Talk:George Osborne/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Funding the monarchy

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

Bilderberg 2011

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

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

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 1 October 2011

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

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

Not done: The full protection expires in three days, at which point I'll (hopefully remember to) reinstate the permanent semi-protection, so there's not really any point in removing the template. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; you should be able to make a edit now to remove it, then another edit when it expires to put it back, can't you? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I can, but why bother? The small BLP padlock is invisible, as long as the big one is in effect. Favonian (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks better without that category for people with the "Show Hidden Categories" option set to on in their preferences. In this case, I am one of those people. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reopened to see if any other admins will do it for me. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not much use, I think, since the protection is due to expire tomorrow. Ucucha (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Aristocracy

Isn't using the term 'aristocracy' a little misleading. Surely most British readers at least will equate aristocracy with the peerage, when in reality Osborne's family will minor provincial gentry who never snagged anything more than a baronetcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scillonia840 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

By all means, give a source and explain that in detail for the readers (who aren't all British!). Trust me, I don't understand that distinction even as you've just made it. ;) Wnt (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Massive deletions

The guy just doesn't give up. I have admitted to my POV, and am attempting to address the issue (if I'm given a chance without being reverted with no explanation given whatsoever; see the edit summary). Why has the dead section on his austerity programme been added back? It was chopped out months ago because it was a whole lot of space for nothing on his bio page. Why is the entire section on News International whitewashed? This is an ongoing story, all over the press, yet it is being wiped from the article as though it doesn't exist. If I do not get a reply, I will be reporting the pair of you, Bbb23 and Youreallycan, for vandalism. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please do. I'm still trying to figure out how your claim of "massive deletions" resulted in your edit that deleted over 18,000 characters from the article. You must've done more than just restore this section. You couldn't even correctly comment out a section (very devious, btw, particularly marking it as minor and no edit summary).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is as I feared: my prior commentary regarding your intellect and knowledge have wounded you. The truth hurts. More unfortunately for me, your knowledge of this article is as broad and deep as that of everything else, i.e. narrow and shallow.

"I'm still trying to figure out..." The clue was in "a whole lot of space for nothing". Why? Because the material was SHIFTED TO A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ARTICLE ON THE AUSTERITY PROGRAMME MONTHS AGO. I know this, because I moved it myself. Why do you think I blanked it? Pointless duplication of material. Thus the only actual massive deletion has been performed by Youreallycan, of the News International section.

Na miłość Boską, if you don't know about this article or its recent and distant history, just please go away. Please, I am begging you. I am impatient with stupidity, and it is fruitless to argue with ignorance. I'd much rather speak even with Youreallycan—after all, while he is unable to spell Osborne's name correctly, he does at least possess the merit of knowledge about the article's history. Then again, he seems quite unable to utilise it, as evidenced by his reintroduction of the stuff on the austerity programme. You, however, can please, please just go away. You are a simple annoyance to me on this article, an irritation. You are just an angry man who never accepted his limitations. And if correcting a typo before I had the chance to is how you have to score your 'victories', you are truly to be pitied. Desperate, and desperately sad, but it's all someone as crushingly ordinary as you has ever got, so I'd stick with it, Typo Man. : ) I previously alluded to my knowledge of quantum field theory, but I like to study a broad range of difficult topics deeply. Yes, and I am stuck on something very, very difficult at the moment. Can you help me out? I was wondering if you could "easily" convince me of this. All the information required to "easily" do so is on pages 18–20; I look forward to hearing from you on this most intellectually taxing matter very soon.

