Talk:George Osborne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] General Note

I've tried to add stuff to this profile, but it needs more meat. A few notes:

a) if you google about, you can clearly see the FactCheck controversy residue (google for 'Osborne talks Balls'. There seems to be a moving wall which kills articles after 6 months on Channel 4's news website though so it is dead. This has been added and removed a few times. The link worked a few weeks ago and I recall Channel 4 News making a big deal of giving a '5 out of 5' for dishonesty. Not going to revert though - I appreciate that it's not major enough on its own and unsourceable atm.

b) Added the White House Visit controversy. I think this is a fair descripiton of events. The online edition of Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times is half-sized - the smaller stories (such the one cited here) are not included. However, offline sources are still sources.

c) We need more on economics and stuff, but I can't find anything. What has he said? He was pro-tax-reform, but what more is there? At the moment, it is content-biased. However, attempts to rectify this by removing (for example) the cocaine allegations are ludicrous.

d) There's a weird preoccupation with dropping sources on this profile. One of Osbrone's quotes was unsourced because someone had lopped off the reference.

Monkeytennisace 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cocaine Allegations

Should a section be added about allegations that he took cocaine when he was young? "The growing lines of coke during 70s and 80s", is also worth considering. --Sennaista 07:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Standard tabloid muckracking attempt that has had no political effect whatsoever, is my opinion. If mentioned, links to media reports should be provided (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Average Earthman 11:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VANDAL ALERT

JohnBull, please stop vandalising the article! Cp6ap has vandalised the article. Keep away or you will be reported to Wikipedia

18.01.06; I see 'John Bull' has again vandalised the article, removing balanced opinion to leave a POV account of Osborne's Commons performance.

Leave it alone, JB. You are a Conservative and you are attempting to make the article POV. You will be reported to Wikipedia for ytour repeated attempts at vandalism!

Oh dear I see the edit war is still going on. What seems to be happening is that User 213.122.97.10 keeps adding in the text

"He was also described as having a piping, squeaky voice and as being totally out of his depth."

"Osborne's political career has also been described as being one of abject failure. His advice to Hague led to the Conservatives suffering there second landslide defeat at the polls in four years in 2001."

Which are then removed by various people including John Bull. While I an see that there is room in the article for some balance regarding Osbourne the proposed insertions are either unreferenced or innacurate or both. Clearly the were many reasons for the Conservative defeat in 2001 to attribute it to Osbourne's advice to Hague as his assistant is nonsense. User 213... will find that unless they frame there amendments in language that is more balanced they will continue to be reverted Cp6ap 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither are the comments about Osborne's speech being 'wide3ly acclaimed' referenced or accurate. It's important that balance is shown here, and John Bull keeps removing balanced comments to ensure the article reflect his POV position.

[edit] Added picture

I've added a picture taken from Conservatives.com - AndrewBellis 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks on Gordon Brown on 2 October 2006

I have added reference to this, and restructured so the attacks on Brown all appear in one section --SandyDancer 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to edit this section slightly. At the moment, it reads as though George Osborne used the phrase "Gordon Brown is faintly autistic." In reality, he was personally asked if he was "faintly autistic" by a journalist, and responded by saying "we're not getting on to Gordon Brown yet." JF Mephisto 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's much better now, thanks --SandyDancer 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I cut the reference to a contrast with Cameron's "consensual approach". I think it's fair to say that Cameron has been attacking Brown just as vehemently as Osborne (see e.g. all the Stalin references after this year's budget) Trefusius 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needed changes

Well, I've been asked to explain my changes, so here goes....my previous edit consisted of equal parts needed style adjustments, and removal of weasel worded and/or uncited sentences. The former category (style) includes such gems as "he would help prepare Hague...as part of the preparation" and "David Cameron, the current leader whose leadership campaign..." and the bit about "he denied such a comparison being made.." -- that last one doesn't even make sense. Osbourne didn't deny that such claims were being made, which is how it reads. What he does deny is the existence of any kind of "deal." Also, that same paragraph contained the sentence about comparisons with "Tony Blair and Gordon Brown" twice.

As for the deletions -- there was a sentence about how his budget response was "greatly acclaimed" but that he had a "piping squeaking voice". That is simply completely inapropriate (see the banner at the top of this discussion page). And about his flat tax opinions -- what is necessary there is a statement of his opinions, not an introductory sentence which read "attracted praise from the right ^{[citation needed]}, and criticism from the left and centre ^{[citation needed]}". What kind of garbage is that? If the Guardian (or whoever) has criticsms of a flat tax, maybe we should include a quote referencing that criticism, although the flat tax has its own article and correct me if I am wrong but I thought the point of this article was that it be a bio of Osbourne, a bio which should not include preambles on the merits of differing tax systems. --longlivefolkmusic 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good edits in my opinion, well done, the article is better now. --SandyDancer 11:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inheritance

The BBC says that he is the heir to the 'Osborne & Little Wallpaper fortune'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk_politics/03/shadow_cabinet/html/chancellor.stm Is it worth including? Indisciplined 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please do --SandyDancer 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative article

This article is far too partisan and negative. All this waffle on his so-called autism comments and a rebuke from the Speaker will pale into insignificance in the not-too-distant future. Dovea 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking a member to withdraw language is common enough that I can't quickly find it mentioned in any similar article - expulsions from the chamber do get a mention though. Alci12 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It needs to include much more on his recent speeches and economic debates, and much less snide commentary and partisan filler. --Jakeoleary 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs more on recent speeches and economic debates, please add relevant sections. --SandyDancer 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit on the Channel 4 Fact Check issue (which is 'substantive', so to speak) but are there any topics he's come out over? Monkeytennisace 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a neutrality tag. Dovea 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV language tag

I can't see any POV language so to speak. Fine, you might think the article biased by content and you might have a point - but nothing in the article is actually biased per se. --SandyDancer 13:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right - the article is biased by content but I'm not an expert on Wikipedia - is there a more appropriate tag? Dovea 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to {{NPOV}}. --SandyDancer 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to spell out per the tag instructions what exactly you think the collective bias is so that other editors can see if they (a) agree and (b) can adress the concerns Alci12 14:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would refer you to all the comments made above, and the fact that there is so little on his speeches and contributions to economic debates, and so much on rebukes by the Speaker, the so-called autism comments and insubstantiated cocaine claims. Dovea 14:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine - add what you like. This is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit.

The story about the alleged cocaine use is a fact - it isn't a fact that he used cocaine, but it is a fact that it was alleged he had taken cocaine, with lots and lots of attendant publicity.

There was a signicant storm about his autism jokes - I don't really see why you refer to this as "the so-called autism comments".

The Speaker rebuke story is also sourced and factual, I can't really see a problem with it.

You haven't justified the tag you want to put on the article - and worst of all, you have sought to keep it up here for three weeks now without making a single substantive edit to the article. I am removing it - if you have issues with the article, make some edits. --SandyDancer 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into any arguments, I merely wanted to express my opinion, as Jakeoleary has. Dovea 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, I can see my tone was a bit harsh. I apologise. Sorry! --SandyDancer 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content

I think this is quite a weak bio and the article content is biassed. I did add in the Channel 4 spat and the FactCheck saga because I don't think witholding content to preserve POV is the way through; a string of assaults from one of Britain's five domestic broadcast agencies is significant for explaining his public image.

Monkeytennisace 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I just noticed someone had pulled the cocaine stuff - not bloody likely. It was a very big issue. I've added an Osborne rebuttal and linked to a new source. There is no way this cannot be in the article. Monkeytennisace 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)