Talk:Geoff Hoon

message: this is uncited since sept 2008, one year ago and I am looking to find cites for it or remove it. Also the whole article is a bit messy and in need of a tidy up.
Comment on Geoff Hoon's public persona has varied wildly from that of non-descript minister to a capable Defence Secretary and a "safe pair of hands" during and shortly after the 2003 Iraq War, to adjectives such as "slippery" and "dishonest" during the Dr. David Kelly Affair. The label "Geoff Who?" was applied by many national newspapers and he was given the joke nickname "Buff" (buffoon). He was widely expected to resign on the publication of the resulting Hutton Report. Whilst many were unsurprised at the absence of any claim of wrong-doing on Tony Blair's behalf there was widespread disbelief that both Hoon and his Permanent Secretary, Sir Kevin Tebbit, were also completely cleared of any impropriety.[citation needed] Hutton concluded that there was no "underhand" strategy in the naming of Kelly but that the Ministry of Defence failed to inform and advise him of the effects his name entering the public domain. Hoon was unpopular throughout the Armed Forces, who considered him to be an advocate of unnecessary change and accused him of weakening the Forces. In particular, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, publicly accused Hoon of neglecting morale and efficiency in his policies.[citation needed] The military's low opinion of him was long-standing and dated back to his handling of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited 

message: The independant link to this is broken and there are no wayback links, 
===Comments on cluster bombs===
Shortly after the US/UK led invasion of Iraq began in 2003, Hoon stated that mothers of Iraqi children killed by cluster bombs would thank Britain for their use 'one day'. Following an admission by the Ministry of Defence that Britain had dropped 50 airborne cluster munitions in the south of Iraq and left behind up to 800 unexploded bomblets, it was put to Hoon in a Radio 4 interview that an Iraqi mother of a child killed by these cluster bombs would not thank the British army. He replied "One day they might." 
any ideas? Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cluster bombs 

message: Shortly after the US/UK led invasion of Iraq began in 2003, Hoon stated that mothers of Iraqi children killed by cluster bombs would thank Britain for their use 'one day'. Following an admission by the Ministry of Defence that Britain had dropped 50 airborne cluster munitions in the south of Iraq and left behind up to 800 unexploded bomblets, it was put to Hoon in a Radio 4 interview that an Iraqi mother of a child killed by these cluster bombs would not thank the British army. He replied "One day they might." 
any ideas? Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on cluster bombs

message: This derogatory not notable not well known not encyclopedic valuless partisan slur disguised as a nickname  has been added, it has no value at all. Please provide here or move to the WP:BLPN the context and discussion to reveal reasons for its notability and to support it is a well known nickname. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the subject of an article in a respected British newspaper, The Independent. That is the reason for its notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a citation in a newspaper does not make it notable or worthwhile content. Its a not notable insulting nickname.Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's insulting. That's not the point, we don't cut it out just because it's negative. As it is, I've added a citation in which  Hoon himself discusses the name in a press interview, so that can clinch it. Don't revert again because the 3RR applies even if you are protecting a politician's honour. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, we are, actually. This is an encyclopedia, not Hoon's autobiography. We don't only state the positive facts. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, young man, slow down for a moment.  For the sake of argument, say this is perectly verifiable (as opposed to being notable, a concept that only extends to articles as a whole).  Does that mean it is worth its own section, or merely a brief mention?  Is it worth mentioning at all, per WP:UNDUE?  --Ibn (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now we're talking. It's perhaps not worth its own section, but given the preponderance of sources discussing the name, including Hoon himself, I think it's definitely worth a mention. Perhaps in the section "Member of Parliament"? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm going to go to bed wait for further input on this, given that it's been listed at the BLP noticeboard.  G'night folks. --Ibn (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: You keep repeating that we don't include derogotary names, but it's still bollocks. WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Daily Express ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not engaging with you any more, because you either won't or can't understand that we do not omit notable facts simply because they negatively portray their subjects. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is RS for it I see no reason not to include it, but in the body of the article. Verbal chat 20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I agree entirely. Since I have uncovered nineteen reliable sources covering the nickname, from some of the world's most respected political news organisations it would be absurd to say that it is non-notable. (I'm at the 3RR limit, so – unless there are any overwhelming arguments that the references listed above are all unacceptable because perhaps Mr Hoon might not like that sort of thing – I'll re-add the passage tomorrow afternoon, but not in its own section.) ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: As you'll see, the latest version makes it part of another section, which I agree is better. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually about to do the same thing. This would be an excellent solution. I propose we go back to that version. Verbal chat 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The more you say that, the more annoying it is. It doesn't get any more true. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 20:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Can I make a couple of requests, please? Could you make your future contributions to this page repetitive, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR, tedious, dull and extremely boring? (Oops, sorry, you're already doing that.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only trying to discuss the content, censor is not the keeping out of valueless insulting content and NPOV what is the issue there, the citations you have presented refer to the nicknme as insulting and created to insult him by his enemies, as I said the content that we have now is without context and if it is to stay we should imo give it context and correct the weasely in at least one comment. If it is used to insult him we should say that, in anouther citation it says.. "He is the worst Transport Secretary I have ever come across and that is saying something," said the angry union general secretary.  "I can see why everyone calls him Buff Hoon. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid I don't know how to make this any clearer, so I'll say it one last time and then ignore you. Yes the nickname is insulting. Yes the nickname was created by Hoon's "enemies" (as you put it). However, neither of these are reasons to exclude it from the article, as per WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. The article List of Presidents of the United States by nickname includes many insulting nicknames. Our page on Tony Blair includes reference to his (insulting) nickname of "poodle" – OK, now I've said it. Don't expect any further replies to comments you leave here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As for you ignoring me, I would like that, why you assume I am talking to you I have no idea, I am simply commenting on the talkpage, whether you like it or not is meaningless to me. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you have any policy reasons why we should discount multiple RSs? If not, please stop repeating the same argument. I noticed you missed the actual BLP problem with this article. Verbal chat 13:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is a simple insult, no notable reason for it apart from a way to insult the man, childish really and not noteworthy in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bollocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that we should change as per the cites I have quoted the  acquired the irreverent nickname..to .. been given the insulting nickname....something like... As a way to ridicule and insult Hoon his political enemies coined the demeaning nickname Hoon the buffoon. With other nicknames like blairs bush's poodle at least that has context, I imagine everyone would know the story behind it, with this there appears to be no context, it just appears to be a non specific way to ridicule him. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's not noteworthy, why is there so much RS coverage? Neither you nor I can be the arbiter of whether things given extensive coverage are noteworthy. Also, I think your proposed text makes it read worse - highlighting the derogatory nature of the nickname. Basically, you have no policy to back your position, which goes against both existing, core, policies, and against current practice as TT has shown.  Verbal chat 14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: My desired edit to the content simply reveals what the nickname actually is, just a way of insulting Hoon, wich nothing behind it at all and the fact that it can be found in a citation does not make is worthy of inclusion. Its of no value to the article in any way, ask yourself it it valuable content that adds anything to the article, on its not, would it merit inclusion in anyother encyclopedic boigraphy, no it would not, the reason is that it is just a way to deride and insult a living person, there is no story to it apart from ..we coined an insulting nickname to deride our enemy, value-less. There is also little discussion of the nickname in the citations as there is nothing to say about it, Hoon the baffoon a name given to him because some people think he is rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to choose one pithy quote from the above to highlight as being especially wrong/misguided, but I really can't choose...! ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Bollocks" Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since you didn't say that, it would be excessively foolish, not to say deceptive, of me to "quote" it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  So as you have no argument, rob, I assume you wont be removing the well sourced addition again? If so, we can ask for the page to be unblocked so actual issues can be addressed. Verbal chat 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have every intention of adding to and tweaking the content as I have said in my comments here, the present text is misleading. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I oppose you proposed changes as they make the article worse. Verbal chat 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: You will not do anything of the sort, Rob, since there is no consensus whatsoever for your proposed changes, and you have provided no justification for any alteration except that you don't like the current version. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need a consensus from you pair to add content or tweak content. I will add cited content relevant to the article and I will correct the points I have mentioned, such as the weasely in at least one how many is that then? Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is no consensus (and, yes, you do need it, you are subject to Wikipedia's policies just like every other editor) for your proposed actions or for your arguments, any continual threats to edit the article against the general agreement are likely to result in the protection being extended. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can edit the article and I don't need any consensus to do it, it is not a threat at all. As I said I have every intention of adding cited content to it when it is unlocked. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK, I see where the misunderstanding is now. You say  The problem is that that is not actually true.As you said to me yesterday,  As you pointed out, it is necessary to discuss changes which you know are controversial before making them. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing controversial about adding cited content or removing weasly expressions and such like. You will be of course able to remove it if you don't like it and as I said to you, move to discussion. Do you assert that this Hoon the buffoon is more than a simple insulting name for him? Do you really think it is noteworthy encyclopedic content? I don't and fail to see how anyone really could. Your reason for wanting to include it appears to be that it is in a reliable citation, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion, editors make those choices and that is what creates the level of commentry, do editors see it as informative encyclopedic type content.Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to your question(s)—yes I agree that it is insulting, and yes I do feel that it is noteworthy, notable and encyclopedic. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You think it is insulting and encyclopedic? The real valuable content is there in the article, the things he has done right and the things he has done wrong, the lobbying the iraq war and so on, that is what is valuable content to the readers, not some silly insulting nickname on little note and with no story behind it. If is it clearly insulting and the alleged creator said his humour was cruelly insulting the text should reflect those points. Also I want to include hoons reply to the question from the member of the public in the independent interview where hoon responded that if buffoon was all he was being called then he considered that he was doing well  Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that's what I said. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Also there is the BLP issue, you know it is insulting and yet you insist it is included. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of WP:BLP states that insulting material must be excluded? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, content is without context and clearly disparages the subject. Noteworthy criticism is fine but imo insulting content without context is not. As in He has been nicknamed hoon the buffoon..why is that then? Well no reason..just to insult him really.  Off2riorob (talk)15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is going to win over Rob on this one. He has this notion that nothing insulting should be included, and it is not clear why he thinks that. However, he is right that what is there is not encyclopedic. It's only purpose at present is to highlight that some people have taken advantage of his name to hurl a childish insult. As I've proposed above, and about which not one editor has commented, we should actually tie the nickname to its cause, i.e., the gaffes. This should be pretty easy and would address the concern that we are taking a cheap shot at Hoon. Also, we should get rid of the idiot statement that he has been asked how he feels about the nickname. If he has, it wasn't in the source we link to. -Rrius (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't in the source we link to? Really? Because when I click on that link, and scroll down to the bottom, Philippa Shirley poses Hoon the question, "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" So I'm confused about how there is an "idiot" statement involved. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really quite simple: "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" does not equal "How do you feel about your nickname?". It is idiotic to suggest it does. As I have already explained, the two questions actually asked are "Were you aware of your nickname and where does it come from?" How can anyone argue that those questions equate to "how do you feel about it?" Please, tell me how. Oh, and I am so sorry for accidentally leaving off "-ic" from "idiotic". It seems to have been very annoying to you, so I prostrate myself in begging for your forgiveness. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are clearly not interested in engaging in polite and constructive discussion, there is no need for me to respond. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. You just can't answer the question. Your pointing out my typo twice was rude, but it didn't stop me from responding to your question. The fact is, you know that you cannot turn what is actually in that source into what you are trying to say it is and are trying to deflect on bogus grounds. Please just admit whether he knew of the nickname and why he thought he earned does not somehow equate to asking how he feels about the nickname. -Rrius (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if false assumptions like that make you feel better about yourself, then who am I to stop you? You're surely not claiming that your message above was polite? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there is no false assumption. You have had several opportunities to respond to this criticism, but have failed to do so. Since manifestly ("where the name comes from" + "whether he is aware of the name") ≠ "how he feels about the name", it is not surprising that you cannot support the opposite conclusion and instead have resorted to pretending to storm off because you were so offended. Second, I'm not trying to feel better about myself; I want this article to improve. The question of this nickname was raised here, and frankly it is currently handled quite poorly. The question of completely misrepresenting a source is just one problem, as I have pointed out at least twice above. If you care to actually respond to the points made instead of taking offense at the misrepresentation being called "idiotic" (typo or not), you might actually contribute to improving the article. It is up to you to do that or to continue to take offense well out of proportion to that intended. Third and finally, since I didn't say it was polite there is no reason for you to take it as such. What I said was that you were rude about my typo, yet I managed to actually answer your question. I may have done so with some heat (because of your rudeness), but that doesn't change the fact that I answered. Your decision to then act as though I wasn't trying to have a constructive conversation was just petulance. So, you can defend the misrepresentation or not, you can answer the other points or not, but if you don't, it is because you chose not to and has nothing to do with me. -Rrius (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks, BlackKite. FYI the noticeboard recommends people discuss things here, so it's here where the consensus is likely to be formed. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoon the buffoon 

message: So why do they insult him with this buffoon nickname? The reason should be included. The comment as added is not correct, it says in at least one interview... how many interviews is it? one? in the cited independent it is not an interview it is a question from a member of the public and hoons reply also needs to be included to give context..when asked by a member of the public if Hoon know he was sometimes nicknamed Buffoon hoon replied that if that was the worst thing he was called that he would be doing well. I suggest this be added and the reason that he is called this also be added, why is he nicknamed buffoon?in  the other citation it says of the nickname and referring to Hoon...For years it has tormented him and delighted opponents....perhaps we should add that the nickname has tormented Hoon for years and that the person that claims he coined the nickname said of his humour "Liverpool wit is spontaneous – and cruelly insulting." Some context needs to be added to give note to the nickname. The BBC said.. Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is in hot water with the Sunday tabloids who've given him a new name - Buff-Hoon for  taking a holiday as the country prepares for war. Looking at the cites provided its just an insulting name, nothing special about it at all, a way to insult him, not worthy of including at all unless you want to insult him as well. ..I can't see it in the encyclopedia brittania can you? HO ho ho, they called him hoon the buffoon, how hilarious and noteworthy. In another cite it says.. The ex-Defence Secretary - known as "Buff" Hoon by Labour enemies , we could add that to give the name some context? That it is a deliberately insulting nickname designed to ridicule Hoon and was given to him by his enemies.Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I make a couple of requests, please? Could you make your future contributions to this page repetitive, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR, tedious, dull and extremely boring? (Oops, sorry, you're already doing that.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only trying to discuss the content, censor is not the keeping out of valueless insulting content and NPOV what is the issue there, the citations you have presented refer to the nicknme as insulting and created to insult him by his enemies, as I said the content that we have now is without context and if it is to stay we should imo give it context and correct the weasely in at least one comment. If it is used to insult him we should say that, in anouther citation it says.. "He is the worst Transport Secretary I have ever come across and that is saying something," said the angry union general secretary.  "I can see why everyone calls him Buff Hoon. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid I don't know how to make this any clearer, so I'll say it one last time and then ignore you. Yes the nickname is insulting. Yes the nickname was created by Hoon's "enemies" (as you put it). However, neither of these are reasons to exclude it from the article, as per WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. The article List of Presidents of the United States by nickname includes many insulting nicknames. Our page on Tony Blair includes reference to his (insulting) nickname of "poodle" – OK, now I've said it. Don't expect any further replies to comments you leave here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As for you ignoring me, I would like that, why you assume I am talking to you I have no idea, I am simply commenting on the talkpage, whether you like it or not is meaningless to me. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you have any policy reasons why we should discount multiple RSs? If not, please stop repeating the same argument. I noticed you missed the actual BLP problem with this article. Verbal chat 13:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is a simple insult, no notable reason for it apart from a way to insult the man, childish really and not noteworthy in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bollocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that we should change as per the cites I have quoted the  acquired the irreverent nickname..to .. been given the insulting nickname....something like... As a way to ridicule and insult Hoon his political enemies coined the demeaning nickname Hoon the buffoon. With other nicknames like blairs bush's poodle at least that has context, I imagine everyone would know the story behind it, with this there appears to be no context, it just appears to be a non specific way to ridicule him. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's not noteworthy, why is there so much RS coverage? Neither you nor I can be the arbiter of whether things given extensive coverage are noteworthy. Also, I think your proposed text makes it read worse - highlighting the derogatory nature of the nickname. Basically, you have no policy to back your position, which goes against both existing, core, policies, and against current practice as TT has shown.  Verbal chat 14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: My desired edit to the content simply reveals what the nickname actually is, just a way of insulting Hoon, wich nothing behind it at all and the fact that it can be found in a citation does not make is worthy of inclusion. Its of no value to the article in any way, ask yourself it it valuable content that adds anything to the article, on its not, would it merit inclusion in anyother encyclopedic boigraphy, no it would not, the reason is that it is just a way to deride and insult a living person, there is no story to it apart from ..we coined an insulting nickname to deride our enemy, value-less. There is also little discussion of the nickname in the citations as there is nothing to say about it, Hoon the baffoon a name given to him because some people think he is rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to choose one pithy quote from the above to highlight as being especially wrong/misguided, but I really can't choose...! ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Bollocks" Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since you didn't say that, it would be excessively foolish, not to say deceptive, of me to "quote" it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  So as you have no argument, rob, I assume you wont be removing the well sourced addition again? If so, we can ask for the page to be unblocked so actual issues can be addressed. Verbal chat 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have every intention of adding to and tweaking the content as I have said in my comments here, the present text is misleading. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I oppose you proposed changes as they make the article worse. Verbal chat 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: You will not do anything of the sort, Rob, since there is no consensus whatsoever for your proposed changes, and you have provided no justification for any alteration except that you don't like the current version. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need a consensus from you pair to add content or tweak content. I will add cited content relevant to the article and I will correct the points I have mentioned, such as the weasely in at least one how many is that then? Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is no consensus (and, yes, you do need it, you are subject to Wikipedia's policies just like every other editor) for your proposed actions or for your arguments, any continual threats to edit the article against the general agreement are likely to result in the protection being extended. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can edit the article and I don't need any consensus to do it, it is not a threat at all. As I said I have every intention of adding cited content to it when it is unlocked. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK, I see where the misunderstanding is now. You say  The problem is that that is not actually true.As you said to me yesterday,  As you pointed out, it is necessary to discuss changes which you know are controversial before making them. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing controversial about adding cited content or removing weasly expressions and such like. You will be of course able to remove it if you don't like it and as I said to you, move to discussion. Do you assert that this Hoon the buffoon is more than a simple insulting name for him? Do you really think it is noteworthy encyclopedic content? I don't and fail to see how anyone really could. Your reason for wanting to include it appears to be that it is in a reliable citation, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion, editors make those choices and that is what creates the level of commentry, do editors see it as informative encyclopedic type content.Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to your question(s)—yes I agree that it is insulting, and yes I do feel that it is noteworthy, notable and encyclopedic. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You think it is insulting and encyclopedic? The real valuable content is there in the article, the things he has done right and the things he has done wrong, the lobbying the iraq war and so on, that is what is valuable content to the readers, not some silly insulting nickname on little note and with no story behind it. If is it clearly insulting and the alleged creator said his humour was cruelly insulting the text should reflect those points. Also I want to include hoons reply to the question from the member of the public in the independent interview where hoon responded that if buffoon was all he was being called then he considered that he was doing well  Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that's what I said. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Also there is the BLP issue, you know it is insulting and yet you insist it is included. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of WP:BLP states that insulting material must be excluded? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, content is without context and clearly disparages the subject. Noteworthy criticism is fine but imo insulting content without context is not. As in He has been nicknamed hoon the buffoon..why is that then? Well no reason..just to insult him really.  Off2riorob (talk)15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is going to win over Rob on this one. He has this notion that nothing insulting should be included, and it is not clear why he thinks that. However, he is right that what is there is not encyclopedic. It's only purpose at present is to highlight that some people have taken advantage of his name to hurl a childish insult. As I've proposed above, and about which not one editor has commented, we should actually tie the nickname to its cause, i.e., the gaffes. This should be pretty easy and would address the concern that we are taking a cheap shot at Hoon. Also, we should get rid of the idiot statement that he has been asked how he feels about the nickname. If he has, it wasn't in the source we link to. -Rrius (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't in the source we link to? Really? Because when I click on that link, and scroll down to the bottom, Philippa Shirley poses Hoon the question, "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" So I'm confused about how there is an "idiot" statement involved. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really quite simple: "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" does not equal "How do you feel about your nickname?". It is idiotic to suggest it does. As I have already explained, the two questions actually asked are "Were you aware of your nickname and where does it come from?" How can anyone argue that those questions equate to "how do you feel about it?" Please, tell me how. Oh, and I am so sorry for accidentally leaving off "-ic" from "idiotic". It seems to have been very annoying to you, so I prostrate myself in begging for your forgiveness. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are clearly not interested in engaging in polite and constructive discussion, there is no need for me to respond. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. You just can't answer the question. Your pointing out my typo twice was rude, but it didn't stop me from responding to your question. The fact is, you know that you cannot turn what is actually in that source into what you are trying to say it is and are trying to deflect on bogus grounds. Please just admit whether he knew of the nickname and why he thought he earned does not somehow equate to asking how he feels about the nickname. -Rrius (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if false assumptions like that make you feel better about yourself, then who am I to stop you? You're surely not claiming that your message above was polite? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there is no false assumption. You have had several opportunities to respond to this criticism, but have failed to do so. Since manifestly ("where the name comes from" + "whether he is aware of the name") ≠ "how he feels about the name", it is not surprising that you cannot support the opposite conclusion and instead have resorted to pretending to storm off because you were so offended. Second, I'm not trying to feel better about myself; I want this article to improve. The question of this nickname was raised here, and frankly it is currently handled quite poorly. The question of completely misrepresenting a source is just one problem, as I have pointed out at least twice above. If you care to actually respond to the points made instead of taking offense at the misrepresentation being called "idiotic" (typo or not), you might actually contribute to improving the article. It is up to you to do that or to continue to take offense well out of proportion to that intended. Third and finally, since I didn't say it was polite there is no reason for you to take it as such. What I said was that you were rude about my typo, yet I managed to actually answer your question. I may have done so with some heat (because of your rudeness), but that doesn't change the fact that I answered. Your decision to then act as though I wasn't trying to have a constructive conversation was just petulance. So, you can defend the misrepresentation or not, you can answer the other points or not, but if you don't, it is because you chose not to and has nothing to do with me. -Rrius (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoon is a Buffoon: section-break

message: To prevent an edit-war; if there's consensus at BLPN that the material can be included that's probably the way to go. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, BlackKite. FYI the noticeboard recommends people discuss things here, so it's here where the consensus is likely to be formed. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Could an admin please place  in the external links section, thank you.--Duffy2032 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Brown Cabinet 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geoff Hoon. 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/20101217015435/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon%2C_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon,_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203160946/http://www.taylorhoon.co.uk:80/ to http://www.taylorhoon.co.uk
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This entry seems to say he was an MEP and simultaneously an MP, between 1992 and 1994. I don't think that's possible. Bigmund (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates clash 

message: That smells like left-wing, anti-military bias insisting he is a tool of America.
46.93.242.77 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you show a British politician in front of the Pentagon sign in the US?