Talk:David Cameron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unbiased report on Class A drugs use needed

I think its time this issue is clarified.

David was a crack whore when he was a Eton (unconfirmed but compelling evidence suggests). He smoked between 50-100 rocks a night and used heroin as the parachute to come down off the spikey high this gave him. To be honest, he was a better man for it, so I have been told by sources.

Unbiased report on current opinion polls

The section on opinion polls should be monitored for accuracy.

Archived talk

• Archive of discussion - 16 October 2005 to 7 November 2006

This entry is far to biased

How many people have vandalised this entry since March 8th 2007? (AndrewAnorak 08:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Vandalised!! Andrew, free speech is the cornerstone of this great democracy. People are entitled to 'contribute' and if you don't like it, you can apply to have the page included in the non-editable section with err Hitler, Thatcher, Bush and Brown. Good company eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.157.156 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This Great Democracy of Internet?--EchetusXe (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism?

Has his encouragement of a convicted Perjurer (Aitken) to an Advisory post on Prison Reform totally ruined his credibility as Leader of the Conservative Party? Why did he make this decision?

Rape Issues

I wonder if anyone knows why he is now claiming to be so concerned about this issue? Hasnt remotely bothered him since he entered Government circles.

I can only summise that he sits on a cushion for good reason

Towards a Featured Article?

This article is a former failed FA nomination, but much has been improved since then, and the subject clearly has the potential to be FA. I was considering requesting peer review, but before then there are a few obvious things outstanding that need to be resolved.

1. All unreferenced claims need to be either referenced or removed. (There are a number currently tagged as unsourced, but also a number not tagged but clearly requiring citation.)
2. Some sections of "Political views and policies" need to be expanded (where possible). In particular, the European Union section is only one sentence, and Front Bench Appointments is incomplete.
3. External links need cleaning up.

Then do people agree that it would be suitable to go forward with peer review? DWaterson 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should do. It is probably now the most in-depth article on any politician that isn't/hasn't been a national leader - certainly the most referenced! Even if it doesn't attain status it will help us know where the article needs improvement. Child of Albion 22:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A peer review would be very useful Omeganumber 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Language of class war

This is what the link I restored stated on November 21st:

"Labour revived the language of class warfare yesterday as the party’s chairman initiated a ferocious attack on David Cameron based on his privileged background. Hazel Blears cast doubt on the Tory leader’s credentials by asking why he felt the need to surround himself with so many Old Etonians, and attacked him as out of touch with ordinary people". Viewfinder 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's a quotation from The Times newspaper article ([1]), not a statement being made by (unnamed) persons at ConservativeHome.com. The fact that they're reporting the story verbatim doesn't automatically imply they agree with the precise wording... I don't, therefore, think that the source supports the assertion. DWaterson 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

UKIP POV-pushing

I have on several occasions recently reverted additions by User:169.71.50.36, who appears to be the owner of UKIPhome.co.uk. Whilst I don't dispute that the views of UKIP may be relevant to the article (if they were to have had some verifiable significant impact, say through third-party newspaper reporting), but on each occasion it was merely blatant POV-pushing. Specious claims about unverified "leaked memos" and links to blogs set up specifically for the purpose of campaigning are not appropriate for Wikipedia unless they are notable and verifiable. DWaterson 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I was looking at the edits of 81.146.15.197 [2] and wondering if this is trivia or much the same especially with the POV caption for the youtibe link Alci12 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. UKIP Home posted FACTs and you know it. Is this what the Tory party are all about? Lying, covering it up and then trying to deny it. Pathetic.

The above posted by 81.146.15.197 rather proving my suspicion I think Alci12 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentance about the leaked memo (which was an internal briefing paper on the Queens Spech debate) and it's supposed revelation about the tweak in policy re the proposed Climate Change Bill. I removed it partly because the supporting reference was to a an irrelevant news story and partly because it is basically wrong. The Conservatives have changed their use of language from 'binding' to 'annual' but there is nothing sinister about it. What they (and the Lib Dems) want is annual targets to keep Carbon emissions at the top of the political agenda. David Milliband argues is that annual targets won't work becuase factors like the weather can throw things off course and be misleading. What he wants is targets over five years - which crucially would take it outside the length of a normal parliament.

