Jump to content

Talk:William Hague

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.139.96.199 (talk) at 22:02, 26 July 2011 (→1977 Conference speech). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

William is a Former Rupert Murdoch Lackey

Hague used to earn £200, 000 a year as a columnist at the Mirror. Does anyone have any more detail about his proximity to the hacking of political opponent's voicemails and/or the interception of Emails or other forms of communication?


1977 Conference speech

I added a link to my blog where I have reproduced the text of this speech, my edit was reverted as not a 'reliable source', as far as I know this is the only electronic reproduction of the text of the speech, and I think it is important material to be included in this bio. I also understand there is a particular desire among some William Hague supporters some to deliberately suppress this speech! So what do I do to make the text of the speech available to wikipedia users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperrin uk (talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

It's hardly surprising that the page should be so inaccurately biased in favour oof Hague since one of the editors has been the Tory activist Tim Roll-Pickering. 195.92.198.72 17:03, 23 May 2004

Hi, anonymous person. You might want to read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. As a definite tory-hater, I don't see any bias in this page. Morwen 16:06, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Please stop violating NPOV on this and several other Conservative-politician articles. Any useful changes that you do make are, sadly, likely to be reverted along with all the non-useful ones.
And, FWIW, I'm a Liberal Democrat 'activist' and find the earlier version lacking only in depth, and not at all in bias...
James F. (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
>lacking only in depth, and not at all in bias...
Fortunately there is no lack of bias in the current version either...
Shostexe (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The speech was criticised in even traditionally Conservative newspapers such as The Sun and The Times."

The Sun supported the labour party in 2001. How can it be conservative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.154.252 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"With hindsight, the speech served to cement the portrayal of the Conservatives' as "the nasty party" in the run-up to the general election"

That is opinion, unless you can back this statement up with evidence from a poll or a focus group, it should be edited to remove the bias or removed altogether. W66w66 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Cabinet lists

Would it be worth seperating these lists from this article - they aren't really about Hague himself? Paulleake 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I just came here to suggest the same thing. — Matt Crypto 19:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now moved to UK Shadow Cabinet 1997-2001 Paulleake 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting foetus

I have previously included a source for the term 'fighting foetus', but some editors seem to be too stupid to recognise its authenticity. I have therefore added the date of its first publication...

There seems to be a revert war going on about fighting foetus. Fortunately it is not a rapid fire one, but over the course of days. I think that anything that is potentially an attack on a person (especially a living on) must have decent sources (backed up by WP:VERIFY and Jimbo's comment "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]"

I will revert, please do not re-add the fighting foetus comment without verifiable references (specific for each comment made). I've heard the term foetus applie to Hague (thought not fighting foetus) so I don't see a problem it being there, but as per above, it has to be sourced.

Also please stop calling each other vandals in your edit summaries. It doesn't help, and violates WP:NPA. Captainj 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I follow British politics somewhat and have never heard the term 'Fighting Foetus' except on the Wikipedia page. Even if one source used it once it is still untrue to say that he was known by the phrase. It is also accurate to characterise the person who keeps reinserting it as a vandal. Everytime I look up the user contributions of the various IP addresses he uses there is always a whole string of minor vandalism of articles about British right wing people and institutions. His most prolific IP adress was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.92.198.72] The last but one time the Fighting Foetus reference was put in the vandal also inserted nonsense into the article on Jeremy Clarkson.--Number 77 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you may be right. I don't think the Anon even read the talk page from their comment in the last edit summary. I think we all just need to keep any eye out and revert as soon as this happens. The IP address is different each time (probably a range) so warnings are innapropriate. Also, I think you're right about the "fighting foetus" comment; it just wasn't notable (although the foetus comment by itself might be, but only with refs). Captainj 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, 'Number 77' you are even more stupid than you appear. What a lot of utter tripe you have posted above. Please also tell us what 'nonsense' was inserted into the Clarkson article... that is, if you're capable of doing so... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.131.55.152 (talk • contribs) ..

It does seem this user is WP:NPOV pushing. There seems to be a consensus here against the FF reference, which even if it actually happened is unlikely to have been notable. Captainj 15:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I would add that Hague supporters have attempted to idolise him in their edits. He was described as the 'Fighting Foetus' by a reputable source, which I cited in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and yet you or your associates have chosen to delete it yet again. You are a hypocrite.

As 81.131.97.88 you changed a reference to Jeremy Clarkson's television series having run for 3 years to 3 episodes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Clarkson&diff=prev&oldid=54596371 see here. It is the kind mind numbingly petty vandalism you specialise in.--Number 77 19:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? Clarkson's TV show ran for 3 episodes, not 3 years. What is it about that that you find so objectionable?

