Talk:David Cameron

Prime Minister

On 11th of May 2010, David cameron was announced as prime Minister of Great Britain. He succeeded gordon Brown, whom resigned only hours before.

Doomed?

Is there any truth in Mother Shipman's Prophecy that the semi-election of a pinhead with the initials DC in 2010 will have tragic consequences for the Western World, and lead to the closure of Spa Shops across the entire Twickenham /Edgebaston area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.114.49 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Carlton

The section describing Cameron's stint at Carlton could be much more detailed. It should include, for example, the wages he received as £90,000 per annum (or £130,000 in today's terms) and how he got the job via his future wife's mother. As cited in the following Guardian article:

"The mother of Cameron's then girlfriend Samantha, Lady Astor, was friends with Michael Green, then executive chairman of Carlton and one of Margaret Thatcher's favourite businessmen. She suggested he hire Cameron, and Green, a mercurial millionaire, obliged. The 27-year-old was duly recruited on a salary of about £90,000 a year (the equivalent of more than £130,000 today)."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/20/david-cameron-the-pr-years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.249.235 (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wife Expecting

David Cameron's wife is expecting their fourth child, due in September. Will this be added soon?

Probably in September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.114.49 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Friend of Dorothy?

Is there any truth behind his longstanding friendship with Dorothy Tutin, the award-winning actress and lifelong Conservative Party activist?

Main photo

Does anyone have a better quality or more recent photo? This photo is rather dated now, it was taken around the time he won the leadership election in 2006. He certainly looks slightly different now. Any other pictures? --Only Dan (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - and move to change the photograph - why can't we change it for just another good example? The lime/pale green tie outfit one was taken at the Blackpool conference; and was done during the celebration event after his election to the apex of the party on the 6th Decemeber 2005 - (02 Firth) 20.08 27/10/2009

Hmm im not a huge fan of the current photo used, if there is a better one i wont object to it being changed, but will have to look at the alternatives. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Further debate on this continues at the bottom of the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama in the intro

If the intro is supposed to be a summary and a lead-in to the whole article, should the Obama thing be mentioned? It's a disputed fact that isn't really even mentioned in the rest of the article. And how does it summarize and lead in to Cameron's life? It comes off as an attempt to discredit him. Maybe mention it somewhere else but it seems out of place in the intro. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.120.89 (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a case for this material, but not in the intro. Viewfinder (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection

With Titian-related vandalism appearing here too, I've semiprotected the article for one week. I only heard of this controversy a few minutes ago, and happened upon the vandalism quite by accident, but the range of vandalism by new and unregistered users gives reason to semiprotect the article anyway. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC) As an American Conservative, I was most pleased with Mr. Cameron's sound bite's that I heard in referance to your Mr. Brown, that is. Good to know that there are those on both sides of the water opposing the current trend in world thinking. "PappyGroves" USA PappyGroves (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Eton College

I kind of see why someone has deleted the adjectives "prestigious and exclusive" (describing Eton College) as peacock terms. On the other hand, I think it is of note that Cameron went to a school where the annual fees are around £26,500. For comparison, the median annual UK pre-tax earnings of a person in full-time work are just under £25,000. So "exclusive" is probably more factual than peacock. The fact that Cameron went to a school perceived as "prestigious and exclusive" is surely the reason why he is satirised as a Lord Snooty character. Are there any better adjectives, that convey the perception of Eton without being peacock terms? Bluewave (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, Eton is by no means the only public school to charge fees at this level: this Times article lists 50 schools (involved in a price-fixing scandal, but that's not relevant) and over half have fees above £20,000 per year (at the time Eton's fees are listed as being £23,688).

On the other hand, Eton is regarded as, well, superior to pretty much all other public schools. But I have no idea how to say that without throwing WP:NPOV out of the window and onto a WP:PEACOCK.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue came up before (almost two years ago) - see the talk archives. Cameron's education at Eton has been used to criticise him for being elitist. I don't think we can rely on all readers being aware that Eton is regarded as being exceptionally exclusive even among public schools so some mention should be made of it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't read the archives! Yes, I don't think the current version, describing Eton just as a "private school" quite conveys how the place is perceived. Bluewave (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

David Cameron would have been in trouble in May 1982 not May 1983 regarding the cannabis allegations at Eton. He would have been studying for his A-levels in May 1983, taking them in the summer of 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.243.194 (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Youngest son's given name

In a message to party members today (copy at ConservativeHome) Cameron names his youngest son by his second name - Elwen - rather than his first - Arthur. He also uses "Elwen" in this interview last November. From what I understand "Arthur" was David's choice and "Elwen" Samantha's so they compromised on both but it seems "Elwen" is the actual given name. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We could use "(Arthur) Elwen" if the names are correctly ordered and it is the middle name that is used. DWaterson (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polls

I usually download the full details of the polls and am always entertained as to the way the headline quote by the interested party ..eg the newspaper who commisioned the poll...bears little or no reflection to the true figures within the poll.I would like to see more details from the claims of percentages ... like how the conclusion was reached and by whom... in fact the section is more like propaganda than fact and I would prefer to see it removed .. which I suppose it will be after the next election is over.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)) at the least links should be inserted to the actual polls so people can have a look and understand them for themselves(Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Link 135, reflist2

is not working and should be,,,...... [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of playing party politics amid global crisis

Does this section actually add anything to the article? It strikes me as raising POV issues (the suggestion that the govt tackled global economic issues in 2007/8 being particularly worthy of note). The snapshot opinion poll reference at the end of the article is also of questionable assistance - are we to draw the inference that Cameron attacking Brown led to an 11 point lead that same day in an opinion poll?

I propose that this section be deleted or at least re-written.Informed Owl (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl

I'd !vote for "lost it altogether", as completely WP:POV. A leader of the opposition attacking the government? Isn't that his job? (And I say that as someone who regards a vote for Labour as a right-wing vote...) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just deleted it. Informed Owl (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl

Neutrality dispute

Is the article disputed anymore? If not perhaps we could have a neutrality check and then have the tag removed? I'd do this myself but seeing as I asked for it I'd like to give someone else a shot first. John Smith's (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The page is decent and tidy, but also ostensibly positive, it wouldn't surprise me if Cameron himself saw to it that his people kept an eye on this page, being the one which appears pretty much first on Google!--Tomsega (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is basically the impression I got while skimming over this article - it is absurdly biased. - Drthatguy (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish descent

As a descendant of the Levita family, Cameron is of Jewish descent? Am I right? Cecil Levita, he was the brother of David Cameron's great grandfather Arthur Francis Levita. Kowalmistrz (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So that's David's dad's mum's dad at the least. 1/8 barely merits a mention, but a direct source might shed more light.--MartinUK (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears as though David's great grandfather, and great uncle's father was Jewish but their mother appears to have been a gentile. Therefore, that would dwindle the gene line down to 1/16 Jewish ancestry. Nobody should deny their "roots" but I think since David's underline lineage is NOT primarily Jewish, the better question we should ask ourselves is: if we were to make mention of this information, what is the motivation behind it. --irshgrl500 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Irshgrl500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs)