Now, can we get on? What was the problem with the reverted version? Before being so rudely interrupted with your tedious reversion, I was in the middle of adding this and taking out my little GDP picture—though there is no reason for doing the latter, since the odd pretty picture is encouraged as article spice. Once it has been so needlessly chopped, I really see less than no problem. I've asked a neutral to take a look at it, that is to say my reverted version plus article minus chart. Well, assuming I am permitted to revert and edit the article without tiresome interruption from aggrieved men nursing a blow to their low self-esteem. By the way, work on that self-esteem because it is most unattractive to females.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't get so worked up. The problem here is that you do not have a {{main}} template at the beginning of the appropriate section, written in WP:summary style, pointing us to the existence of this other article, and allowing us to verify that the current summary gives us a fair gist of what it says. How are we supposed to know where to look for the stuff? Use that template and hopefully people will spot the duplicated material and stop giving you grief about it in the future. Wnt (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Come off it, Iloveandrea. I thought I was being even-handed enough in my response on my talk page, and instead of answering, you did this two minutes later? After just making a point of keeping my stuff in the previous edit? As I said above, there's at least one removal you made recently that I'd agree with unless someone finds a source actually making that comparison. I'm sure you could win other points like that on the talk page. Instead, well ... you're just headed in the wrong direction altogether. Wnt (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Wnt. I noticed your pasty stuff had been put into the austerity programme only afterwards. I was correcting the blanking errors and making an addition/removal when Typo Man struck. Do you see any reason, as a neutral, not to have the News International stuff included? It is all over the newspapers here at the moment, yet these two don't even want it mentioned. And they tell me I am POV... ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above in the section about it. Wnt (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Na miłość Boską, if you don't know about this article or its recent and distant history, just please go away." Who's he talking about?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Northern Rock

It looks like another issue, which was crammed at the end of that paragraph about News International, is

"In November 2011, Osborne sold Northern Rock to Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Money at a £400m loss to British taxpayers."

(deleted text present in the Iloveandrea version) Wnt (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the two references [1][2] it looks like this is a very heavy-duty issue that should be investigated in great detail, and so omitting even the name "Northern Rock" is simply unacceptable. Two of the best-known newspapers (at least, that I know of) in Britain directly link it to Osborne, and it involves the princely sum of $20 billion in bad debts which it sounds like the British taxpayers get to keep, having taken a $400 million loss on the rest. Specifics - like whether an agreement to sell before the end of 2013 was ironclad, whether 2011 was the best time to implement it, whether a bid using $250m in the bank's own money makes sense, and so on ... it all should be in this article. This is what this guy does, isn't it? And it sounds like he's a a lot more important than I realized. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I should ask more specifically: One of those articles said that the buyer beat out "a" rival bid. It isn't clear to me from that article how many bids there are. Surely with something of such huge value to the taxpayers there were more than two bids from perhaps friendly rivals in the marketplace ... right? Wnt (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've started putting in some stuff about this [3]; might tweak it further - there's probably more about this deal worth discussing; also, my breakdown of the assets involved, whether it's "asset stripping" or not, might not really be relevant. I just don't understand how you buy a bank with its own money and so for now I'm flapping around on that bit. Wnt (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The sale can be portrayed as positive or negative depending on who you listen to - There where not queues of people wanting to by this "asset" - as I remember a loss of only 400 million was a good result. I will have a look at your additions - Youreallycan 05:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your addition looks undue and partisan to me to me - you add a quote from his opinionated opponent (edd balls) attacking him - tch - and his enemy said, ... some called it asset stripping - who - his opponents - tch - unattributed attacking opinions - Youreallycan 05:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Also - this is a biography - all the cut and thrust of his daily political decisions doesn't really belong here in detail , does it. 'shirly' there is a better location for all that? Youreallycan 05:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the last part explaining the financial details of the bank was admittedly straying a bit from the topic, so I'll drop that as I was thinking. If the section before has a critical tone, it's mostly because the sources I'm going from have that tone. I haven't written it, but I'm a firm believer in "WP:GOOSE" oops, never mind, someone used that already, and not in reference to the quick passage of foodstuffs - the stuff that comes out should be fairly recognizably derived from what goes in, bias and all. And I just started from the two sources that were in that one lone sentence. If you can suggest another source or two to balance it off it'll make it easier to make sure all sides are covered, but of course, an article about a politician should inevitably be about one contentious issue after another. Wnt (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments above assert you think this is a big joke? and you say, "an article about a politician should inevitably be about one contentious issue after another" , this is his biography, not a place to soapbox the opinionated partisan attacks of his opponents. I know you reject it, but it is policy, have you ever read WP:BLP ? - "Critics were alarmed by" ...dun dun dun.... bit dramatic? Who were the critics - the pasty makers, the opposition? Youreallycan 16:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, you're talking about shops suddenly facing a 20% increase in their prices. I don't know how that plays in the U.K., but in the U.S. they'd treat such a thing like it was Armageddon. Politics is conflict - you can't begin to understand what a politician is saying unless you explain how he is responding to his opponents, which means understanding his opponents. BLP should be limited to trying to give the subject his fair say; it doesn't mean we have to cheerlead.

