved in the scandal - undue weight and coatracking of a scandal onto this person is a manner against [[WP:NPOV]] contributing. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
*The header suggests Osborne has a relationship, this already seems undue and leading to me ,is this relationship personal or private ...In July 2011, with the [[News of the World phone hacking affair]] drawing criticism of relationships between politicians and the media, particularly with [[News of the World]] owners [[News International]] - the opening leading comment sets the critical weight of the following detail - George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government. - is this really true, as a minimum it would need attributing to whose opinion it is, I note Osborne and this "faction" are not mentioned at all on the [[News of the World phone hacking affair]] and the so called faction is not mentioned on any of the alleged factions members biographies either.... - the leading assertion is that Osborne has done something wrong and that he is involved or responsible for the scandal which is just false' It goes on in the same titillating opinionated vague manner - Osborne supports David Camerons appointment of Coulson, this is a factoid also, no evidence that has anything ot do with anything at all. then it just says without explanation as to any wrongdoing or expiation at all that Osborne had meeting with some people - with nothing to explain what was the problem with these meetings or what these meeting was about, and then as a final piece de resistance you get the shopping basket of internal links to all the other people thatr are invo;ved in the scandal - undue weight and coatracking of a scandal onto this person is a manner against [[WP:NPOV]] contributing. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

*The whole thing when you put it together is speculation, innuendo and coatracking, that the red top writers would be proud of. The whole section can be written in a few words but when all the speculating and coatracking is removed all you have left is the factoid - Osborne has meetings with members of the press.[1] - [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The whole thing when you put it together is speculation, innuendo and coatracking, that the red top writers would be proud of. The whole section can be written in a few words but when all the speculating and coatracking is removed all you have left is the factoid - Osborne has meetings with members of the press.[1] - [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

:---
:The first thing to note is that Tory spinner off2riorob (he's very sore about the accusation of being a Tory by the way) can't even spell Osborne's name correctly; see the edit history where he spells it 'Osbourne'.

:Next, it's interesting to note there were in fact ''two'' recent additions that off2riotory got his knickers in a twist about, not just one as off2riotory asserts in this section heading. Neither of the two entire sections—each with pristine citations—that he chopped out definitively portray Osborne in a positive light, and I presume that's why off2riotory is in such a huff about them. off2riotory neglects in totality to mention above that a section on 'Osbourne' 's widely reported links to Natalie Rowe, and the manner in which Andy Coulson successfully played them down, was cut out. off2riotory's initial reason for doing so was that the section cited a tabloid; I removed the offending ''Mirror'' citation and quote, leaving only quality press cites. He then sulkily changed tack to saying that the quality press were "as good as the red tops on this issue", then re-removed the entire section. I then re-added the drugs section, pointing out that both Cameron and Obama, for example, both had similar sections on their Wikipedia entries. off2riotory then simply removed it again, this time without even an attempt at explanation. I leave an objective party to draw their own conclusions.

:Now let's take a look at his griping about the News International section. The section starts off with "In July 2011, with the [[News of the World phone hacking affair]] drawing criticism of relationships between politicians and the media, particularly with [[News of the World]] owners [[News International]], George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government." The source for this is someone who's known David Cameron personally for 20 years, none other than Chief Political Commentator of Tory-cheering broadsheet ''The Daily Telegraph''. I'm not quite sure which sources would pass off2riotory's rigorous censorship; perhaps personal correspondence between 'Osbourne' and off2riotory is the only thing that can make the grade. Besides, 'Osbourne' did not protest the Torygraph's article in the letters page the next day; there was no apology or correction solicited or given.

:Next sentence is a legitimate removal: "The members of this faction were said to also include [[Michael Gove]], [[Jeremy Hunt]], [[Ed Vaizey]] and [[Andrew Cooper]]" (Telegraph and Guardian for citations). off2riotory correctly points out that this has nothing to do with Osborne.

