Talk:David Cameron/Archive 1

message: I'm a bit troubled by the inclusion of Ming Campbell's plainly partisan comment on the 2005 Conservative manifesto.  What troubles me is to what extent Camreron who we are told "drafted" it should personally responcible for it's contents.  Indivdual Shadow Ministers make policy, the leader of the party approves policy, others will have an input but the guy who drafts the manifesto (Cameron) hasn't written the policy.  His job is to present those policies which have already been created in a cohernent whole to hang together as a programme of government. I'm minded to remove all reference to the manifesto as is misleading.Cp6ap 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manifesto

message: *News links
**Handy links for Cameron / Black Wednesday details should anyone want them. --bodnotbod 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Is the Current event flag appropriate?  The leadership election is the event - can a person be a current event? --cp6ap
:A lot of people involved in current big news stories (and this is easily the biggest story in UK politics at the moment) have had the current event tag for the duration. Timrollpickering 23:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event Flag

message: During his Newsnight interview of David Cameron on 17 November 2005, Jeremy Paxman put the following passage on Cameron's family history to him practically verbatim:  "he is...  descended from the 7th Earl of Denbigh, the 1st Earl of Ducie, the 1st Earl of Carnarvon, the 2nd Earl of Egremont, the 6th Duke of Somerset and the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury".  Link to the interview is on this page (click on "VIDEO Watch the interview").  Chelseaboy 10:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I saw the interview that night and immediately thought of this page! David 19:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How reassuring it is to hear that so many journalists of the United Kingdom rely upon wikipedia - almost always un-referenced, often vandalised or plain incorrect... but apparently it's convenient if you're a hack in a rush! --86.144.85.93 00:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I imagine he had a researcher write this for him. I wouldn't have thought Jeremy Paxman on hundreds of k per year would write all his own notes. 87.74.15.60 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy Paxman reads this page! 

message: I think we need to wait until he is actually inducted into the Privy Council before adding "The Right Honourable" and PC post-nomials to the header paragraph.
See:
Privy Council of the United Kingdom
Right Honourable
I agree. He'll be one soon enough, but I'll remove them for now.
This should be added see http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page76.asp - he is on the list Gretnagod 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privy Councillor / "Rt. Hon." 

message: Is Cameron the least experienced leader of a major party? I should think Benjamin Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck are pretty close. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend entirely on how you define experience. Cameron certainly doesn't have that little boy look that Blair had at 41 (and was parodied for having) and definitely doesn't any more. I heard on the BBC today someone saying that whereas his formal political experience (time as an MP, time in the shadow cabinet) is clearly less than Blair's was his real political experience (working for Chancellor Lamont, etc) is actuaslly greater than Blair's was. IMO the fact that Blair became an MP at a younger age isn't so great, and one could argue that Blair had less experience of real life than Cameron (something his face, which they say we are responsible for after 40, gave away). On another note contrast Cameron's humour with humourless Blair. Someone said on the telly Cameron was always cracking jokes and he then made a quip about Brown. Maybe it should be mentioned but I couldn't see where. The present structure of the article doesn't encourage that kind of new information right now though I am sure the article will get restructured eventually now he is on a new level of importance, SqueakBox 18:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience 

message: Is it just me, or do all the 'see also' bits, and many of the links at the bottom, seem to assume the only thing worth knowing about him is his bloodline? 10:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloodline

message: Every attempt to get a balance on this entry is being frustrated by Cameron groupies. PaddyBriggs 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh what? You insist on trying to insert partial analysis that describes him as a Neoconservative. Removing this does not make this article POV. I haven't seen any objections to the content of this article, it's all factual and accurate and nobody has disputed that, it's simply that you want your own opinion inserted. 87.74.15.60 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I Quite agree with User 87.74.15.60.  Unless a specific problem is identified the scare baner should definitely be removed.  Mind you I think the Values and Policies section needs substantial rewriting just so it reads better. Cp6ap 20:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: People are even deleting this comment when i put the correct tag on!Jamesedwardsmith 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: Shouldn't it read "Cameron becoming Blair" and not vice versa?
No. Blair came first and the joke is he has had a face transplant and is now David Cameron, SqueakBox 16:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Private Eye Picture

message: Watch it here and you will see he did not say what was claimed, thus removed the whole paragraph, SqueakBox 19:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paxma interview

message: So what changes, if any, do we need to make to the current version before everyone's happy with removing the tag? Rd232 talk 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: to rd232, please stop repeatedly adding the incorrect information that civil partnerships are not only for same sex couples. It's just wrong, and easily verifiable.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40033--c.htm#3
Eligibility
  