Now I should admit that as I'm going on I realize that I do have some POV - ignorance of the topic does not mean that you have no POV, only that you don't know what it is. But my priority is simply to delineate what both sides have to say - though POV inevitably affects how readily I believe it, how much I understand it, and how important it seems to me, as it does for everyone else. The articles I'm using have been generally hostile in tone, though, and I tend to transmit that tone freely, as I want to show what they say, but also because it simply "sounds straightforward" based on my own perspective. You really can help me attain a more neutral POV by pointing me at some good sources which give a more sympathetic treatment to Osborne, or by adding them yourself. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I made some copy edits to the material, but I have to say that it's an awful lot of material about one incident, a tremendous number of quotes and, frankly, a little hard to follow. If nothing else, I would pare it down. I should say in just quickly reading the yearly subsections under Chancellor of the Exchequer, most of it has too much detail and is not written in an appropriate style - too much editorializing rather than sticking to clear, concise factual statements. And that's without looking at it for neutrality and balance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wrung out a little bit. [4] Does this help for you at all? Wnt (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it's nice that you tried, but, honestly, you didn't cut much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What the heck?

I notice there has been a lot of heavy-duty reversion and shrinking of this article, and zero talk page discussion about it. People, please, please would you just include everyone's facts? You've just taken out all mention of the "pasty tax", which is the only thing I, as an American, have ever heard about this person. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User - User:Iloveandrea has NPOV issues and has been reverted - feel free to present his contributions that you support here - anything you present from WP:NPOV and WP:blp verified position will be appreciated. Youreallycan

Well, to start with the most recent mid-size removal, what about Iloveandrea's removal of stuff about [5] and [6]? I can see the relevance of keeping this stuff if we have a source that directly compares these to George Osborne's decision, but [7] doesn't appear to. If this is just the editor's own comparison that strays into WP:SYNTH, I think. I wouldn't be surprised if a source can be found, though. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Next is this one - as I said above, I'm confident something about the pasty tax should be in here; I'll take a stab at this one thing myself. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

CXool = as a NPOV experienced contributor if you feel that though the need to revert the user Iloveandea.s opinionated contributions out of the article that something is now missing then please replace and cite it - the pasty tax was news for a while and may well require replacing = thanks - Youreallycan 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually leaning toward favoring Iloveandrea's first removal, but could easily be talked out of it with a source. For the second I mentioned above I've now submitted my own version [8] - I think I understand the political issue there now. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Main concern remains the tangential presence of "pasty tax". Can the author of said addition qualify the presence of an analysis on the "pasty tax". By the way, if I'm violating wikipedia protocol, I apologize in advance. I'm something of a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castafiore (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - baronetcy

George Osborne's dad, Sir Peter would be the 18th Baronet, not the 17th, you can check that by clicking on his father's link and it coming up with a link to his grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.38.195 (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The effects of his reforms on the general population should be discussed. We shouldn't shy away from those things which are controversial.

Budget 2013

Three former members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) have launched a scathing attack on George Osborne’s handling of the economy, ahead of Wednesday’s Budget.