Ian Donald Cameron - birthplace

Can someone please reply on David Camerons father's birthplace. Blairmore House, was a Boys Boarding school. How can someone be born at a boy's boarding school? I believe this to be a mistake but cannot find any information on his father's birthplace. --irshgrl500 15:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Irshgrl500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs)

Whilst it is entirely possible one could be born at a boarding school (say, whilst one's mother was visiting or trespassing), Ian Cameron was born in 1932 and the boarding school wasn't opened until 1947. DWaterson (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies and views

Whoever wrote this enormous section must be a master at padding. A career in politics awaits. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Political scientist"

I don't consider that this is a profession in keeping with the other descriptors usually applied in this category. It it also unreferenced. I would suggest deleting this, or alternatively replacing it with "Politician". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

laughing my socks off now. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

'Political scientist' would normally be taken as referring to an academic career in politics, which Cameron has not had. It is plainly inaccurate as a description of his profession. That brings up the difficult issue of what exactly should be put as Cameron's profession, since he has worked in politics for all but seven years of his life. We could bite the bullet and put his profession as 'politician', but there is a sense in which this is meaningless because the space is intended for his profession outside politics. I would myself reject defining his profession as "public relations adviser" as pejorative and possibly politically biased. The better option would be working up some description based on his formal post at Carlton, "Director of Corporate Affairs". Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I did edit to remove political scientist as being incorrect. I agree that specifying politician is somewhat redundant, but at least it is factual in the interim. I also think that this category should be restricted to those who have professions - it is tempting to "invent" professions in order to give more information, but this ought to be resisted. Being a head of department within a company does not constitute a profession - "Director of Finance" is not a profession, although Accountant would be. I think this category is useful for those who have had other Professions - journalist for Brown or Barrister for Blair. I'm taking it out meanwhile - I am happy for anyone to add it back if we can cite a recognised profession, other than politician, to which Cameron belongs. Thanks Beganlocal (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a politician most certainly is a profession, as it is how he earns a living. If the position were voluntary, that is, unpaid, it would not really be a profession. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see now under Profession that Britain has an highly ordered structure for professions; hence, why "politician" might not be considered his "profession." Still, it seems logical to those unfamiliar with this practice that his profession, that is, what he does to earn a living, should be called "politician." - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

lol i find it amusing that people need to even try to justify listing David Camerons profession as politician.. ofcourse thats the case, theres nothing else we could put there. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how else to respond to Beganlocal's removal of the term... right after he changed it himself from political scientist. Is there a better way to handle it, other than playing edit war and re-restoring it constantly? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed its not worth getting into an edit war over, although he was right about removing political scientist if thats what was there before, but to claim politician is redundants a little odd. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Politician is fine. I have added the same to Brown. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)) Perhaps Liar and Bandwagon Jumper would be more appropiate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.64.166 (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the polls in the lede

Personally I would take it completely out as polls go up and down and need explainations that dont belong in the lede.. perhaps the ...we are 22 percent ahead claim could be removed and a cite found that simply said that under cameron recently the tories have had a good showing in the polls. To start saying 22 percent means that detail can be added to balance the claim. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

here it is ..as was....

the Conservatives were consistently ahead throughout 2008. As of May 2009 the Conservatives enjoyed a lead of up to 22 points over Labour.

personally I think that this...the Conservatives were consistently ahead throughout 2008. is enough in the lede....adding the claim that on such a day accordind to ...whoever.. the conservatives enjoyed a 22 percent lead....this addition is a bit one sided and if you insist on having it then you allow for the insertion of the other side .. so I think removal is better for the article or add it to the article about polls results... (Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Under Cameron's leadership, throughout 2008 and to date, the Conservatives have been consistantly ahead of Labour in the polls. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Hilarious gaffe section?

Cameron impersonates Nazi in blast against ID cards. [[2]] Cameron put on a german accent worthy of Basil Faulty in the comedy show fawlty towers and demanded of the crowd, "where are your papers"?

Amusing, but a political storm-in-a-teacup. Fences&Windows 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, wait till he has been in power a year or so and the press turn against him. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Whatever you do, don't mention the gaffe. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Don't you mean a storm in a custard cup. I see you did a lot of work creating the letitia dean slime article. As for the german impersonation,people are picking up on it and it is being reported, I just saw it on the 6 o'clock news. It was hilarious and the sharp intake of breath from the audience was audible. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Eurosceptic caucus: controversial?

Extremists currently reside in the EPP and the European Socialists-therefore in the interest of 'neutrality', a similar criticism should be added to the Gordon Brown article, 'exposing' the fact that he leads a party whose MEPs sit with crypto-Stalinists amongst others; either that or this section could be simply removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.47.1 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but I don't think the section can be removed entirely, because it's true that they are trying to form a new caucus. It needs rewriting to a NPOV, not removing. Also, your suggestion of adding a similar criticism to the Brown article verges on WP:POINT. Be bold and improve the section yourself. PT (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edit by Wereon (→Standing in opinion polls: ComRes are irrelevant - they have been completely discredited)

This edit has removed a good looking cite, who have they been completly discredited by? do we have to go around all the political pages removing these com res quotes? The edit left the other cite from the tabloid paper the sun and I googled the edit statement ... com res are irrelevant - they have been completely discredited and didn't get anything regarding that they have been discredited? Please explain. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

[[3]] the google search is here...(Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

I've reverted this change. Whilst ComRes produce some polls that really do stretch the bounds of credibility, and their weighting system is rather suspect, they are still a member of the British Polling Council so we need a suitable reference to support the claim that they are "discredited". DWaterson (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. ta. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Membership of the BPC means that they are transparent, not that they are any good. — Wereon (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dave's picture

Where has the pic gone? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

• Turned out it was a copyvio. [4]. I put the old one back in, the one "without saintly overtones", as the press was fond of reporting a few weeks ago. JN466 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Trip to USA with Getty