:off2riotory reckons that, "The header suggests Osborne has a relationship, (sic) this already seems undue and leading to me ,is (sic) this relationship personal or private ... (sic)"
:There is no question as to whether or not 'Osbourne' had a relationship with the people at News International; the released information about his multiple meetings, with people up to and including Murdoch, proves it. Nevermind interpretation, the only question is whether it's even permissible to so much as even mention this widely reported information on Wikipedia.
:",is (sic) this relationship personal or private"?? Is there a distinction between those two terms in this context? I can't even begin to understand his question, let alone its relevance. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

:Next off2riotory reckons, "George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government. - (sic) is (sic) this really true, (sic) as (sic) a minimum it would need attributing to whose opinion it is".
:Two—''two'' (I could have given more)—quality press citations are provided for this: the Tory-hating ''Guardian'' and the Tory-cheering ''Telegraph''.

:Next follows an attempt to distort my own argument and use it against me. I noted above that I argued it was no problem for 'Osbourne' to have his own sub-section on alleged drug use during his younger days, citing examples of Cameron and Obama having their own sections on the topic of drug use. "Osborne and this "faction" are not mentioned at all on the [[News of the World phone hacking affair]] and the so called faction is not mentioned on any of the alleged factions members biographies either", he cries. What he's now trying to do is turn around my argument and say, "No one's so far posted such information on another Wikipedia entry, therefore no one is ever allowed to post such information on any entry." Is that supposed to be an argument? If an objective observer needs me to spell out the logical result of such spurious, bastardised logic, can said observer please go and find another objective observer who has functioning brain cells to adjudicate this discussion.

:"the leading assertion is that Osborne has done something wrong and that he is involved or responsible for the scandal which is just false' (sic) It goes on in the same titillating (sic) opinionated (sic) vague manner".
:No, that is not the leading assertion. The leading assertion is that Osborne had a relationship with the people at News International. It's up for Wikipedia readers to decide whether that is good or bad—or whether they are completely indifferent. It's certainly not up to off2riotory to prevent the simple dissemination of such widely reported information.

:"Osborne supports David Camerons (sic) appointment of Coulson, (sic) this is a factoid also, no evidence that has anything ot (sic) do with anything at all. then (sic) it just says (sic) without explanation as to any wrongdoing or [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expiation expiation] (sic) at all (sic) that Osborne had meeting (sic) with some people - with nothing to explain what was the problem with these meetings or what these meeting was (sic) about".
:It certainly does have evidentiary value, namely as further evidence that 'Osbourne' had a relationship with people at News International.

:"[A]nd then as a final piece (sic) de resistance (sic) you get the shopping basket of internal links to all the other people thatr (sic) are invo;ved (sic) in the scandal..."
:I've already dealt with this, and it wasn't only me who added to the News International section.

:In short, off2riotory's aim is simply to eliminate even a mention of information from 'Osbourne' s article that might be viewed by some as portraying the latter in a negative light.

Revision as of 12:02, 2 October 2011

Funding the monarchy

I recommend someone wth a fuller knowledge of the subject give this section a look over. It appears that information in the first and final paragraphs is duplicated. In addition, the paragraph discussing scrutiny by the National Audit Office seems unnecessary in this particular article, although I personally feel that to remove it would be wasteful. It seems better to transfer it over to the relevant article as soon as that is created. Another disinterested reader (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg 2011

Our Georgie boy was at Bilderberg 2011 too, he completely slipped under the mainstream media radar on that one (surprise, surprise lol) but it is well worth adding in there somewhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.99.123 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will definitely need a source (as per the sources located on his entry here). —JeevanJones (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is:

Should be:

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 1 October 2011

Please remove {{pp-semi-blp|small=yes}} from the page.