So (i suspect) in response to this the Conservatives are now giving more flexibility for the body who would set the targets in their proposal and are also putting more emphasis on the annual targets being stepping stones to the five yearly ones that sometimes may not be met. The point being it would need to be explained annually. Given the changes the word 'binding' appears to have been dropped because it makes you look abit unrealistic. It doesn't however imply a watering down of the policy. This isn't a story which is why the MSM are ignoring the effort of Mr UKIP home (who has a history of fighting lost causes) to make it one. 86.27.111.145 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your take on the issue seems very logical. However, it is acceptable to use a source which confirms the relevant information, even if the source is primarily about another topic. Whatever reason the Conservatives have for dropping the "binding" term, it should be listed in the article. However, we should refrain from passing any judgement on the issue. I am going to restore the information as it was originally. The Enlightened 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am doing some cleanup edits to this article and I can see no mention of a leaked document in this reference Cameron climate policy 'too soft', What have I missed? Abtract 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'"He has also called for binding annual targets for cuts in emissions, although a memo leaked last week to the Labour party suggests this idea could be dropped."' Fifth paragraph from bottom. The Enlightened 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As you say ... thanks :) Abtract 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming of the article

Change it to David Cameron - Future Prime Minster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.56.215 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Very funny... Plebmonk 03:56, 23 December 2006

(UTC)

No, that's not funny. It's just stupidity. Long Live Labour! Gorden Brown beats snooty upper class Cameron anyday. What's this.. Webcameron.. what a load of crap (just trying to tap into the young voters.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.170.203 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming of the article (unopinionated version)

More accurately the article should be entitled: "David Cameron - With policies to follow his bike in the old pollutive car driven by all the familiar Conservative politicians behind him. The Tories Have Not Changed." I think this would represent a neutral position on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.255.28 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Or ""David Cameron - With policies to follow his bike in the old pollutive car driven by all the familiar Conservative politicians behind him. The Tories Have Not Changed - Future Prime Minister"? Perhaps?

Hmm satirical comments are meant to be funny, however I can see these two are not. Hmmm and the Labour party hasn't changed a bit eh, or am I guessing you are one of those people who know f*ck all about politics apart from what the grauniad tells you?

The only change Labour will be making - especially under Gordon Brown is the transition from government to opposition.

Not if Cameron is still leader by 2010 they won't. Crowqueen 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Drug use revelations (2007)

This issue is threatening to become an edit war. My own view is that the incident at Eton - the claims about later use at Oxford seems less well sourced at present - should be in its chronological position as it appears to have been a significant incident at the school during Cameron's time there. Actually, in the circumstances, David Cameron's earlier non-denial/non-admission do not show him in a bad light at all, though this is almost certainly a minority opinion.

The drug issue is something which has already come up on numerous occasions; frankly the article is going to read better thorough passing references back to the details in the "early life" section than if it is dropped into the article in the context of the 2007 revelations. Someone outside the UK, coming to the article, via the web, in six months time and unaware of this rather parochial incident, would wonder why it had not featured in the earlier in the article's chronology. Philip Cross 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be included.

Yes, chronological order would be most sensible. DWaterson 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Howabout the fact that he supported the illegal, murderous invasion of Iraq? The fact he is indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands is a far bigger moral dilemma than whether or not he smoked some drug once or twice a few decades ago...

Um, the article already states that he voted in favour of the Iraq war... DWaterson 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it when i first saw it here but right now it clearly should be included. Well done David, he'll be getting my vote for sure, SqueakBox 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that claiming Iraq is more important than drugs is POV and thus not rerlevant to the article. Iraq has nothing to do with this cannabis issue, SqueakBox 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Eton College

Is there really any need to say that Eton is "an English public school"? I would have thought it was well known globally. Benbristol, 10:49, 2nd March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly, though I'd imagine many British (let alone non-British) people couldn't even point to Eton on a map, let alone know there's a famous school there. It doesn't really do any harm leaving it in, and it helps to globalise the article IMO. DWaterson 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it might help both British and non-British readers to know that Eton is a 'hot bed' of adolescent gay experiences. Fagging is a well known euphemism for sexual relationships.