I refer to the section Heatherdown Preparatory School where it is mentioned that Cameron accompanied the Getty family to America whilst at school. He was not the only classmate to be invited, and it seems a perfectly ordinary occurrence. I think WP:UNDUE weight is given to it here and I will delete it if there are no objections. Beganlocal (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly ordinary? Yes, I suppose so, I was always being taken on trips to different continents by schoolfriends when I was at junior school. </IRONY> Seriously, it's significant in showing that, at an early age, David Cameron was connected with the very wealthy. He may not have been the only classmate to be invited but that's hardly relevant; if we had biographies of others in the class, we could add it there too. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes,being invited to the birthday party of a friend with wealthy ancestors means....you are connected to the wealthy. Why is this of biographical interest? Does Blair's article mention his schoolfriends at Fettes College and their parentage? If you can find me one example of a wikipedia WP:BLP which mentions having a childhood friend with wealthy parents I'll let it lie. I think this falls under WP:UNDUE. Can we have comments from other editors please? Or shall we find out the names of all guests at Phillip Green's sons 12th birthday party and permanently record their connection to a wealthy schoolfriend also? Hardly encyclopaedic is it? Beganlocal (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to this information being retained. While WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a strong argument, in fact - yes, Blair's article does mention a schoolfriend (Lord Falconer); and as far as I know the guests at Philip Green's son's birthday party aren't Leader of the Opposition or of similarly notability. I can't say I see a WP:BLP issue here myself, but I think I'm generally neutral on the matter. Probably the most important question here is whether the event is sufficiently notable for inclusion; it made it into the Mail on Sunday story at least. DWaterson (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a few BLP issues here. Presumption in favour of privacy for one.

It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Also, WP:WELLKNOWN:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

This incident is not notable or relevant, and although it is documented it is in one source. We don't mindlessly repeat tabloid gossip in an encyclopaedia.

His social background may be seen as relevant, and it is comprehensively covered in 3.5.1 "Allegations of Social Elitism" - we do not need tittle tattle about his schoolfriends also.

I'm going to be WP:BOLD here. Beganlocal (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay by me. Of course it's not without interest, but I doubt it would have found its way into Encyclopaedia Britannica. We can and should make the point about his privileged upbringing in a more elegant way than recounting details of the birthdays he was invited to as a kid. JN466 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Check links

notes

I have repaired link 2, I have had a look and I can't see the facts there that it is claiming to support. I have had a look for another cite to support but have been unable to find one? If this information is in this cite please let me know or has anyone got another cite to support the claim? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind me interleaving comments with yours - seems the best way. Referring to the numbers of the inline references carries with it the risk that if one of them is deleted, they are all renumbered, so I will try to explain in more detail. Refs 2 and 31 at the moment is supposed to support the claim that Cameron got a first in PPE at Oxford, but the reference says nothing of it. Personally I don't see this information as worthy of being in the lede anyway; it's a detail, and the lede is supposed to be an overview, so I would the whole sentence along with ref 2 and replace it with more useful information. Ref 31 could be changed to page 69 of Elliott & Hanning's biography. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

31 has the same problem....32 from the bbc, says he got a first class degree but doesn't mention in what. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

149 [[5]] is abit bloggy and only supports that two foot bollard comments to show dave was a little bit silly to do that. I would take it out. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

It seems to be a routine press agency story; why we are relying on this for a reference is a bit of a mystery; moreover the article states directly that the thieves lifted the bike and chain over the bollard, while the reference simply says it was a possibility. The figure of two feet is not really significant enough to need a reference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC) remove unnessecesary citation.  Done ((Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)))

160 [[6]] is a worthless news of the world link and could be changed to a stronger link to that information (Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Agreed; there is no reason this poll was particularly notable. In fact this section needs a general trim so that it does not become a running commentary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

163 ["Labour support hits record low"] is rubbish too, I would say the Sun is not a good paper to link to a political comment, surely there is a strong cite for those comments? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

This is slightly different, because that 26-point lead is (I think) the highest shown in any poll during Cameron's leadership. The poll itself appears to have been conducted according to current professional standards, but it might be a good idea to switch the link from the Sun's write up to the official tables from the pollster which are here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)  Done (Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

There also seems to be a lot of links to the conservative party, is that ok? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Depends what they are backing up. If it is to back up references to party campaigns and policies then it is fine. However for general analysis, a neutral source is preferable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

98 [[7]] is a prescription site. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Presume you mean subscription? I got the whole article when I clicked on it. There is no reason to disregard a reference merely because it is on a subscription site. In this case the reference should also give details of the article's location in the printed version of Prospect. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

166 [[8]] is funny and worthless. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

It's a meaningless reference because it is just the local government district. Ivan's accurate birth location was given as Queen Charlotte's Hospital in Elliott & Hanning (p. 218). Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

167 (Quoted in "Focus: Can Boy Wonder save the Tories?", The Sunday Times, 9 October 2005) is uncheckable, that info should be easily found in a stronger cite. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

It's perfectly checkable; all you have to do is find a copy of the Sunday Times for 9 October 2005. The fact that a press article does not have a web link does not mean it is in any way unverifiable. The article probably is online anyway: to prove it I just put the title into Google in quotes so it found the phrase, and guess what came up top? This did. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

139 [[9]] is a bit weak and supports this...Cameron's relatively young age and inexperience before becoming leader have invited satirical comparison with Tony Blair. Private Eye soon published a picture of both leaders on their front cover, with the caption "World's first face transplant a success. ...is that really worthwhile? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Not a significant Private Eye story and that line was not pursued. Also don't know why the Times of India is the source rather than Private Eye. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

174 [[10]] The sun again ...claiming reation between cam and harriet, they are not related, they are very loosly connected only, through a marriage. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Not very significant; if it needs putting in the article why not in the section on 'family'? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Poisonous Sun editor

this comment has had the word poisonous added to it today, it is in the cite, but I would like to remove it altogether, of what value is this comment from the sun editor?

while Sun business editor Ian King described him as a "poisonous, slippery individual".

I don't think it is worthy of inclusion especially now the word poisonous has been added.. it carries a lot of negativity and who is he to be quoted so strongly here? I suggest the total removal of the comment from him as BLP protection and undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that edit earlier, as its backed up exactly by the source i think it should remain although i dont have a problem if others remove the whole sentence, Sun editors are usually making offensive comments.. its probably not noteworthy. I was far more concerned with the edit that person made to the conservative party article, where it mentions a possibly unreliable report and the awful edit to the article on Gordon Brown which i undid. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, British watcher, I had a look through all users edits and I didn't think they were very useful, If there are no objections I will remove the comment from the sun editor as not noteworthy and undue weight. I dislike additions like this, even though it is totally in the bbc article, what value is it to camerons bio? Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, what one newspaper editor thinks isnt very notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BritishWatcher, if there are no objections from anyone I will remove it later.Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - sorry to be late to this party, but - while I agree that the Sun using hyperbolic languague doesn't necessarily deserve repetition, the overall point of that section of the still-referenced and respectable article surely stands. The current reference to his time with Carlton's PR team implies a largely neutral time, while in fact three different journalists from three separate organisations (two of which support his party) went on record trashing him, describing his performance of his role as untrustworthy, unhelpful, evasive, dissembling, poisonous and slippery. This was his last non-political job and for someone who seeks to lead the country it is surely valuable to record this level of criticism of him in this role? 213.105.186.12 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Its just worthless criticism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

this edit looks like asf not a good edit to me, IP edit just changes the year, no citation nada? Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The information is wrong and I have reverted. Might have been a test edit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The two edits by this ip could have been a test edit, they seem to have changes names? Could someone who knows if the names are correct have a look. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look round and the edit is correct. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended family