It's not hard to tell this user from his editing pattern. I suggest reverting on sight. Plus I wouldn't bother responding to his comments, he's violated so many WP policies that its only because he's using different IPs that I haven't asked for him to be banned. If I see it again, I'll probably just report the abuse to his ISP (BTOpenWorld). CaptainJ (t | c | e) 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Why do you object to my editing so much? I take it that facts and free speech are anathema to you...

NPOV content and language

This article is replete with language that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia and numerous unsupported assertions eg:

  1. "Hague made a good impression at the Welsh Office"
  2. "his tenure was widely considered a failure"
  3. "various public-relations exercises backfired disastrously"
  4. "failed as someone who desperately wanted to be in touch with younger voters"
  5. "Hague gained great respect from all sides of the British House of Commons during his time as Leader of the Opposition for his brilliant performances as a debater"
  6. "Hague ripped into the Prime Minister's record:" WJBscribe 06:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These points listed here seem NPOV in the context of an article about a current politician whose most prominent characteristics are precisely (a) his skill as a debater and (b) his ultimately unsuccessful attempt to appeal to younger voters when he was party leader. Also (petty point, sorry) three of the points listed are positive and three are negative... Certainly the article read well and neutral to me, as someone who came to this article for the first time today (19.1.07, announcement that Hague chosen to chair the new "Northern Board" of the Conservative Party). To excise any of the passages referred to would diminish a reader's interest in the article as well as the information content and leave it very sterile. Other articles about living politicians comment on the success or otherwise of their policies, activities and popular appeal. On the other hand, if all that is being said here is that the article can be improved by adding sources for each of these assertions, that is certainly true, sources are always good. CM 12:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Fair use only applies where "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" (my italics). I can't therefore see how we can possibly claim fair use for a non-free photo of a living public figure. The rule isn't "or could easily be created". 86.146.232.153 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books

Hasn't he written some books? Anyone? Beuller?

He has written "William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-slave Trade Campaigner" ISBN 978-0007228850. I think this should be added some where to his biography. AFCR 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an online video of his speech on Pitt The Younger, link below, about whom he has also written. ISBN-10: 1400040523 ISBN-13: 978-1400040520

http://www.youtube.com/user/CambridgeUniversity#p/c/DE25019A01514354/1/O0tHmYEaqok

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.77.169 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education

I think he did PPE not history

He did PPE so I'm changing it--Kinggimble (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

An anon user edited this to have a very pro-Hague slant (he was undoubtedly a better debater than Blair, and so on, apparently), and in returning to the old version, I've removed (somewhat reluctantly) this sentence:

He was ill-prepared for the role, and his plodding delivery and embarrassing attempts to appeal to the younger generation failed to win him a popular following.

I don't doubt its truth, but plenty of people would (including, presumably, the previous editor who replaced it with a spot of hagiography). If we could quote a newspaper or something saying this about him, that would be ideal. --Camembert

While Hague was clearly not a great success (although this was the worst point ever to become Conservative leader - and the Conservatives survived which could be argued as a sucess in the circumstances ) I don't agree that he had a "plodding delivery" his speeches were always professionally delivered. Is "embarrassing" the right word as well. How about

"Hague failed to make a favourable impression on the public in the crucial early days of his leadership, and some early attempts to define his image backfired. Cp6ap 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skill in debate?

The 'skill in debate' section has one reference. Could someone explain to me how basing a whole section on the POV of a newspaper columnist leads to a NPOV? It looks particularly bad as even this very article states The Times are a tory leaning newspaper Supposed 04:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Skill in debate' is a difficult thing to evidence, however if there is a reference from a reliable source, like the oldest daily newspaper in print, then it is reasonable. --Gibnews (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A single quote from an old newspaper is not a 'reasonable' title for an entire section. ":'Skill in debate' is a difficult thing to evidence," even more reason not to dedicate a section on it. You are lowering the quality of the content on wikipedia by doingso. Supposed (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hague ride.jpg

Image:Hague ride.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Union

It says 'citation needed' for the phrase "and the Oxford Union, a noted route to political office". Altough there isn't actual citation, could not the fact that nigh on every president of the Oxford Union goes on to become a politician or involved in politics in some way? Would it not be sufficient to highlight the large number of current and former MPs that are former Oxford Union presidents? If so, can we simply link wiki pages of these numerous MPs to this comment? Hedged-Hog (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

William Hague was born and educated in England, is of English parentage, and represents an English contituency. So he should be referred to as English, just as Neil Kinnock, who also led a British political party, is referred to as Welsh. Ausseagull (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the change. If you want to deny or over-ride Mr Hague's nationality, please let me know. Ausseagull (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinnock page is wrong. A politician at the UK level is generally described as British because that is the level they operate at and the positions they have held. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience only people from Northern Ireland (and only one sort of person from Northern Ireland at that) think of themselves as British. The British generally regard themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh. Accordingly for Hague to describe himself as English seems quite correct.--78.16.13.201 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His attitude towards Europe