Speaking to the Huffington Post UK, economists Sushil Wadhwani, Adam Posen and David Blanchflower call the chancellor’s austerity measures "premature", “self-defeating” and "completely at odds with economic theory". They argue that the UK is now in the midst of a Japanese-style 'lost decade' of economic stagnation and high unemployment.

“It’s difficult to believe that coalition policy hasn’t made things worse,” says Wadhwani. "The debate is: how much worse?"

‘MOST INEPT CHANCELLOR IN 100 YEARS’

Between them, these three leading economists have almost a decade’s experience on the MPC, with Posen’s term on the Bank of England committee having overlapped with Osborne’s first two years at the Treasury.

Now president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, Posen says the prime minister and his chancellor are in denial. “They seem to be ignoring the negative feedback loop from their own austerity measures - and particularly their killing of public investment - on their actual revenues,” he tells HuffPost UK. “They seem to be ignoring all the evidence from the past two or three years.”

He adds: "The current programme is not even working on its narrow terms of reducing the deficit so any responsible government should reconsider its programme."

According to Wadhwani, founder and CEO of Wadhwani Asset Management and a visiting professor at the London School of Economics (LSE): “This is by far the weakest recovery – if you want to call it a recovery – since the inter-war years. We’ve underperformed many other economies in a similar situation.”

To what does he attribute this underperformance? “I think it was premature fiscal tightening… it would have been more appropriate to delay the fiscal tightening.”

Blanchflower goes further. The chancellor’s austerity measures have “completely failed”, says the professor of economics at Dartmouth College in the United States. Osborne, he adds, is the “most inept chancellor in 100 years. We have the worst economic recovery since the late 19th century.” Mercurio55 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013

The following sentence (under the 2013 section) has poor grammar:_

"In 2013 his government vehicle incorrectly parked in a disabled parking bay" I think the word "was" is missing from the sentence. The sentence just doesn't seem to feel right to me otherwise - maybe others disagree! 78.25.239.174 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I'm actually removing that whole sentence per WP:NOR. The article states that there was a car parked, and that George Osborne may have been dropped off from it, gotten into it, driven it, not driven it, etc. I don't see anything there that definitively attaches this to him or even says that it was his car - having it in this article seems to me to be overinterpreting the source and sensationalizing an event with sketchy details at best. If there's another source out there that gives better information with some more concrete details, I would be happy to add this back (with better grammar!). --ElHef (Meep?) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done According to [9] there's no dispute it was his official car. There's no WP:OR as both Mirror and BBC make the claim it was his official car, so I'm reinstating this as no valid reason to remove. It is slightly trivial, so will keep it short as possible. Widefox; talk 12:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BSE CRISIS

It is completely wrong to attribute that Osborne was at MAFF during the BSE crisis. BSE was identified in 1986 and was a relatively dead issue by 1995 when Osborne was at MAFF. Could someone edit out that comment?? I can't see how to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.201.235 (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law

FYI: The Guardian: "Among the data now "hidden" from Google is an article about the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne." ...Sicherlich ^Post 17:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

See as well express.co.uk ...Sicherlich ^Post 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External link template parameters update

Is: *{{MPLinksUK | hansard = mr-george-osborne | guardian = 6138/george-osborne | publicwhip = George_Osborne | theywork = george_osborne | record = George-Osborne/Tatton/395 | bbc = 25194.stm | journalisted=george-osborne}} Should be: *{{MPLinksUK | parliament = george-osborne/25194 | hansard = mr-george-osborne | hansardcurr = 2219 | guardian = 6138/george-osborne | publicwhip = George_Osborne | theywork = george_osborne | record = George-Osborne/Tatton/395 | bbc = 25194.stm | journalisted=george-osborne}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.207.233 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 July 2011 ‎

nowiki'd template redir usage to retire redir (use UK MP links) Bazj (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo

Needs updating, anyone have any suggestions for a new photo? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

disputed recent addition

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

Relationship with News International

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

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

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

---

It's interesting to note there were in fact two recent additions that off2riorob got his knickers in a twist about, not just one as off2riorob asserts in this section heading. Neither of the two entire sections—each with pristine citations—that he chopped out definitively portray Osborne in a positive light, and I presume that's why off2riorob is in such a huff about them. off2riorob neglects in totality to mention above that a section on Osborne 's widely reported links to Natalie Rowe, and the manner in which Andy Coulson successfully played them down, was cut out. off2riorob's initial reason for doing so was that the section cited a tabloid; I removed the offending Mirror citation and quote, leaving only quality press cites. He then sulkily changed tack to saying that the quality press were "as good as the red tops on this issue", then re-removed the entire section. I then re-added the drugs section, pointing out that both Cameron and Obama, for example, both had similar sections on their Wikipedia entries. off2riorob then simply removed it again, this time without even an attempt at explanation. I leave an objective party to draw their own conclusions.

Now let's take a look at his griping about the News International section. The section starts off with "In July 2011, with the News of the World phone hacking affair drawing criticism of relationships between politicians and the media, particularly with News of the World owners News International, George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government." The source for this is someone who's known David Cameron personally for 20 years, none other than Chief Political Commentator of Tory-cheering broadsheet The Daily Telegraph. I'm not quite sure which sources would pass off2riorob's rigorous censorship; perhaps personal correspondence between Osborne and off2riorob is the only thing that can make the grade. Besides, Osborne did not protest the Torygraph's article in the letters page the next day; there was no apology or correction solicited or given.

Next sentence is a legitimate removal: "The members of this faction were said to also include Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Ed Vaizey and Andrew Cooper" (Telegraph and Guardian for citations). off2riorob correctly points out that this has nothing to do with Osborne.

off2riorob reckons that, "The header suggests Osborne has a relationship, (sic) this already seems undue and leading to me ,is (sic) this relationship personal or private ... (sic)"

There is no question as to whether or not Osborne had a relationship with the people at News International; the released information about his multiple meetings, with people up to and including Murdoch, proves it. Nevermind interpretation, the only question is whether it's even permissible to so much as even mention this widely reported information on Wikipedia.

",is (sic) this relationship personal or private"?? Is there a distinction between those two terms in this context? I can't even begin to understand his question, let alone its relevance. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

Next off2riorob reckons, "George Osborne was described as leading a pro-News International faction within the government. - (sic) is (sic) this really true, (sic) as (sic) a minimum it would need attributing to whose opinion it is".

Two—two (I could have given more)—quality press citations are provided for this: the Tory-hating Guardian and the Tory-cheering Telegraph.

Interesting he contributed to Peterborough; where the Leper Colony is. Daniel Norton Smith II (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) <visit></visit> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Norton Smith II (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

"the leading assertion is that Osborne has done something wrong and that he is involved or responsible for the scandal which is just false' (sic) It goes on in the same titillating (sic) opinionated (sic) vague manner".

No, that is not the leading assertion. The leading assertion is that Osborne had a relationship with the people at News International. It's up for Wikipedia readers to decide whether that is good or bad—or whether they are completely indifferent. It's certainly not up to off2riorob to prevent the simple dissemination of such widely reported information.

"Osborne supports David Camerons (sic) appointment of Coulson, (sic) this is a factoid also, no evidence that has anything ot (sic) do with anything at all. then (sic) it just says (sic) without explanation as to any wrongdoing or expiation (sic) at all (sic) that Osborne had meeting (sic) with some people - with nothing to explain what was the problem with these meetings or what these meeting was (sic) about".

It certainly does have evidentiary value, namely as further evidence that Osborne had a relationship with people at News International.

"[A]nd then as a final piece (sic) de resistance (sic) you get the shopping basket of internal links to all the other people thatr (sic) are invo;ved (sic) in the scandal..."

I've already dealt with this, and it wasn't only me who added to the News International section.