Ferdinand Mount's article states that Cameron's mother is Mount's first cousin. Samantha Cameron's article states she is Mount's first cousin. The first part should be mentioned on this article as well as on Mount's. This article and hers should also state whether Cameron and his wife are cousins, or whether Mount is merely a cousin of each of them. UK John UK (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The link was rather clearer until http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&direction=next&oldid=291623765 this version 00:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.186.12 (talk)

Excessive reference to Peter Hitchens

User Yorkshirian has added a quote from Perter Hitchens, as Hitchens is already quoted and mentioned in the article another quote seems a bit excessive, imo, any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree. When the second quote was added, it was clearly done without reading what came before it, because it reintroduced Hitchens immediately after the sentence that introduced him. I've gone ahead and made both quotes and the paraphrased opinions all one sentence, but I did so without prejudice. I figure we could get rid of everything from "—claiming" to "selling the country to Brussels.'" without losing anything. -Rrius (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That section is very poor and the addition has made it worse, it is not very easy to read, someone should rewrite the section and remove most of what is imo mostly not notable controversy. Hazel blears said he was dithering. Really? and so on...someone else said he was like tony blair.. Or perhaps just change the name of the section as there is nothing controversial in it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed i would support someone deleting most of the stuff which is basically just commentary on Cameron and peoples opinions. Such sections should be reserved for serious issues, not POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of support for that BritishWatcher, go on be bold and have a go at it... Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well having a look at it, i think the Satire section should go, that basically is just about him being like blair which is already covered in the first paragraph of the controversies section. The bit about his bike being stolen should go, he was a victim of crime, hows that controversy? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The bike story is quite a good story, I think it is well known and worthy, people like to know that normal things happen to us all, agreed though not in a section called any kind of controversy, perhaps just moved to personal life section..just above the fact that he supports aston villa..Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the criticisms be in the controversy section? The ones that have been mentioned (Hitchens, Blears) don't seem even remotely to show Cameron being involved in controversy. Perhaps, to the extent they should be saved at all, they should be moved to discussions of his leadership and political beliefs. -Rrius (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I spoke recently to User:Sam Blacketer about this article and he suggested the section on the polling facts and figures has also become like a list of unconnected comments, and could be in need of a small rewrite, reading these sections, controversy and polling they are not very good , have a go at it if you like, it can always be reverted if there is any dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some rearranging; what do you guys think? -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work,It could still use a small rewrite, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some media comments from prominent conservative writers regarding Cameron is relevent, as is the Tebbit quote IMO. Peter Hitchens is quite a well established figure in conservative circles, so hes probably the best to use. There is certainly a Cameronsceptic current in British conservative circles, who simply consider him a Blairite clone. If we just have critical comments from left and Labour, like Blears, it doesn't inform the reader much because such criticisms are based purely on naked party political alligences. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There are or were three quotes from one political writer, this is undue weight to his opinion. Also poor (not notable) comments are worse than no comments at all Off2riorob (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

What? What is this box, when you open it it is not correct, and of what value is it even if it was corect? he is not a kiking or queen is he, in general his ancestry is irrelevent, apart from perhaps a comment in the article about his blue blood, which is alrteady there? I suggest removal. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Its working now, and I still fail to see it's value, anyone care to comment? Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Al women shortlists

Dave is saying this is his pov and there is a bit of moaning from within the party, it is worthy of a little addition? story here Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been umpteen rounds of mini-rows about selection details in many parties under several leaders. Wikipedia is not a news service. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I do know that thanks, well, if it gets more coverage...we will see, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the political articles here are in general very newssy with lots of people insisting that they can insert whatever they desire as long as they have a trusty cite, just thinkin out loud. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the League of Polish Families a far-right party?

I don't care what the answer is, but if we are going to say so, we need a reliable source. Yesterday I reverted a claim that it is that cited this story. As I see it, that article does not assert that the party is a party of the far right. It uses terms like "nearest equivalent to the BNP" and states that "some critics" say it has "ties to the far right". The editor whose contribution I reverted tried on my talk page to rely on the title of the article, "How Europe's Media Treat the Far Right", is enough. I don't think so. Headlines often poorly summarise the material or are misleading. The editor also tried to use its listing at Far right as evidence, but that list entry is uncited and does not accurately reflect League of Polish Families. One more thing to bear in mind is whether it was far right when Urszula Krupa was a member. Finally, the question of whether the party is of the far right may be a genuinely disputable question, in which case it is our job to be as neutral as possible. I am open to calling the party a far-right party, but it needs to be sourced and conform to NPOV. -Rrius (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest all this crap about the conservative party's European allies belongs on the conservative party page, not on this page about David Cameron. Anything unsourced in this article should be removed immediately. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dave is the one commenting that he is going to have a vote that will efictivly take us out of the eu, these are his ideas and do have a place in this article, he is the one pushing his personal ideas and he is the one making friends with these people,I think there is a place here for daves position on the eu and the people he is associating with there, actually I think daves standpoint on this should be expanded here as it is a big issue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a different issue. My question is about whether it is fair to call the party "far right", and BritishWatcher appears to be saying that the reference to the League of Polish Families doesn't belong here at all. Cameron's position on Lisbon and on whether Britain should be in or out of the EU is separate from what other MEPs, especially individuals, are in the Tories's EU party grouping.

Also, Cameron is not "commenting that he is going to have a vote that will ef[f]ectively take [Britain] out of the [EU]". He promised to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it is not in force by the time a Conservative government took office. That now looks highly unlikely. Had such a referendum been held and the treaty rejected, the UK would not have been removed from the EU any more than the French or Dutch were for defeating the EU Constitution. Cameron has not yet said what a Tory government would do if the treaty is ratified. -Rrius (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