No it isn't, except in the fevered imaginations of slackers from the USA. Most places in the world are hotbeds of adolescent gay experiences. Public Schools are no different. The word "fag" is only used (pejoratively) in the USA to have that meaning. The meaning everywhere else and in this context is a system of involuntary servitude forced on younger pupils by older ones in certain posh Public Schools.

Eton is near Slough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.212.141 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

David Cameron's spin speech attacking Gordon Brown 2007

has anyone seen this speech on the news? i want to know if it has already been added to the artical. David Cameron main speech was this "you are not the answer to spin, you are the spin." he was saying this to Gordon Brown--Lerdthenerd 11:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where can it be viewed?

it was on the news a couple of weeks ago, on bbc one news.--Lerdthenerd 08:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of his speech to the Spring Forum on 18 March? If so, look here for the text. Sam Blacketer 08:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you sam, yeah that was the speach i was looking for, can i add it to the main article?--Lerdthenerd 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Toff at the top

At first I included a direct link to the recent docu "Toff at the top". I changed it to merely "comment/news" without the direct link to Google Video, in the foot-notes. I think regardless where you stand politically, it was a high-profile primetime TV event which led to large debate both after and before it was broadcast in a wide spectrum of media. Considering the other entries to the external links etc, there is no reason why this should not be included. Whataboutbob 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the site linked to is a copyright violation. If it is available at "4 On Demand" from Channel 4, then link to that, but otherwise links to Youtube and Google video are deprecated. Of course if you want to describe the general thesis of the programme within the text, that would be welcomed so long as it is written in such a way as not to endorse it. Sam Blacketer 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Toff at the top-Total Scrubber below stairs?

Have you ever blown up the videos of his kitchen to full screen size? Half the stuff under the sink hasnt' been dusted since purchase at the last PTA Bring and Buy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.93.167 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim Rathbone

There is a small edit dispute (not many dead) over whether to include in the lead section a reference to the fact that David Cameron worked for Tim Rathbone, Conservative MP for Lewes, in 1985 before going up to Oxford. I've left a mention in for now but would welcome the views of other editors on it. Note this is only an issue about whether it should go in the lead, and not about whether it should be within the article.

Arguments supporting inclusion

I see essentially three:

• This was Cameron's first employment in politics and shows that, even at the age of 18, he was interested in it as a career.
• Rathbone was Cameron's godfather and a relation; this shows that Cameron had family connections to the Conservative establishment (even if Rathbone was somewhat estranged from it).
• Cameron worked on researching treatment for drug addiction, which seems to have informed his later stance once he became an MP himself.

Arguments opposing inclusion

Again there are three.

• The job lasted only three months. It may not have been paid.
• Tim Rathbone was unlikely to have been a political influence on Cameron because Cameron's stances were entirely at odds with Rathbone - a wet who opposed GLC abolition and supported European federalism. Rathbone was eventually expelled from the Conservative Party.
• I have looked for, but cannot find, anything by Cameron which sets out how he views his time with Tim Rathbone.