      (1) Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if- 
  
  (a) they are not of the same sex, 
Now let that be the end of it.
(sorry my tilde doesn't work....)
:I don't know what you're on about. The text I added back didn't make that mistake; I made it once in a remark in an edit summary (misremembering point that a civil partnership can be between any two unrelated people of the same sex, it doesn't have to be gay/lesbian relationship). I've clarified and updated Civil Partnership Act 2004. I only wanted explicit reference to what the point of the Act is, and now we have that. No problems here. Rd232 talk 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Partnerships

message: The sentence regarding the Bulllingdon club has been rewritten many times since it was first introduced to the article.  I think the problems surrounding the constant revision are because it's only included becuase it's quite controversial because of it's alledged "binges" and "destruction" - If DC had been a member of the fishing society we wouldn't care abot that.  However nobody really knows what they got up to when he was a member all those years ago - so that the implication that he was involved in "binges" or "destruction" becomes an unsubstantiated slur.  I'm not sure there is a satisfactory way to square the circle - personally i preferred the revision that called it an exclusive dining club which was undoubtedly true and left out.  What do others feel - if nobody objects i think the references to binges and destruction should be removed. Cp6ap 23:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullingdon Club

message: The article surrently reads - "However, the appointments of Laurence Robertson and Gerald Howarth, controversial MPs to whom allegedly racist comments have been attributed in the past, to junior shadow positions has caused some controversy."
Has it?  Where has this "controversy" been reported it's pased me by entirely.  I think it needs backing up with a source.Cp6ap 00:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Laurence Robertson and Gerald Howarth

message: http://www.libdems4cameron.com
Interesting. Cameron appeals to Lib Dem supporter that he is 'liberal and progressive'. Worth adding and contextualising. 147.114.226.174 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to believe that libdems4cameron is run by the conservative party (or a supporter of). It reminds me of the tory website, and has a link to it early on. Ud terrorist 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed Conservative run, and Cameron has openly admitted this when he did his big "liberal Conservative" push.Child of Albion 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libdems4cameron 

message: While I agree a lot of the ancestry is interesting, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people who are fifth cousin twice removed of the Queen, etc. It seems a bit daft, nay political, to list this. Also, to say he has aristocratic links is enough as the majority of those families are linked Gretnagod 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hundreds of thousands? Probably less than 2 thousand living. Arniep 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point but once someone is related to one member of the aristocracy they are related to many members due to the inherent "inbreeding," for lack of a better word. The number of relatives mentioned smacks of a political attack upon Cameron for being "posh" when the number of so-called aristocratic relatives is self-pepetuating.
Out of general interest, does anyone know where this places him in line for the throne? Megawattbulbman 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A long way back, because, his descent is illegitimate (from William IV and his mistress Dorothy Jordan). Arniep 18:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arniep is wrong, he's not a "long way" back, he's not on the Line of Succession, because he is descended from illigitmate lines. And he's not known to descend 'lawfully' from Electress Sophia of Hanover, he wont be on the Succesion at all. --82.4.86.73 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I thought that he may be descended from a monarch further back legitimately, but I forgot about the Sophia rule. Arniep 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: This looks a little out of place where it is. Perhaps it could go in a new "trivia" section at the bottom of the article?
: Agreed though I think it should probably be deleted it's not really not important enough to be part of this article.Alci12 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed shall i just delete it? Jamesedwardsmith 14:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fool 

message: Today the Labour Party (UK) launched a series of Party Election Broardcasts attacking David Cameron, and creating the website www.davethechameleon.com , mocking his decisions to what other parties want to hear.
Should this be featured on this or any other related articles? Should a new one created. The first 'episode' is featured on the website given above. TheTallOne 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a failure, because the conservatives enjoyed success in the following election. It's not satire as it is biased towards making the Labour party more acceptable to voters. It's an advertising campaign that belongs only in its own article. Newsnight Watcher 10:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No irony in the fact that Labour won an election by adopting the Conservative's centre-right policies. It was about three years into a Labour government when original Labour policies outnumbered Major/Clarke era Tory policies (apart from the 20 year old Liberal (Democratic) party policy of BoE independence, economic policy took five years to change). 86.7.208.240 21:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave the Chameleon 

message: "The Tory frontbench have confided to reporters that the excitement they gained from watching Cameron in action saved them hundreds of pounds in traditional Lib Dem "expenses"."
What exactly does that mean? Seems out of place. I also removed the reference in the opening paragraph to Cameron attending Eton; unnecessary as it is stated in the next section.
:I got rid of it. The article has been taking a heavy assault of POV edits and they can be quite tricky to spot. Jefffire 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: In what way is Margaret Thatcher misquoted when people say that she said "there is no such thing as Society"? I can accept that one might argue that her phrase was taken "out of context" (although I don't agree with that particular contention). If people said that she had said "Society is a figment of the imagination", that would be "misquoting" her - but I can't see how quoting her as saying "there is no such thing as Society" is a misquote - it seems like a direct quotation to me? Camillus (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "no such thing as Society" misquote?