David Cameron supports Britains membership of the European Union, he has stated this on many occasions. We should state Camerons views and his actions (opposing lisbon / forming the new group and saying both have been controversial), but there is no reason for a whole paragraph bashing the conservative parties European allies. I doubt i will find a list of labour / lib dem allies on their leaders articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I found the article following the removal of the term 'far right' as a description of the League of Polish Families. To go over the argument again, the article was published on the BBC website yesterday and states its purpose as familiarising the reader with media treatment of far right parties elsewhere in Europe than the UK; the League is the party given in the case of Poland. Beyond this, only five countries are mentioned in the article, suggesting that the five represent good examples of such parties. The Wikipedia entry for 'Far right' itself lists the League as a party of this type. A more solid argument in favour is to be found in this overview of the party at the website of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As for whether the discussion of the new alliance deserves to be here, it is a highly significant political realignment taken under David Cameron's leadership and for good or ill is a reflection of that leadership. Another disinterested reader (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your points about the BBC article and far right above. Neither is convincing. The Polish Foreign Ministry is certainly more persuasive, but was it so when Kulpa was a member, does being far right in a formerly communist country mean the same thing as it does in the West, and is a government website's characterisation of an opposition party reliable? -Rrius (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The information on the Polish government website appears to have been there since 2003, a period covering a left-wing post-communist government, a coalition government of the right and left which included the League itself, and a new conservative coalition government formed of a further two parties from the list on the page. This would suggest that the content is objective. According to the Polish WP entry for Urszula Krupa she was a member in 2001 when the party was founded and remained so through to 2006. As to whether 'far right' means the same in Poland, the information on the party's views is available in the English League entry, although the Polish version contains more, including the accusations of anti-semitism and a summary of the close links between the party and the still more controversial All-Polish Youth created in 1989 by Roman Giertych, leader of the League from founding until late 2007. Another disinterested reader (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd wait for more opinion, but a reference to both the English and Polish versions is enough for me. That still leaves the question BritishWatcher raised about whether this should be included at all. Both arguments have their merits, and I for one would like to hear more. -Rrius (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that the information should stay, as above, though it does need to be brought up to date. In July there was a dispute over leadership of the group involving Edward McMillan-Scott defying the whip and the issue has come back to the fore in recent weeks with the appearance of Michał Kamiński and Roberts Zīle at conference and the WP alterations covered here. The relevant information would then need to be condensed; I would suggest that the key points to retain are the nature of the allied parties, the significance of the realignment, illustrated as now with the quote by the EPP leader, and the use being made of the issue by the other leading parties in the UK. I agree that there should be more time for comments before any update is made. Another disinterested reader (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comment I have gone ahead and updated the section according to the suggestions in my last post, with the exception being no mention of the dispute involving Edward McMillan-Scott; though this did involve a questioning of authority, the matter was less directly related than at first appears, in that the dispute was over the post of Vice-President of the European Parliament and not the role of chairman of the group. If anyone disagrees, this information can simply be added, and I would be glad to do so. There is plenty on the matter available in his entry to anyone interested. Another disinterested reader (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reads well. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I still do not think this needs to be gone into in such detail on this page, its about the conservative party policy more than about David Cameron himself. Also why do we use the term caucus all the time and not group? Its is one of the Political groups of the European Parliament. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dave"

The introduction should mention that Dave Cameorn is widely known as "Dave". (92.12.40.142 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't really see the point, in the uk all people called david would also be known as dave, it is not really important, but hey, have you got a citation to support your comment? Call me Dave, is this a joke? Off2riorob (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Heres a good one, " Everyone loves Dopey Dave" [11] Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is it shows that Dave is a true Labour man. (92.12.40.142 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

• I thought this was a silly edit warring over the nick name. Well, Encyclopædia Britannica has the entry with "Dave Cameron (British politician)", so it is not unworthy to include "Dave" in the lede.--Caspian blue 14:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I followed the link and it does not contain "Dave" at all. What gives? -Rrius (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I said the title on the Britannica is "DAVE Cameron", don't you see? Rrius --Caspian blue 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. I followed the link you gave, and it does not say "Dave" blue|Caspian blue]] 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is he called "Dave" in any context but headlines and columns that are to at least some degree mocking? He's famous for "call me "Dave", but does anyone? -Rrius (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I always call Mr Cameron "Dave" whenever I see him because it is in the tradition of the great "Joe" Stalin. (92.12.40.142 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

If you have an actual reason, you better make it soon. In the meantime, I'm reverting you. -Rrius (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

George Osbourne and the entire shadow cabinet call him Dave. (92.12.40.142 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

.....Dave is in the article 5 times.. the call me dave story is already in the article as is the when Boris met Dave story so it is well covered already, not in the lede or the infobox. this is amusing sat afternoon hilarity ? Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to the working men's club when Cameron passed me on his bike. I said, "Hi Dave" and he replied, "Yo man, up the workers!", so I assume he likes being called Dave. (92.12.40.142 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm...this sounds somewhat fraudulent, but I've heard he's called Dave in that Conservative party whistle blowing video. Vegetationlife (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't approach the article from a neutral point of view, you should refrain from editing it. After at least three contributions here that show a clear anti-Cameron attitude and are not even remotely serious attempts to improve the article, the assumption of good faith is overcome. As a result, I've reverted it again. At this point, editors in favour of inclusion should provide actual reasons before it is put in again. -Rrius (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

92 has put it back in, it in not defamatory and unworthy of an edit war, I suggest leaving it in for a day to see how we like it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He he, this is amusing, User Rrius has reverted 92, it's an edit war over dave, please stop reverting you guys. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's back in, 92 has replaced it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

David Cameron is widely known as "Dave Cameron", "Davey Boy", or sometimes just "Dave". this is the disputed edit,I am going to get my trout out in a minite. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that IP's edit seems to be solely motivated by a desire to be disruptive. I was content to leave it with "Dave" in the right place in his full name, but after it became clear from his contributions on this page that he wasn't serious, I deleted the first time. The second reversion followed from the same logic. -Rrius (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to have been amusing myself with this, it is a serious business. What is there now is just not encyclopedic, I suggest total removal of Dave from the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't begrudge you that. I think the whole thing is funny on some level, too. I just wanted to make clear just why I had reverted him twice. I have been trying very hard not to revert more than once, but I thought this warranted an exception and wanted to explain why. -Rrius (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am deadly serious actually, I have also heard the press refer to Dave as "Comrade Dave". (92.12.40.142 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Someone needs to convince 92 that opinion is against him, what, shall we start a little straw poll and then the result will be clear? Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sams taken it out, I have left 92 a litle note about reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

When I, for example, talk about him, I will often refer to him as Dave Cameron. But considering his being referred to as "Dave" is not in the same sense as, for example, Tony Blair was referred to (he is referred to as David in the House of Commons), then ths shouldn't really be included in the article. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to dig out a cite but I distinctly remember him using the "call me Dave" line during the hustings for the Tory leadership. Since once the contest was broadened to the party membership it was down to David Davis and David Cameron he adopted Dave to differentiate him from the other candidate.

I'm not sure how this helped though. It meant that the contest was between David Davis and David Dave. ;-) CrispMuncher (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

According to one of the references here, he never said "Call me Dave"; rather, it was used mockingly to equate him with Tony Blair, who was (mis-)reported to have said "call me Tony" at his first Cabinet meeting. -Rrius (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Could we make this a bit more serious/cut the weak rubbish? I mean being criticised by Hazel Blears is nothing special. John Smith's (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Full support for anyone willing to make the required cuts BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case the line is also long past relevance. Hazel Blears is reported as having criticised the lack of action over Nigel Hastilow's candidature; in fact Hastilow resigned the candidature a matter of hours after, which somewhat removes the force of the criticism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just cut the section because to be quite honest it's all pap. I can see that part of it was relevant some years ago, but now it's a bit feeble. Better to start again with a mind to writing something more substantial rather than have throw-away comments to pretend this article includes criticism of him. John Smith's (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is 'cuts' which are discussed here, not simply removal of the entire section. Is it not better to improve the material, weeding out any irrelevant passages on a case-by-case basis? Also, the issue raised is the quality of the material, not solely its age. If the policies remain, why not the praise and criticism? Another disinterested reader (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced it, I can't see a consensus for its wholesale removal, it might be pap but it is cited pap, if there are sections of it that need updating add some newer better pap. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to trawl the Guardian for new quotations. If people want to add them they can. But a bad section is still a bad section. I note that there is no criticism of Gordon Brown, despite the fact he is far more loathed than Cameron, so there's no need to have material here. If you want to pull all comments, praise and criticism, feel free. John Smith's (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, the section looks better now and there is no criticism section in Brown, the criticism is spread throughout the article and rebutted were relevant, I could also support removal of the section with the content, either moving to another section or deleting as required. Off2riorob (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Transfer to other locations within the article seems a reasonable approach. The material is in fact only partially criticism of policies, and even then indirect. It is similar to the content of the section 'Reaction to his victory' and could easily be interleaved with the material there. Incidentally, the title 'Reaction to his victory' is a poor description of what follows and might be better changed to something more along the lines of 'Reaction to Cameron as leader' Another disinterested reader (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you were to do that I am in support. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to make the change and suggest only that we wait a little for any further comment. Another disinterested reader (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are gonna do it then I would just do it, I was the only person resisting the removal of the section and British Watcher and Sam both supported the removal of the section. If there is any objection from anywhere you can blame me.. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the two subjects under 'Reaction to Cameron as leader', dividing the material into response from the left and right and grouping similar content. The 'Policies and views' section now reveals itself to be rather light on description of policy. Perhaps a summary of key policy areas could be added, based on the article Political positions of David Cameron? This may be a sizeable task, but the text could be built up by a number of us gradually. Another disinterested reader (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Main photo

Update: 27th October 2009, I am currently very annoyed by the opposition to changing the photograph. I was referred to this page - I think that we do need a more recent example (for which I found one where he speaks at a 'Conservatives Middle East' conference) - why can't we change it? I see no need for such a dated photograph! The lime/pale green tie outfit was taken at the Conference, at the celebration event after his election to the apex of the party on the 6th Decemeber 2005 - Why should we not change it?? O2Firth [cannot log-in for some reason] 27/10/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.73.14 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm im not a huge fan of the current photo used, if there is a better one i wont object to it being changed, but will have to look at the alternatives. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A picture change every now and then imo refreshes an article, I can see nothing really wrong with this new pic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well i looked at the image you tried adding and checked commons, i cant see any better image than the current one so it should remain the same. I agree with the comments made in the revert edit summary. Perhaps in 10 months time if he does become Prime Minister, there will be some better images we can use. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Woops the image 02Firth added*. If others support changing the image then i wont oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't really mind, the new photo is not a bad photo and as I said a change is as good as a rest Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Anyway, there are quite a few regular editors to the page and some time to allow more comments is required. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have three main concerns with the proposed new photo (File:CMEC 1 009.jpg).

1) Cameron is facing away from the text in this image where MOS:IMAGES states that it is "often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text". The intention of this guideline is that the eyes of a reader will follow the subject's eyes back to the text rather than away.

2) Cameron takes up less than half of the image space. While this may make a good image for later in the article, for the lead image we should really have one that focusses primarily on the article subject.

3) The slogan in the background is a little misleading. The first thing a reader of the article will see when opening the page is "Conservative Middle East". Lacking context on the purpose of the "Conservative Middle East Council", it could leave readers with a very warped impression of Cameron's policies.

If someone was able and willing to make a derivative work that excluded the slogan you would immediately bypass objection 3 and hopefully objection 2 as well (with the slogan gone Cameron would take a more normal proportion within the frame). The only stumbling block then would be objection 1, but the preferred style can be overlooked if the resulting photo is superior to all the other current options. Road Wizard (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That MOS is a guideline, and advises you to use common sense . I don't think it is such a big deal, pictures come and go.. a big issue is copyright, and I like to ask the Q, is the picture derogatory? No its not. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the guideline can be overruled if another image is judged to be superior in other respects. Copyright issues do not apply as both images are available under a free licence. "Is the picture derogatory?" No. "Is the image misleading?" Yes, especially for an image within the lead where you cannot add context. If you wish to dismiss my argument it would be useful to address the two other arguments I made.

I have suggested an alternative course of action by making a derivative work. That is perfectly within the rules of Wikipedia and the licence on the image supports it. Is this alternative solution not acceptable to you? Road Wizard (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing, I am just joining in with the discussion, imo, you give too much weight to what is misleading..there is nothing misleading about the new picture at all..It is a picture of David Cameron at some meeting, he must go to thousands, all of the options are acceptable to me. What is this rules of wikipedia stuff Wikipedia rules Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Argument is another name for discussion, and I said I made arguments. I did not say that you were arguing. ^_~

"Rules of wikipedia" in terms of the Wikipedia policy that we follow US copyright law in the creation of derivative works. I was stating that there is no reason under copyright rules/law why a derivative work could not be made. All it would take would be a crop of the left half of the image and a re-upload to commons under a derivative licence and the objections are resolved.

I think we will just have to disagree on the misleading issue. It is up to consensus to decide. Road Wizard (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the CMEC file looks terrible. Cameron's shiny mouth makes it look as though he either drooled all over himself or just put down the big, greasy turkey leg he was eating and is now about to scoop out a big helping of cake. -Rrius (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious faith

The Evening Standard have an interview with Cameron in which he makes some interesting comments on his faith. I notice that the the article has nothing on faith, not even under 'Personal life'. Any such information could of course be added there - and is at least as significant as his choice of football team - but the section is already rather full. Would there be support for the formation of a separate section along the lines of the pages for the PM and Tony Blair? Another disinterested reader (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I support that. Although he doesn't really say that much about it, he says he is CoE and that he was confirmed at 18, but I suspect he is a weddings funerals and christenings and christmas type of non church going CoE. He is not a regular attender of a parish, as far as I know. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have at last added the section. Another disinterested reader (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Article protection

I was looking and there has recently been a degree of vandalistic edits, as we run up to the election I foresee this situation deteriorating, if there is a return to destructive edits I suggest someone requests semi protecting the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This was added to the controversy section and I removed it as being a bit newsy..I am open to being wrong, any opinions?

"Promise of bonuses to returning military personnel from Afghanistan

In December 2009, Cameron travelled to the province of Helmand in the south of Afghanistan, where British troops are deployed, after meeting military leaders and Afghan president Hamid Karzai in Kabul, as well as watching Afghan forces train. In Helmand he addressed the British troops at their Lashkar Gah base. On this occasion he promised to double bonuses paid to troops returning from Afghanistan. Cameron told reporters the payment for a six-month tour of duty would increase to £4,800, if the Conservatives would win the general election in Great Britain expected spring 2010. Speaking to a reporter of newspaper The Sun about soldiers' bonuses, he said: "The pay they get for what they do is relatively low. We want to do more to make sure our forces have a better deal. 'I'll make that a priority of my first Budget. It will happen in our first 50 days." [12]

Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake on early life

 Done The following is incorrect and should be removed: 'but spent much of hisearly life in Totley, Sheffield'. It has not been attributed.

Hi, totley? did he? or didn't he?...I'll have a look. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

from this link.."The son of a stockbroker, Cameron grew up in Sheffield's quaintest little village, Totley, before going to a preparatory school in Berkshire and onto Eton, Oxford and the notorious Bullingdon Club." [13]

It's not a strong citation but leans me to think that it could be correct and to see if any other edits know anything more. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what is known as a piece of unnoticed vandalism. Added in this edit, 18 April 2009. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Off of the top of my head, I think he was raised in Oxfordshire, but I am not sure. Intelligentsium 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checked Elliott and Hanning which has him living in London until 1969, then moving to Peasemore, and that Peasemore remained the family home throughout his schooling and while he was at university. Have therefore removed the claim. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, it was seeming weak. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

David Cameron is a descendant of King George III

Why did you remove this information? For what purpose did you remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LustyRoars (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC) HEARMYLUSTYwhispers 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it cited to support it? Is it a big issue? Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We already have this...Cameron is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria's uncle and predecessor on the throne, King William IV(4th great grandfather) how far should we go back? Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New article picture

I have cropped to make it agree what with people had said in the discussion made earlier on the talk page.

This is what the cropped version looks like now: .

Should we make it the article's picture? Any ideas? Willwal, (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's room for it further down, it might be fine, but the photo currently in the infobox makes more sense there than this one would. -Rrius (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly inserted the new File:David Cameron - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2010.jpg, which is not ideal, but at least recent.  Sandstein  18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks ok and is the most recent, I like it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A general update

Some elements of the article are becoming rather outdated now, for instance the final part of the lede. Would there be agreement for a rewriting of the closing two sentences there, or the addition of one or two more, to mention the narrowing in the polls, the imminence of the election and the broad themes of the debate emerging?

There are also sections where incremental addition and limited consolidation limit the readability and relevance of the text, notably the section Standing in opinion polls, but also to some extent Personal life. The first of these is a vast mass of information not updated since the end of 2008 which could comfortably be reduced to a general summary, while a more greatly reduced summary could even be moved to Leadership of the Conservative Party, especially as there is no major section on the subject at either Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg. Is there any support for such reworking?

Finally, the growing focus on the election might also be reflected in the addition of a section, or dedicated subsection at the end of Leadership of the Conservative Party, where an overview of events could be provided. Again, would there be support for this? Another disinterested reader (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

With no opposition so far I will be bold and begin with the section on poll ratings. Another disinterested reader (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the statement that they have been consistantly anhead in the polls has altered, the fact of recent small narrowing would not be content to add to the lede but to the relevant section IMO. A section on the election, well perhaps a line or two but that is all going to be newsy and actually most of which will sit better in other articles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; I will update and reduce the polls section for now, referring only in passing to the election. The lede can wait for more significant movement or events. Another disinterested reader (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, the polls section needs a rewrite and an update as was mentioned some time ago by SamB. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is his comment..."Agreed; there is no reason this poll was particularly notable. In fact this section needs a general trim so that it does not become a running commentary". Sam Blacketer.. Just to add it into the pot for consideration when you rewrite it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I am of the same view. The section is almost ready. Another disinterested reader (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The section is ready here. I will delay adding it a little longer as I have suggested at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2010 that the detail of the current section may be of value in that article. Any comments on the draft text or direct changes to it are of course welcome. Another disinterested reader (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reads fine to me, I would say it covers the big issues quite nicely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The section has now been added. Another disinterested reader (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good, well done. Gordon Brown is in need of the same improvement, if and when you have the time or the inclination ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look. The most striking feature there remains the organisation: those vast blocks of text are rather discouraging and might benefit from a little loosening up. Another disinterested reader (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, why not, appreciated, no hurry, no worry. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources of funding section

This section has been expanded and imo the section is actually not belonging here, it is really better fitted in the Conservative party article as non of it is really to do with funding dave cameron, imo it could all go somewhere else simply it would be better removed from here, the edit that has expanded the section has highlighted the fact that the content is not really about Dave. IMO...Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At present there is only Cameron's appointment of Ashcroft making it relevant. However, a further fact remains unused, given at source no. 162, specifically that Ashcroft's wife was impressed by Cameron and saw that £20,000 was given to his leadership campaign back in 2005. I was not able to integrate this without breaking the rhythm of the text, and it seemed unnecessary to do so at the time, even a little too controversial in that Ashcroft's donations are not cleared by the Electoral Commission and repayment may be required: the party has not won its election, but Cameron has his, and if the funding is declared incorrect the accusation of illegitimacy could be levelled. I will add the new information to confirm the relevance. Another disinterested reader (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't get too carried away, although you write well, I am not enthralled that the content is actually relevant to this article and I was more looking to remove some of the coatracking than add to it to give the coatracking a weak reason to exist here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We can hold off adding the remainder to give time for more discussion. Having reread the section carefully, the relevance comes not only from Cameron's appointment of Ashcroft, but also from his relationship to Goldsmith, his comment on the non-dom issue and the fact of funding from the financial sector having quadrupled in his time as leader. If we factor in the heavy interest in the issue of political funding in general, and that of the Conservatives in particular, notably by Ashcroft, the need to retain it is clear. I would suggest waiting a few days and seeing how events pan out. Another disinterested reader (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What events? is this a news issue? Its a bitcoatracky imo, ill give it till tomorrow and have another look at it, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Policy and Israel

I believe we need a few sentences on David Camerons view on Israel. I am thinking of adding a few quotes from this article, where relevant.