Do other editors feel it appropriate to include the mention? Sam Blacketer 10:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

It belongs in the article as part of the description of his early career, but doesn't belong in the lead section unless something happened there that was especially notable. See WP:Lead section. For comparison, John Roberts's one-year clerkship with William Rehnquist isn't in the lead section of his article, though that sounds considerably more notable than this three-month job. -- THF 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with THF. Not in the lead section, but elsewhere. DWaterson 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Second. Completely agree. Peeper 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"probably the best college"

Why do we need this included in the article? Is there some Oxford old-boy out there, vehemently adding this in once it is removed? It's not relevant, it's elitist. The article mentions he went to Oxford, that's all that is necessary. If someone wants to view how prestigious Oxford is, they can go to the relevant Wiki article. 89.213.49.47 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure you really understand the edit you have just made. The text you removed does not comment on David Cameron's Oxford education, but on his schooling at Eton College. Eton College is the most prestigious public school in England, and it is relevant to mention this perception because it is often highlighted by people wishing to draw attention to David Cameron's social background. Sam Blacketer 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the error. However, I think it was obvious I meant Eton. I still think this is pretty elitist and baseless for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. We now have the issue of ascertaining a SOURCE for being 'probably the best college in England'. Good luck with that one. In the mean time, I've removed that sentence once again. 89.213.49.9 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not "the best", the "most prestigious". And outside the Headmaster of Harrow, I doubt there will be many who disagree. Eton is the archetype of the prestigious public school. Sam Blacketer 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources referring to Eton as 'most prestigious'

• Pilotguides.com: "Eton is the most prestigious school in the country for boys aged thirteen to eighteen ..."
• Hutchison's Encyclopaedia: "Most prestigious of English public schools (that is, private schools) for boys ... "
• The Independent (British daily newspaper): "Eton has turned out distinguished law-makers, record-breaking sportsmen and prime ministers for centuries, as well as grooming future kings. But Britain's most prestigious public school ..."
• 21st Century Learning Initiative: "places which history now refers to as Public Schools. .. Eton was the most prestigious of these schools, ..."

There are undoubtedly stacks more. Sam Blacketer 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I note the latest edit substitutes "a prestigious" for "the most prestigious". I'm happy with that; the fundamental aspect is that Eton is not your bog-standard independent school but a cut above. Sam Blacketer 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just like Cameron himself. A man of the people? Without doubt. 89.213.13.202 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

For quite a long time, the opening paragraph of this article was simply:

David William Donald Cameron (born 9 October, 1966) is a British politician, Leader of the Conservative Party, and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons. He has been Member of Parliament for the Oxfordshire constituency of Witney since 2001.

It seems to have grown quite considerably in the last month or so, and, IMO, it's now become rather too long and contains too much detail that would be better moved to other places in the article. It has also become somewhat hagiographic. Any suggestions on a rewrite? Personally, I would trim it back severely to something similar to the previous version. DWaterson 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's largely down to me that it's grown. Partly I was reading Wikipedia:Lead section which gives a guidance length of "three or four paragraphs" for an article as long as this one now is. However I think it is too long and if you look above there was a debate over some of the matter included in the lead. I think there isn't a need for details of people like Vernon Bogdanor who would not be recognised by many people. If you look at other political figures, many of them have much longer and more rambling lead sections. Sam Blacketer 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

According to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975#September-October" David Cameron is an American hockey player!

Middle name?

What are his middle names? Some show William Donald [3]; some show William Duncan [4] (warning: obnoxious popups on last link).

David William Donald Cameron is correct. Sam Blacketer 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

David Cameron and Conservative Party Education policy

David Cameron is the leader of the Conservative Party, he may be the next British Prime Minister and could be responsible for education policy in the UK. His Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts has recently suggested that Tory policy on Grammar Schools is likely to change - David Cameron has not disagreed with this.

David Cameron was privately educated at great expense at Eton College. I believe that it is very important that readers of Wikipedia should be aware that a man who seems to be opposed to non fee-paying selective education was privately educated at the most expensive secondary school in the UK.

For this reason, I have added details of David Cameron's educational background to the beginning of his entry on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackley (talk • contribs)

Cameron's education is mentioned extensively in the article. There is no need to have a separate mention in the lede section. In addition, when it has been put there, it is placed in the middle of a worked-through summary of Cameron's involvement in politics through his life. Going to Heatherdown Prep school was not a political act, nor was going to Eton. As such the edit which is being made to the lede is misleading. Sam Blacketer 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Going to Eton" is not "a political act"? Let me guess, you don't actually live in the UK, do you Sam?