message: Some people say... Some people said... Some people think... Some people do...
Who are these people? Why do these "some people" keep appearing in unsourced statements? Could it be that someone who personally dislikes David Cameron is lazily adding his own criticism of David Cameron to the article? Add a source whenever you do this, and make sure that the "some people" is replaced with a notable person's name. Write it like 'Jeremy Paxman said that David Cameron in his youth liked to eat cheese and he has a hidden pro-cheese agenda'. Make sure there's a rock solid source to back it up! Otherwise the article will look like it was written by New Labour spinners.Newsnight Watcher 10:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some people... 

message: I'm not sure as to whether the drug he is supposed to have taken at university was ever said to be cocaine. Clarify?
:Given that Cameron did confirm (on Channel 4 news) that he had never taken cocaine whilst an MP' (, for example), there was a clear implication that that was the particular drug he was alleged to have taken prior to becoming an MP. The newspapers certainly reported it in that context, and I'm not aware that any other drug was ever suggested. DWaterson 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocaine use at university 

message: Has anyone seen this yet? I had a quick scan through the article, and didn't find any mention of it. Perhaps it should be, somewhere? --Dreaded Walrus 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webcameron 

message: I like your user name but not so sure about your edits to this article recently. Removing the references to the length of the budget speech, the nature of the Bullingdon Club and the number of Etonians in cabinet is really not on. All those sourced facts are directly relevant here and have been commented on in the mainstream media numerous times. On the other hand, the selected details of the content of his budget speech - which in fact are just a way of getting some anti-Gordon Brown info into this article - aren't relevant in a biography because they aren't biographical comments. You tried to link the two and I want to point out they are very different. Please don't just revert again. You made a lot of edits which could be seen as very biased all at once without discussion. --SandyDancer 01:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LongLiveFolkMusic 

message: I have noticed that one particular user keeps on inserting irrelevant information about the UKIP's leader's "Jewish" descent. Now it is notable that although his last name is Jewish, there is no indication that he has a significant about of Jewish genes in him. After all, it is thought by many that Hitler might have had a Jewish ancestor or two. I've known plenty of people who are racist against blacks, hispanics and Asians, but like Jews. Just because Ukip elected a Jewish leader doesn't make them racist against Italians, Greeks, Turks etc. 144.32.196.4 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I agree, but my advice is don't feed the troll by making the obvious arguments against the lunacy of including the wording about Farage being Jewish. The person will get bored and go away at some point (if s/he hasn't already). In the meantime, keep reverting it. --SandyDancer 09:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seemed to come from original research on Farage's page where someone discovered that Farage was a surname used by Sephardi Jews. Farage is also an English surname. I can't see anywhere on google where Farage has said he is Jewish or of Jewish ancestry. Arniep 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nigel Farage's descent

message: Have added what I would consider a "stub" section re: this. I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned before. --SandyDancer 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of A-List

message: Who's changed the main photograph?  It's awful, isn't there a better one?  This article needs more protection and seems to be excessively negative. --Dovea 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think the article is excessively negative? If anything, this article has in the past been criticised for reading like it was written by Cameron's most ardent fan. I think it is now very balanced and fair. If you take issue with anything in particular, you should say, however. As for the photo, the older photo was not in the public domain so could not stay. Another, slightly ropey, photo was substituted, and has now been substituted again by something much better. --SandyDancer 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph/negativity 

message: No newspapers have ever mentioned it. No mentions at all in The Times Digital Archive for 'Wouseldorf'. Suspect a hoax, myself. Fys. Ta fys aym. 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunting the Wousel (dorf)

message: Sorry all but it just occurred to me that the current para on the whole cocaine thing that dominated the earlier stages of his leadership campaign have, in all honesty, been glossed over. I appreciate this has been discussed before, but the "Allegations of cocaine use at university" was misrepresentative - the allegations were never just about his time at Oxford, as the sources already there in the article clearly show. Indeed more of the allegations and the whispering was about the fact he'd been in PR, where allegedly cocaine use is rife (couldn't comment personally, but that was the source of some of the speculation). I think it is good that this section appears in the "leadership campaign" section, as that's where it belongs - the allegations haven't really been aired much since. But the subsection as it was misrepresented what was a ver big deal at the time. --SandyDancer 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cocaine again...