In short, off2riorob's aim is simply to eliminate even a mention of information from Osborne s article that might be viewed by some as portraying the latter in a negative light. Iloveandrea (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For later use... http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/06/georgeosborne/ Iloveandrea (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to follow all the named references now that they're sitting here on a talk page. Do any of them actually say there was a "faction"? (I mean a link I can follow easily, to the actual word faction) The ref [10] makes it sound like collaborating with Murdoch was a fact of life for all British politicians, and he was a British politician, so ... But that's not the same as being part of a faction. To be clear - these are hard-hitting, important references that need to stay in the article. I'd rather have bare references floating around in mid-air with no text at all than leave them out, let's put it that way. But such an absurdity shouldn't be necessary - just give each article a bit more of its own voice, say what it says, not what you're trying to argue from it. They have a pretty strong voice of their own already. Wnt (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BBC license fee

Hi Absolutelypuremilk. We agree on a number of things but not here. The POV is properly attributed and appears appropriate as there was no public or parliamentary discussion, nor FWIW was the treatment of the BBC in the Tory manifesto. The Guardian uses both the word 'foisted' and 'imposed' and the title says ‘George Osbourne forces the BBC to pay for the over 75’s licence’. You may simply have missed that point. There’s little suggestion of negotiations or why he needed discussions with Murdoch. The sheer size of the cuts is also important. No government department has been asked to cut its budget by 20% which is effectively what has happened to the BBC. Other editor comments welcome. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We do indeed, and I am glad that you took this to the talk page rather than edit warring as many other editors do. My main point would probably be that this is a page about Osborne, and political discussion should be kept to a minimum. I completely agree that it should have been discussed properly in parliament (although having a "public discussion" is a tricky one, as opponents of a particular change can always say that there has not been enough public discussion and it is difficult to disprove). However this firstly was not in the article (that I can see, feel free to correct me) and secondly I feel should be discussed in a different article (possibly the BBC one?) rather than Osborne's page. With regards to the use of the word "foisted", I don't think that a quoted POV word should be used to describe something happening when there is a NPOV word which does the job - this sentence is about Osborne consulting Murdoch before the deal, not whether it was forced on the BBC. I have changed the sentence regarding the size of the cuts. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Living Wage comment

Can a note be added that George Osborne's "Living Wage" does not meet the official definition of a living wage and has been criticised as such? Elle Knights (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally biography pages or BLPs are not for political discussion except where strictly relevant to the person concerned. I have however added a link to the UK minimum wage where this can be discussed without such concerns. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tax credits

While tax credits has been an important issue, I'm not sure we need comments from other (opposing) politicians when there is already a quote from the IFS. This page is about Osborne's life and a quick summary of his policies, not a page to debate the merits of them. Possibly that could be on a "Political positions of George Osborne" page once this page grows longer and needs to be split. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Andyjsmith commented "This is political news, not an Osborne biog. Wrong article. . " when removing these quotes. You (Nuggets of Knowledge) reverted these edits, saying you would cut it down, but then added another quote. I don't want to edit war with you, so please could you explain here why you think comments from other politicians and journalists, as well as polls on a political issue are relevant to a biography. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Quite right. Quotes from opponents are probably POV and are certainly not tertiary sources. If we're to put in criticism it should come from an analytical source. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head about the very peculiar view that this being a BLP there can never be any mention of any criticism of Osborne. It is astonishing and very very weird. I've never ever come across a political bio or even a Wiki BLP that does not air criticism. Jo Stalin would have been almost envious of the way in which this article has been stripped of anything other than "Osborne did this as he had a very good reason to do so". I'm almost surprised that there isn't a linked statement that "On xxx date Osborne walked on water." Criticisms by Osborne of his political opponents are allowed, it seems, and in profusion. Funny, that. Are there really any other BLP's of politicians which are whitewashes like this one is. Other than one or two which have managed to remain similarly weird through the influence of the Ministry of Thought.

What I'm saying is that, for example, not to include any mention of the monumental amount of criticism which the tax credit limit proposal attracted is itself bias of astronomical proportions. To say that he decided against it because the public accounts gave him more room for manoeuvre is, to be frank, rubbish. He may have said that, but it is - as everyone in the UK knows - rubbish. He did it because his hand was forced to do so by his sense of political expedience: the House of Lords had voted against it, and there was a massive public outcry. It is also rubbish in view of the fact that a mere two months later he himself decided that the public accounts were actually looking in far worse shape than he had thought. And before anyone says they are, my statements here are not biassed. They are a statement of how it is. Boscaswell talk 09:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, I've re-read WP:BLP from start to finish and also had another good look at WP:NPOV and there is nothing in either which states that BLP's of politicians must be devoid of any criticism of their subject. I have worked on many BLP's and none of them has been dealt with in the way that this one has. None at all. To my certain knowledge, (1) one such article, a BLP of a very important individual, who has been subject to intense international media scrutiny, an admin also works on the article, and that article contains a whole host of points critical of the subject, and (2) in another such article, this one a BLP of a serving politician, who was again the subject of intense scrutiny by the media in this country and in this case the article was the subject of intense scrutiny by the Wikipedia hierarchy, this one contains a whole host of points critical of the subject. Ergo, to insist that this article should be devoid of any criticism of its subject is nothing more than a construction, perhaps the personal opinion of one or two editors, and I regret that it has to be said that to persistently remove any such criticism can not possibly be coming from a NPOV. This must stop!

Finally, I must draw attention to the following, which is lifted from WP:NPOV and is the lead to the section "Achieving neutrality", because again and again this talk page has editors complaining about summary deletions:

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. Boscaswell talk 11:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, "and finally"...if the way of thinking which has been applied to this article were to be correct, one would expect the David Cameron article to be similarly devoid of almost all criticism of his policies and actions. But it isn't, and far from it. Boscaswell talk 12:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see where anyone has said that there should be no criticism of Osborne, when the tax credits cut was still planned there were several chunks of criticism. When the change was cancelled, I removed the criticism (which was far more than the statement giving the reasons) because it didn't seem to be relevant given that the changes were no longer going ahead. As per your thoughts I added that it was criticised by the IFS. Of course opinion differs as to how much criticism should be on a BLP page, have a look at the Jeremy Corbyn article for details of one which doesn't have much criticism. I asked on the WP:BLP talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_39#Adding_media_commentary_to_BLPs_of_politicians for general guidelines but no one replied. Personally I think that the Corbyn model is better, but of course WP is a collaborative project and I welcome other people's opinions on the matter. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule I don't think we should be including detailed arguments on the negatives (or positives) of a particular policy on biography pages, especially if the policy wasn't implemented. I do think that it would be remiss of the article not to mention that the tax credits cut proposals were particularly unpopular and alleged to be a broken election promise though, and have revised accordingly. FWIW I don't think either the Jeremy Corbyn article (erring on the generous side after a lot of edit warring; you'd never realise how divisive a figure he actually is from reading it) or the David Cameron one (awful in every respect; I'm revising it and the moment and welcome suggestions) are good examples of what to aim for. Generally biographies of prominent inactive politicians are much better, e.g Margaret Thatcher Dtellett (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

2015 income (gross - taxes = net)

In April 2016 he published (after David Cameron had done in a similar way during the Panama Papers discussion) his income 2015. His net income was 126.528 GBP (198.738 GBP minus 72.210 GBP taxes (FAZ.net 11 April 2016 (German).

Into the article or not ? (in the German wikipedia, I have done so). --Neun-x (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so unless there are secondary sources saying that it is important - his shareholdings in his fathers company are already listed and so it seems like trivia to include the exact sum. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Private Schooling

To non-UK readers, the concept of independent schools is not clear. I would suggest "independently (that is, privately)" as a replacement, to render a less ambiguous description of the type of schooling received by Osborne in the education section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowakows (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The link to independent schools explains what they are, as does the text which appears when one hovers over the link. Saying that someone went to a "private" school has a negative connotation to many people, which is avoided by the much more neutral "independent". It is the same as appears in the Jeremy Corbyn article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)