The significant point here is that a currently contentious aspect of Conservative Party policy is to change their long-term stance on selective education for the children of parents who are not rich. This IS "political".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackley (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts using four tildes. Viewfinder 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What to include in the lead paragraph is often contentious, and the issue is not clear cut. My 2p worth: there might be a case for the word "Eton" somewhere at the top, but personally, I don't think that the full details of his education need to be in the lead, at least surely not his prep school and not in a paragraph about politics. His education is well covered, and note also - and read - the criticism section. Viewfinder 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just point out Shackley has only about 5 edits and seems mysteriously to have appeared to support User:New Canadian who hosts [5] the Peter Hitchens "toff at the top" documentary on their website. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone is trying to get people to repeatedly edit this page to include Eton at the top - see http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17736935. Information certainly shouldn't be put at the top of an article to make a political point or discuss current affairs so unless and until there is a strong consensus that anything new needs to be included in the introduction I suggest it is left as it is and any repeated edits reverted. Matt 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps David Cameron's Prep. School is not appropriate in the lead on his entry. However, how you can possibly suggest that mentioning that he received his secondary education at the most expensive and elitist school in England when he appears ready to break with the traditional Conservative Party support for selection in secondary education for the "less well off"?

And incidentally, what is the comment that he so impressed his [unnamed] tutor that he allegedly chose to describe David Cameron as "one of the ablest students" he had ever taught doing in the lead? What is the source for this puffery? Shackley 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the vast majority of other articles it won't say where their secondary education was and I don't see why it should be here. Regarding the comment by his tutor, that wouldn't be notable in most cases but here the tutor is a highly respected constitutional expert, author and commentator - Vernon Bogdanor so the comment is notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

Do all these links have to be here? Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could wield the sword. Kevin 10:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's excessive. Time for the pruning shears. Sam Blacketer 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

British Hindus

I am reverting to the changes I made to this sub-section. It seems needlessly conflated with information that belongs in British Asian or Hinduism in the United Kingdom. As it stands now, it is longer than "Fox Hunting", "ID cards" and "Education" put together, which seems a little strange for what amounts to Cameron saying he wants to add a line to the census. Of course, the issue of "British Hindus" is larger than this, which is why there is an article devoted to it, but this is roughly what Cameron is saying he wants to do, and thus this is what is relevant. I would appreciate some outside opinions on this matter, as it seems only me and Ananth801 care about it right now. Vicarvictor 9:26 13 July 2007

Agree with Vicarvictor. Viewfinder 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, this is already a *very* long article (which we probably need to consider ways of splitting), and I don't think there's room to devote quite so much space to this section. A few sentences would be plenty. Cheers, DWaterson 09:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that a second article "Political positions of David Cameron" may work; it seems to be the standard for popular American politicians (such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani), and would split the current article fairly nicely in half. Thoughts? Vicarvictor 14:53 14/07/07

I think that's a good idea. This section is already long enough to form an article on its own and could do with being removed and replaced with a summary. Generally this sort of section has a problem in that it can be difficult to discern which of the political positions is something which the party has adopted collectively, and which are the distinctive stances of the leader. It's natural for politicians to want to claim the credit for the popular policies they have outlined, but if anything proves unpopular, to distance themselves from them. Sam Blacketer 08:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Needs hacking though. Vicarvictor 8:35pm (JST) 15/07/07

he's categorized as a zionist?

is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.145.126 (talk) 02:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC) You are damned right it is (DC)

No, it is incorrect - the word 'Zionist' should be capitalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.93.167 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Inital GA comments

I don't have time to fully review this, but some initial comments before another reviewer comes along:

• There are some stubby sections. Consider the need for some subheadings. I'd merge the sections when the section consists of only one paragraph.
• I can see at least one instance of the title of a newspaper not italicised.
• There is no mention that he is a twat. (OK, this might not be strictly within the GA criteria)

Good luck. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied up the formatting of the references, so they consistently have the article title in quotation marks and the publication title italicised. Really they should be converted to the cite template, but I can't be bothered to do that myself. Anyway, consistency is the important thing. DWaterson 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Satire and trivia section

Whilst I know that trivia sections are (sort of) deprecated, I'm just wondering if some of this pruning was rather too swingeing as the article has perhaps lost something of its character. If there's anything worth restoring I suppose it could be integrated into the article elsewhere. DWaterson 23:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very well written, well organised and clear.

2. Factually accurate?: Fanatically well referenced, however I would recommend consistent formatting.

3. Broad in coverage?: It covers it quite well, though it seems like some points seem to be missing, for example the image he has developed seems to be riding to work on a bike - I couldn't find anything on that. Same for the clash when he became leader over the EPP (and MER).

4. Neutral point of view?: In terms of language seems fine and I don't think there is much missing that damages POV. There was one line which I think needs to be looked at ~ "They dislike his use of language and emphasis on style as much as substance" - as far as I am aware the criticism has generally been style above substance (the cited article says no substance) rather than the same emphasis.

5. Article stability? Quite a bit of vandalism and reversion going on, but it seems to be corrected rapidly. Might be a problem for FA though.

6. Images?: Both profile and family images are PD and used properly, also of decent quality. However are there no others at all that could be used? Not vital though.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Good job and well done. - J Logan ^t: 12:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Running commentary on opinion polls

I think I was responsible, earlier this year, for adding to the introduction the fact that the Conservative Party under David Cameron had established a consistent opinion poll lead. Since May that has not been the case and the opinion polls have gone forward and back. Perhaps it would be better not to try a running commentary on them, but simply to state that the Conservative Party under David Cameron has shown improvement in opinion polls while not always leading them. Sam Blacketer 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'd also state the reasons for changes in opinions i.e. Blair leaving/Brown becoming PM, grammar school controversy, 2007 Conservative conference etc.--Mas 18 dl 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate in the body of the article, but the lead needs to be a summary. Sam Blacketer 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disability Issues?

Why did his wife choose not to include their disabled son in the 'happy politicos family-little wifey + smiling kiddies ' front page shoot of 'Vanity Fair' just before the big launch of her handbag in the States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.183.55 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Illegal donations

I think the fact that Cameroon's constituency party have admitted to taking illegal donations from two sources, then hushing it up for four months, whilst Cameron continued to criticise others for dodgy donations [6] says a lot about the character of David Cameron. Surely this should be included in the article?--91.106.42.254 (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Cameron the treasurer of his local constituency party? I would be astonished if he was. (Local Conservative Associations have a high degree of autonomy, which is carefully-guarded)

If this story runs for a bit, and if there is evidence that Cameron knew about the funds or failed to engage in the scrutiny which a Conservative MP would usually apply to these matters, then it's probably worth including in the article, but at the moment this story seems to be one of those short-lived points of political embarrassment which tend to fade from memory -- in this case because the issue appears to be one of guilt-by-association rather than personal culpability.

I notice that the only quite the Guardian could get in its article was from an obscure backbencher, which is usually a rather good indication that this is not a major story.

Wikipedia isn't a news service, and we need to be careful not to turn articles like this into sort blog, where we add every political spat as it happens. It's better to take a longer view and consider the importance of each against his whole career, and it's too early to do that on this issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Related to his wife?

It says that David Cameron is a cousin of Sir Ferdinand Mount. On his wife's page it says that she is a cousin of Sir Ferdinand Mount. Does this mean David is related to his wife Samantha in some way? Are they cousins too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.81.173 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Auschwitz