message: This section is a bit slim. Although Cameron is criticised for a perceived "policy-lite" approach, surely there is more we can put in here? --SandyDancer 09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section should be removed. His actual actions should be part of the biography higher up and policies can go under his views section. 144.32.196.4 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actions and initiatives

message: When this section was originally added this read "Cameron is a Unionist and he supports devolution" but has since been changed to "Cameron is a Unionist although he supports devolution". Does anyone else feel that this change implies that devolution is inherently un-unionist? One can still support a single sovereign unified state and also want a change in the way the government of that state is organised, they are not necessarily contradictory or incompatible. Indeed, some would argue that devolution has strengthened the union. Benson85 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel anything of the sort. Saying Cameron is a Unionist and he supports devolution, before going on to talk about devolution, suggests that unionism means supporting devolution. The "although" doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive beliefs, just that they are not usually associated with each other. Personally, my views are the same as Cameron's on the matter, but I still see that one does not naturally flow from the other (although, like you said, the case can be made). Child of Albion 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional issues 

message: There's been some back and forth on which photo should appear at the top of the page. Seems to me that the image previously used, which admittedly was more flattering to Cameron (though this page's function isn't to flatter the subject), contravened Wikipedia guidelines and has been replaced. Those who don't like it should go out and find another. However - I don't see why the photo of the younger Cameron with Norman Lamont has also been removed. Can someone explain? --SandyDancer 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images flattering to the subject are not important. But images which aren't tiny zoom-ins of the original source are. It's better not to have an image at all. I notice Menzies Campbell still has his fair use photo up there, so perhaps it is best if we get a free use one of him. I'm sure I could find one of the back of his head if its free-use trumps fair-use ignoring of all other factors. Free use photos should only be used if they are "equivalent" to the fair use ones. This clearly isn't equivalent. It would be better not to have any photo at all. Child of Albion 16:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a better quality photo you are free to email David Cameron's office and ask them for one which they will license under a unrestricted license such as Creative Commons or GFDL which allows images to be used commercially and to be modified without permission. The Lamont photo was claimed to be a screenshot but was actually a press photo which cannot be used under fair use. The Private Eye cover was an unnecessary copyrighted image which could easily be described in words. Arniep 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather disagree over the Private Eye cover. As we know, a picture tells a thousand words, and, quite obviously, images of magazine covers are unreproducable in copyright free form. Trying to describe an image is like trying to describe an elephant - you can do it, but you end up with some odd results. Wikipedia specifically has fair use tagging to identify those images where fair use is the best there is; if the Private Eye cover cannot qualify as fair use, then we'd better get deleting quickly, as there's a lot of other images out there with far poorer claim. DWaterson 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All it is is two standard pictures of people of whom we both a free image with a caption saying something about the world's first face transplant. There, I described it! Arniep 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But still, the impression is lost, and anyone reading the article would read that description and wish to see the actual picture. There is a certain humour to the "before" and "after" facial expressions too. I really think this anti-fair use fetish has got way out of hand. Wikipedia policy *allows* fair use, but it *prefers* free use if an "equivalent" photo is available. Child of Albion 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: It has been claimed that this Wikipedia entry is a gross exploitation of this website and it seems clear to some that David Cameron is using Wikipedia as a campaign tool. This has been criticised by websites on the internet blogsphere.
That blog appears to have been set up specifically for this purpose ... --SandyDancer 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think random blogs are acceptable sources of criticism to include on wikipedia... This blog is especially amusing because most of the edits including Cameron's views have been done by me! Last time I checked, documenting a politician's views is a good thing for wikipedia to do - thats the first thing I want to find out when I look up a politician. I fail to see how it is "bias" either, it looks good if you agree with the guy or bad if you disagree! Incidentally, I also included things like the fact Cameron has actually been fox-hunting (probably not an image he wants to convey), and his claim that he was the "heir to Blair" - an increasingly damaging claim. Child of Albion 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Exploitation of Wikipedia

message: Regarding the drug controversy section, do we have any evidence that there was a direct allegation by anyone that he used drugs? I know he was repeatedly asked and didn't answer, giving the impression that he had, but to use the term "allegation" we surely need a cited source of someone saying "He took cocaine"
Child of Albion 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk of him having used cocaine did not stem from him denying he had taken them - after all, in order to deny the rumours, he was first asked about them and therefore by definition those rumours existed independently of his denials. I think it is tricky semantics to argue that "allegations" is the wrong word, personally. The allegations he had been a drug user dominated a certain phase of the leadership campaign, though didn't do him lasting damage it seems. The controversy needs to be mentioned. Its omission would be startling and give ammunition to the users who are claiming this article is heavily biased in Cameron's favour (which I don't agree with). --SandyDancer 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I completely agree it needs to be mentioned. I was actually thinking about extending it a little. I was just wondering about the wording used - I think maybe "controversy" would be better. As far as I'm aware the rumours DID take off after the denials. It all stemmed from an appearance on some show with a young audience and he was casually asked if he took drugs at university after cannabis was discussed. He said "I had a normal student experience" and then the journalists went digging. Cue more questions about cannabis, and then questions about harder drugs. I think it is important that he was never outright accused and that the controversy was somewhat of his own making for the way he answered questions, rather than an attack by other MPs/journalists/papers/etc Child of Albion 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Allegations"

message: Substituted at 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment