Talk:George Osborne/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

St. Paul's

Sorry for my various clumsy attempts during the day to set up the St Paul's reference. Simon

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)

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)

Flat Tax

Folks, I sourced the article on his flat tax ploicy of 2005, and increased the size abit. I thought the line "would save money for the rich and burden the poor" smacked of POV so I got rid of it and just added the facts of what he said.

Is it even worth including given its not part of the manifesto and 5 years old?

Let me know what you think. I am a newbie so feel free to vent your frustration :) ed84c 16:22, 16 April 2010 (BST)

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."

or

"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.

Added picture

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

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)

For some unexplained reason, the "autistic" comments have been removed from the article. I have rectified this, and I think I have made it balanced – explaining that his comment was to merely suggest that the interviewer's comments may have referred to Gordon Brown. Perhaps we could add Osborne's comments on this criticism to make it more unbiased.--78.105.52.52 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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 , and criticism from the left and centre ". 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)

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)

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)

BIASED AND PARTISAN ARTICLE This article is egregiously biased - containing five lines on alleged cocaine use (never substantiated) at the top of the article, and lengthy and unwarranted references to Westminster village gossip.

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)

What do you expect? Hes a British politician. British people hate politicians.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

"Significant storm" regarding the Autism joke, where? I have been a big follower of the Conservative party of recent years and do not even recall this incident. No doubt it was only reported in the Grauniad! 86.140.120.63 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Atheist?

Can we get a reference for that claim? If indeed he is one?--EchetusXe (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Names

If his name was Gideon and is George, does it follow that he is George Gideon? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC) No idea, but he is a clueless tosser. Daddy, can I be Chancellor, please? Pointless, chinless and useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.28.180 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bildeberg Conference

I'm going to remove "Constituents interested in why George Osborne attended the Bilderberg Conference and to request details on what he learned about the credit crunch, should email him at osborneg@parliament.uk". His contact details are on his website (linked to) and the comment implies that the credit crunch was engineered by the Bilderbergers (unsourced by Wikipedia standards, even if one believes it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShedPlant (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bildeberg

Is it really necessary? It doesn't contribute to the article in any significant way. --86.145.43.4 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright?

I don't know who is copying who but the opening paragraph is too much like this. The latter which is copyrighted. Djegan (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

mmm, I added this...this makes him one of what is known in Ireland as the Ascendancy, the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy.[3] and the citation that is supporting it, the citation was not there previous to my adding it as a request for a fact tag to support the comment, my addition is in my opinion not a copy vio and the rest is simple repeated fact, feel free to ask an admin for their opinion, imo it is fine, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The citation supports the second part of the sentence but not the first part of the sentence. The first part and second part are vaguely related ideas. Citation standards, for living people, are rightly very high on wikipedia. Anyway the other way of looking at this is that in a meritocracy he has some quant little feudal entitlement, from a country that is now a republic and does not endorse these baronetcies. So what.

The opening paragraph is repeated fact, however it sits very uncomfortably with me. Very uncomfortably because it is too similar to a copyrighted source. This is the man that may be the next chancellor of the exchequer and I think that there is room for improvement. I am not interested in slapping a copyvio on the page cause its no where near that bad - generally it appears to be of a good standard throughout; but with due respect I do not need an admin opinion either way. Djegan (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, citation in the lede should not really be required, I added it as the fact was disputed, the other facts are easily sourced, I also cleaned up the article acouple of days ago, was it you who added the fact tag to the lede? Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Wikipedia is copyrighted too. There's no record in web.archive.org which makes it more difficult to see who was first. But we can see out text being created slowly with edits like this, so I think it's very likely that they copied us! --h2g2bob (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Biggish edit

I've made a biggish edit, moving the "commentary" items to the article as a whole, checking references, removing the section on the snap election (the references didn't support the claims made about Osborne), adding a little more on education.

I spotted some issues which I haven't fixed (yet). The reference to "heir to the Osborne baronetcy of Ballentaylor" doesn't mention him (just those which have already been baronets). The other issue is becoming Shadow Chancellor "...at the young age..." - there's no mention of surprise about such a young chancellor in the references, just unspecified surprise. Finally, if the Evening Standard has copied part of our lead section, we probably shouldn't use them as a reference that it's accurate. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Hes in as C of E but it is uncited, is he religious? Does he go to church, is he a practicing Christian? Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No. he's a Roman Catholic, says a childish vandal.

Content removed

This is being removed....Osborne is a member of the Anglo-Irish aristocracy... it is totally in the citation http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/related-10117-17013-george-osborne-william-hague.do unless I am missing something I will replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rt. Hon?

Hes not yet - he hasnt been sworn in to the privy council yet and thus cant use the title - also it shouldnt be used in the first line of his biography anyway. (Maidels (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).

Children

"The couple have two children, Luke Francis, born in 2001, Lucy Alice, born in 2002 and Liberty, born in 2003." Huh? 24.76.240.202 (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gideon George"

I've no idea why, but recently a whole host of anonymous editors have been switching around Osborne's Christian names. I suspect there's an anti-Conservative web forum somewhere or other putting them up to it. Is there any way we can stop this? Wereon (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I put a ref for the names; I doubt it will help, but it makes me feel better. -Rrius (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rrius. Wereon (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Lord of the Treasury?

As Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon George Osborne is also simultaneously the Second Lord of the Treasury. This may have been omitted from the page as an irrelevance or obsolete title in today's context... Having checked David Cameron's page, the Prime Minister is indeed listed as the First Lord of the Treasury, so for the sake of standardisation, should not this page in the 'Political Offices' table at the bottom include the title, as one of his offices? Either this or it should seem that David Cameron's offices should not include the Minister for the Civil Service and First Lord of the Treasury. --86.160.153.9 (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. Fixed. Wereon (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is that the term "Second Lord of the Treasury" seems never to be written down. It doesn't appear in the lists of ministers posted on the various Government websites or in the Gazette. By contrast, "First Lord of the Treasury" is seen in those places (and elsewhere). -Rrius (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing

Part of Osborne's education seems to be missing from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.77.113 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC) About 5 years, after 1979, have not been explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.77.113 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Degree

"a degree of Master of Arts (M.A.) from Magdalen College at the University of Oxford"

One does not take "a degree of Master of Arts" at Oxford. One may take a degree of Bachelor of Arts and, after a respectable period of time has elapsed, usually at least a year, one may purchase a degree of Master of Arts for a small fee (it used to be £5, but I'm not sure whether this is still the going rate). Thus the "a 2:1 in Modern History" was a BA, not an MA.

It is the same at Cambridge University. Both of these oldest English universities have never awarded an MA as an academic degree. Both have always sold it for a nominal fee, possibly in recognition of having survived in the world for a period of time after leaving university, possibly acquiring some "life skills" along the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.85.159 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tax evasion

His offshore trusts and plans to avoid paying inheritance tax on his father's estate have been getting a lot of press recently - worth including? Turkeyphan^t 21:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please post WP:RS to support such claims as without reliable support such uncited claims are WP:BLP violations and can and will be deleted unless supported by reliable locations, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been covered in many national newspapers recently. See, for example, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/01/05/george-osborne-branded-the-artful-dodger-115875-22826906/, https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/contribute/artful-dodger-ads, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-media-give-popular-protest-a-fresh-voice-2176107.html, http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/01/mail-and-telegraph-pull-anti-tax-dodging-ads/. Turkeyphan^t 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is your desired addition? Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making an edit request - I'm merely ascertaining if this information should be included. If so, I'll leave it to someone else to add to the article. It seems to deserve a place. Turkeyphan^t 02:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)