Conservative Friends of Israel

"Conservatives should be friends of Israel because Conservatives believe in supporting democracy, defending freedom and standing up against terrorism. Israel is in the front line in the international struggle against terrorist violence and we should show solidarity with all involved in that fight. " Beganlocal (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dugdale

William Dugdale related to which parent? Cameron, Levita, Mount, Llewellyn which family? Matthew_hk tc 21:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, general election approaching

Well this article is bound to get some pretty high traffic over the next month. I thought I'd go through it with a fine tooth-comb, if nobody minds? Maybe we could work fast and get this and Gordon Brown to FA, and have our very own version of the US Presidential election TFA :) Parrot of Doom 13:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown is already a good article, feel free to improve it but it is already good, at this time I wouldn't like to see it destabalised in a fair article push, personally for what it is worth I would prefer it left untill after the election, this article though would benefit from a good article review and status. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of cites from the lede

There is no requirement to cite in the lede but if there are a few and they sit at content that is disputable or has previously been disputed then they are totally harmless, a few, two or three have been removed, I would prefer to keep them where they where. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead is only a summary of the article. If a claim in the lead is contentious, then one should proceed to the relevant text in the body of the article and investigate further. Citations within leads are just messy, and unnecessary. Parrot of Doom 15:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.153.179.205, 18 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The opion poll information on this article is out of date following the ITV1 Leaders' debate of 15 April 2010 which has changed the dymanic of the polls. The article should be updated to reflect the challenge to the Conservatives posed by LibDem Leader Nick Clegg's performance on this debate. 81.153.179.205 (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change. Can you provide a link to the debate in question? :)

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 07:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cameron, Jewish?

http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-13853/cameron-i-will-empower-uk-jews/

He "... described learning about his Jewish ancestors as one of the highlights of his year." He "... spoke of learning about his ancestors, the Levitas, as a personal highlight."

Nick Cohen article

I've added a bit from this article on Cameron's time as a SPAD. This is the first time I've edited such a high-profile article and I hope my addition helps. Thanks. UFUU (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources of funding

discussion about the content in the section below

What has this actually got to do with the biography of Cameron? It looks like content that belongs elsewhere to me.

I'm not quite sure where I'm supposed to respond, but this looks like something that would belong at Conservative Party (UK), not here. None of this really seems to be about Cameron. That's not to say the topic couldn't or shouldn't be discussed here, but that just doesn't look like the right way to do it. -Rrius (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one option, yes there is a lot of coatracked content here imo as well, this belongs elsewhere, the party article as you say. Boldly removed.Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources of funding

Significant donations made to the Conservative Party through a company controlled by Baron Ashcroft, appointed Deputy Chairman of the party by Cameron, have come under scrutiny. The trading status of the company, and thus the validity of donations totalling £3m, is unclear and is the subject of an investigation by the Electoral Commission begun in October 2008. There have been calls from Labour MPs and the Prime Minister for the process to be concluded in time for the next general election, due by mid-2010. Liberal Democrat Baron Oakeshott stated: "Democracy is in danger if Lord Ashcroft has been pouring millions into Conservative campaigns through an offshore pipeline from a Caribbean tax haven."

A further Electoral Commission investigation was begun into donations of £264,000 made by Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative parliamentary candidate and adviser to Cameron on green issues. It is alleged that two payments were invalid owing to Goldsmith not being entered on the Electoral roll. Goldsmith has a personal wealth of £300m and holds properties in an offshore trust, leading to comparisons with the status of Baron Ashcroft. With the discovery that Goldsmith was non-domiciled for tax purposes, Cameron stated: "He's obviously going to end this status and become a full UK taxpayer and he needs to do that as rapidly as can be done."

In February 2010 the Financial Times reported that donations totalling £16m were received from sources linked to the City in the four years from January 2006, with funding obtained from the financial sector having quadrupled since Cameron became leader. Four donors contributed a total of £7m, these including the Conservative Party co-treasurers Michael Spencer and Stanley Fink. Labour MP Emily Thornberry has accused the party of a lack of consistency, saying: "The Tories claim they will not be seduced by City wealth and try to talk tough on bankers but the large donations they continue to receive tell another story." The party insists that donations have "no influence" on policy.

Tag needed

Can some please explain why this, just before the election of 2010, does not have the tag that appears on the talk pages for Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown, that the page may be at increased risk of vanalism and talk-trolling as it is about a politician running for office? Many thanks ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added "activepol=yes" to the WPBiography template - the message should be displayed here now. I removed a {{WPBLP}} tag - the standard BLP warning is displayed anyway, through the WPBiography template as far as I understand it. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister

Well, it is now virtually certain that David Cameron will be the next PM. As talks between Lib & Lab have collapsed (as just announced on BBC), while talks with the Tories have been very strong. It is very obvious what will happen next... but I'll wait until something comes through in the press before adding this :) Mathmo ^Talk 15:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone braces themselves before the storm. --.:Alex:. 17:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

actually he isnt prime minister until he goes to see the queen, she asks him to form a goverment and offers her hand, then and only then is he prime minister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.89.106 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we seem to be prime minister less. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. We don't have confirmation that he has been appointed by the Queen, despite certain editors' over-enthusiasm. He sn't even at the palace yet, so certainly hasn't been appointed. – Toon 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We only know when the Palace or Cameron himself announces so wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, (horrible thought) we seem to have Harriet Harman as leader of the Labour party. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lovely time for British politics, non? – Toon 19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Could have been worse - Ed Balls as PM, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First line of article

David Cameron has NOT been Prime Minister since 2005, contrary to the article's first line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.202.235.78 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh?

How come sometimes I view the page it says he's the Prime minister and sometimes it's removed? Liquinn (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Because editors keep jumping the gun and adding that he's PM, even though he's not yet (a) been offered the job by the Queen, and (b) accepted it. As soon as it's added we revert. I've started warning editors on their talk pages. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

he has been sowrne in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.4.131 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rime minister? Is he a poet now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.128.149 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He has not been "sowrne" in yet. Also, if you can't spell, don't update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.31 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the info. It's just a matter of time now really. Liquinn (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. All we need to do is wait until it actually happens, and then update the article. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. Liquinn (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean he's met the Queen and the accepted the post? TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed 20.25 :) KnowIG 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)  

Yeah, it's on the BBC news now. "Queen confims David Cameron is new PM". Liquinn (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Barring edit conflicts, I've added refs (BBC) to both DC and GB articles. Thank goodness this is over...! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Youngest Prime Minister After Liverpool?

That's not correct. William Pitt the Younger became prime minister in 1783 at the tender age of 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.129.3 (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that sentence for the reason you have identified. It apepars to be plainly wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

second youngest PM?

Wasn't Pitt PM at 24? Ray^Talk 19:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that sentence for the reason you have identified. It apepars to be plainly wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen Picture

Surely this picture must be in the public domain? Can't find any link to it on royal.gov.uk. I think it would be appropriate to include this article if licensing allows. ARC Gritt^TALK 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the URL of the image, I'd assume that the BBC got it from Getty images - so, no, I'd imagine it's not in the public domain. I'd love to be wrong, though... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)