Note to admins: As an alternative, you can remove {{pp-dispute|expiry=October 4, 2011}} and {{pp-semi-blp|small=yes}}, and replace it with this:
{{subst:User:LikeLakers2/spp|expiry=October 4, 2011|reason=dispute}}
This should automatically detect protection settings and add protection templates as needed. (If you use my template, please subst it. Make sure to click "Show Changes" to make sure it adds the right templates, though) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The full protection expires in three days, at which point I'll (hopefully remember to) reinstate the permanent semi-protection, so there's not really any point in removing the template. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter; you should be able to make a edit now to remove it, then another edit when it expires to put it back, can't you? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can, but why bother? The small BLP padlock is invisible, as long as the big one is in effect. Favonian (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it looks better without that category for people with the "Show Hidden Categories" option set to on in their preferences. In this case, I am one of those people. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disputed recent addition

the desired addition removed in this edit by me with the edit summary of - rem - speculation and coatracking. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with News International

In July 2011, with the News of the World phone hacking affair drawing criticism of relationships between politicians and the media, particularly with News of the World owners News International, George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government.[1] The members of this faction were said to also include Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Ed Vaizey and Andrew Cooper.[1][2] It was also reported that in 2007 Osborne made the case for David Cameron hiring Andy Coulson, editor of the News of the World at the time alleged phone hacking took place, as director of communications.[3] Osborne had also flown to New York to have dinner with Rupert Murdoch two weeks before the media regulator Ofcom was due to rule on whether to approve a takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation,[4] and had—in the year following the 2010 general election—attended 16 other meetings at which News International executives were present, including five with Rebekah Brooks, four with James Murdoch and two with Rupert Murdoch himself.[5][2][6]

  • The header suggests Osborne has a relationship, this already seems undue and leading to me ,is this relationship personal or private ...In July 2011, with the News of the World phone hacking affair drawing criticism of relationships between politicians and the media, particularly with News of the World owners News International - the opening leading comment sets the critical weight of the following detail - George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government. - is this really true, as a minimum it would need attributing to whose opinion it is, I note Osborne and this "faction" are not mentioned at all on the News of the World phone hacking affair and the so called faction is not mentioned on any of the alleged factions members biographies either.... - the leading assertion is that Osborne has done something wrong and that he is involved or responsible for the scandal which is just false' It goes on in the same titillating opinionated vague manner - Osborne supports David Camerons appointment of Coulson, this is a factoid also, no evidence that has anything ot do with anything at all. then it just says without explanation as to any wrongdoing or expiation at all that Osborne had meeting with some people - with nothing to explain what was the problem with these meetings or what these meeting was about, and then as a final piece de resistance you get the shopping basket of internal links to all the other people thatr are invo;ved in the scandal - undue weight and coatracking of a scandal onto this person is a manner against WP:NPOV contributing. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing when you put it together is speculation, innuendo and coatracking, that the red top writers would be proud of. The whole section can be written in a few words but when all the speculating and coatracking is removed all you have left is the factoid - Osborne has meetings with members of the press.[1] - Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---
The first thing to note is that Tory spinner off2riorob (he's very sore about the accusation of being a Tory by the way) can't even spell Osborne's name correctly; see the edit history where he spells it 'Osbourne'.
Next, it's interesting to note there were in fact two recent additions that off2riotory got his knickers in a twist about, not just one as off2riotory asserts in this section heading. Neither of the two entire sections—each with pristine citations—that he chopped out definitively portray Osborne in a positive light, and I presume that's why off2riotory is in such a huff about them. off2riotory neglects in totality to mention above that a section on 'Osbourne' 's widely reported links to Natalie Rowe, and the manner in which Andy Coulson successfully played them down, was cut out. off2riotory's initial reason for doing so was that the section cited a tabloid; I removed the offending Mirror citation and quote, leaving only quality press cites. He then sulkily changed tack to saying that the quality press were "as good as the red tops on this issue", then re-removed the entire section. I then re-added the drugs section, pointing out that both Cameron and Obama, for example, both had similar sections on their Wikipedia entries. off2riotory then simply removed it again, this time without even an attempt at explanation. I leave an objective party to draw their own conclusions.
Now let's take a look at his griping about the News International section. The section starts off with "In July 2011, with the News of the World phone hacking affair drawing criticism of relationships between politicians and the media, particularly with News of the World owners News International, George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government." The source for this is someone who's known David Cameron personally for 20 years, none other than Chief Political Commentator of Tory-cheering broadsheet The Daily Telegraph. I'm not quite sure which sources would pass off2riotory's rigorous censorship; perhaps personal correspondence between 'Osbourne' and off2riotory is the only thing that can make the grade. Besides, 'Osbourne' did not protest the Torygraph's article in the letters page the next day; there was no apology or correction solicited or given.
Next sentence is a legitimate removal: "The members of this faction were said to also include Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Ed Vaizey and Andrew Cooper" (Telegraph and Guardian for citations). off2riotory correctly points out that this has nothing to do with Osborne.
off2riotory reckons that, "The header suggests Osborne has a relationship, (sic) this already seems undue and leading to me ,is (sic) this relationship personal or private ... (sic)"
There is no question as to whether or not 'Osbourne' had a relationship with the people at News International; the released information about his multiple meetings, with people up to and including Murdoch, proves it. Nevermind interpretation, the only question is whether it's even permissible to so much as even mention this widely reported information on Wikipedia.
",is (sic) this relationship personal or private"?? Is there a distinction between those two terms in this context? I can't even begin to understand his question, let alone its relevance. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.
Next off2riotory reckons, "George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government. - (sic) is (sic) this really true, (sic) as (sic) a minimum it would need attributing to whose opinion it is".
Two—two (I could have given more)—quality press citations are provided for this: the Tory-hating Guardian and the Tory-cheering Telegraph.
Next follows an attempt to distort my own argument and use it against me. I noted above that I argued it was no problem for 'Osbourne' to have his own sub-section on alleged drug use during his younger days, citing examples of Cameron and Obama having their own sections on the topic of drug use. "Osborne and this "faction" are not mentioned at all on the News of the World phone hacking affair and the so called faction is not mentioned on any of the alleged factions members biographies either", he cries. What he's now trying to do is turn around my argument and say, "No one's so far posted such information on another Wikipedia entry, therefore no one is ever allowed to post such information on any entry." Is that supposed to be an argument? If an objective observer needs me to spell out the logical result of such spurious, bastardised logic, can said observer please go and find another objective observer who has functioning brain cells to adjudicate this discussion.
"the leading assertion is that Osborne has done something wrong and that he is involved or responsible for the scandal which is just false' (sic) It goes on in the same titillating (sic) opinionated (sic) vague manner".
No, that is not the leading assertion. The leading assertion is that Osborne had a relationship with the people at News International. It's up for Wikipedia readers to decide whether that is good or bad—or whether they are completely indifferent. It's certainly not up to off2riotory to prevent the simple dissemination of such widely reported information.
"Osborne supports David Camerons (sic) appointment of Coulson, (sic) this is a factoid also, no evidence that has anything ot (sic) do with anything at all. then (sic) it just says (sic) without explanation as to any wrongdoing or expiation (sic) at all (sic) that Osborne had meeting (sic) with some people - with nothing to explain what was the problem with these meetings or what these meeting was (sic) about".
It certainly does have evidentiary value, namely as further evidence that 'Osbourne' had a relationship with people at News International.
"[A]nd then as a final piece (sic) de resistance (sic) you get the shopping basket of internal links to all the other people thatr (sic) are invo;ved (sic) in the scandal..."
I've already dealt with this, and it wasn't only me who added to the News International section.
In short, off2riotory's aim is simply to eliminate even a mention of information from 'Osbourne' s article that might be viewed by some as portraying the latter in a negative light.
  1. ^ a b Peter Oborne (8 July 2011). "Phone hacking: David Cameron is not out of the sewer yet". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 26 July 2011.
  2. ^ a b Nicholas Watt (26 July 2011). "Osborne met News International chiefs 16 times since election". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 July 2011.
  3. ^ Patrick Wintour (26 July 2011). "George Osborne regrets recommending Andy Coulson 'in hindsight'". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 July 2011.
  4. ^ Christopher Hope (22 July 2011). "George Osborne had dinner with Rupert Murdoch two weeks before BSkyB bid decision". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 26 July 2011.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Telegraph 26.07.2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Nicholas Watt (27 July 2011). "No 10 boss attended Scotland Yard dinner with ex-NoW deputy Neil Wallis". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 July 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Osborne&oldid=453518496"