Conservative and liberal parties in Europe are all staunchly pro-EU and pro-NATO (support for EU and NATO being a fundamental basis for any contemporary conservative and liberal party in Europe), while right-wing extremists and left-wing extremists are both opposed to Europe and NATO. However, this Hague guy seems to some sort of extremist anti-European for some reason. I think his attitude towards Europe should be explained. The article should also explain why a person who holds opinions typical of the far left and far right is a member of a conservative party and is even appointed as foreign minister. Could he be described as a far-right politician? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquesparis (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been accused of xenophobia and racism http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1201755.stm I think this person is a far-right politician by widely recognized definitions, demonstrated by nationalist and xenophobic statements and anti-EU views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquesparis (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does not fit the far-right description. If we mean far right to mean fascism, which fascist parties are normally labelled, then he cannot be far-right. He is a Tory nationalist just as Disraeli and Thatcher were. Euroscepticism is entirely natural for a Tory, most Tories are eurosceptic to varying degrees. Continental conservative parties are different, so what?--Britannicus (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right doesnt necessarily mean fascist. You can be xenophobic right-wing (i.e. far-right) without being fascist. It's a fact that even conservative British newspapers have criticised Hague of being xenophohic. When someone like Michael Heseltine (conservative deputy PM in the 90s) says he is unsure whether he can support a party led by Hague, it's significant. Also, moderate British conservatives aren't anti EU, but their conservative party seems to include some far-right elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquesparis (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heseltine is on the opposite wing of the party to Hague, so it is not surprising he disagrees with him. I would say Thatcher rather than Heseltine were more representative of Tory thinking, and Hague's position is close to Thatcher's. "Moderate" is a meaningless word; most Tories are eurosceptic, why can you not accept that? There is nothing "far right" about wanting to leave the EU, a policy which anyway Hague has not advocated. You seem more preoccupied with name-calling than educating people.--Britannicus (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myers resignation

By censuring the facts in the public domain on the Myers affair, you are not giving the facts as they stand which are now in the public domain in the reliable medis. This site is supposed to be about the facts and the Myers affair is a fact in terms of the allegations, resignation and denials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.104 (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What censoring (which is what I think you mean)? This site is about reporting reliably sourced facts, and even more so because of this policy. As I see it, we accurately report the facts; let the rumour-mongers go elsewhere. Rodhullandemu 17:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must make reference to the facts now that Hague has made a personal statement on these press allegations.86.166.65.104 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can be reported so far as it is relevant to the article, using a reliable source for the text. Rodhullandemu 17:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full text of statement now available on the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/01/william-hague-full-statement yorkshiresky (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hague's sexuality is irrelevant unless he chooses to clarify in a statement. Only the facts as reported by reliable sources.86.166.64.59 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has now, so it should be on here.86.166.64.63 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Cite and WP:Verify. If there is evidence from a primary source, then label Hague as gay. If no evidence has turned up, and currently there seems to be nothing beyond speculation, then save any gossip for a blog or another wiki.

Personal life

'Ffion Hague has had a number of miscarriages during their marriage.' How on EARTH can this be appropriate for an encyclopedia article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.130.6 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because of WP:BLP and people reading WP:NOT, I guess. Find this information odious? Well, calling people odious is not civil either, and the fact is that an encyclopedia is open. If you can find a reference against it, remove it. If not, kindly, cease and desist.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't add anything to an understanding of Hague in an encyclopedic sense- after all, he's a politician more than tabloid fodder, so I'll remove it per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Rodhullandemu 21:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but one must be "conservative" if you'll pardon the small pun, to the point of freeing up chosen references of high-quality. Wikipedia doesn't do it's job right if it is so out-of-synch with current events, evidence-based, topics of research. There are many people who could have heard of the Hagues through such news outlets talking about Ffion's miscarriages, and this is a component of Hague's life. I would say the information deserves at least a footnote.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are equally conservative, but sourcing to a blog is unacceptable. If the fact is shown by RS to be relevant to Hague's article, fine. Bear in mind that the death of David Cameron's son Ivan is covered in his article since it was covered in mainstream sources and Cameron commented on it. Unless and until Hague wants to deal with his family life so publicly and does so equally visibly, I think we should omit it. Rodhullandemu 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I might say, one could see your position as confusing cause for effect. If Hague doesn't want his sexuality revealed, however the referenced facts of the article occur in one text, the reference, and the fact it contains, should be put forward in the article.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no research on it, then it looks like we concur, the article stays as it is... for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Hague&oldid=441609741"