In March a new user added a very one-sided paragraph about DC's comments on Auschwitz [7]. The section makes unattributed claims that DC called the Auschwitz initiative a "head-line grabbing gimmick". He may have said "gimmick" but the invention of the quote was sloppy. Much worse, the article claimed the Telegraph had called for Mr Cameron to apologise - the implication being that DC's comment caused such outrage that even the Conservative press was horrified. The article cited said no such thing, not even a hint of it. When a user attempted to incorporate the Conservative leader's response into the section he was reverted by the same user with the summary "remove contradictory comments". [8] Another user placed a POV template at the top and after several weeks removed the paragraph. The paragraph's creator put it back without the POV template. Numerous editors have subsequently tried to remove it. The paragraph seems to have been an attack paragraph and was completely incompatible with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'm not DC's biggest fan and I'm not trying to present his POV, just to report the facts as they stand using published material. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no wish to encourage the anon user (who says I am on a "pro-Tory" edit spree) by posting on his talk page. As my edits to the article on the Conservative think tank Policy Exchange will show, I have no pro-Tory agenda. I was understandably unhappy at the state of a section that invented quotes and whose creator had blanked any attempt to introduce an opposing point of view. A Labour MP's blog doesn't meet the notability guidelines; if this primary source had been widely reported it might, but it shouldn't be summarised here. The most it can do is support the statement that some in the Labour party have made an allegation. I removed the assertion that most consider a visit to Auschwitz to be a life-changing experience because it's a weasel word impossible to prove and quite possibly untrue. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone (other than Lo2u) read the references - they are all highly coherent and back-up the statements on Auschwitz. The Labour MP's blog is in another section - the statement is that "a labour MP's blog lists ten flip-flops", what better reference to that effect than the blog itself listing the "flip flops! Finally there is no reason to disrespect me just for being anon Assume Good Faith and Don't bite newbies. And please stop following me around for example here--77.98.178.218 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I referred to you as an anon user because it was quicker than copying and pasting your IP and I wanted to distinguish you from Timrollspickering, not because I think anonymous users should be made to feel unwelcome. The blog fails WP:NOTE; anyone can write a blog but unless that blog has been cited by some sort of news organisation the information it gives shouldn't be summarised in the article. I left the link in place because I thought it was a good example. The problem with the Auschwitz section is that, depite what you say, some of the statements made aren't backed up and phrases like "most people think" are almost universally frowned on at Wikipedia, as WP:WEASEL explains. For the record I do think that on this occassion David Cameron was very unfairly treated; that is my opinion and not something I've attempted to add to the article. It is important that the facts be allowed to speak for themselves and that both points of view are presented. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cameron, Carlton and onDigital

Link Why has the paragraph based on this article been deleted? There is a good insight into someone who presided over a 1.2bn GBP loss. Mike0002 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph did not cite its source. Indeed, it mentioned that the information was "reported by the BBC in December 2005"; you mention an entirely different source. In the article you cite, neither of the quotes (the one attributed to Jeff Randall, and the one attributed to Ian King) appears. Therefore we have no confirmation that the quotes are accurate. This is a biography of a living person, and for any article about a living person, we have to take particular care that it is written accurately. Unsourced controversial material has to be removed immediately and if you want it back in, you need to make a case.

I think the article already engages with the fact that some journalists with whom David Cameron worked while at Carlton formed a bad impression of him, in that it mentions the Express on Sunday controversy over ONdigital subscriber numbers. More well-sourced criticism could be added but it would have to be written from a neutral point of view. I don't think the eventual losses of ONdigital are particularly relevant to David Cameron because his role was in communications rather than in business planning, and that for Carlton rather than ONdigital itself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Descent from William the Conquerer?

I noticed an IP added this section yesterday. I'm inclined to not think it's something that should get its own section. If there's a reliable source that says Cameron is descended from William the Conquerer, it can be given a one sentence mention in the Family section. Would anyone object if I removed the current listing? Vickser (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One Nation Conservative?

Well, is he one or isn't he? The article never says. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

daily mail

very baised, what with his resent bowing down to them i think the times kept should be kept though mind

I have moved the statement from the lead section to further down the article.[9] As the lead section is meant to summarise the rest of the article, it is inappropriate to include something that is not mentioned elsewhere. The issue about bias is debatable, but as a statement of opinion supported by a single source, it certainly doesn't deserve prominence in the lead section. Road Wizard (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)