Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Confusion

I am confused. According to the article Gordon Brown's "time as PM has been of mixed fortune". Was that section written by Mr Brown? Surely "unmitigated disaster" would not only be more accurate but would also reflect the rest of the paragraph. Whilst reference is made to an initial increase in popularity no reason is given for it and no positive achievement has been listed to account for it.Sam1930 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When he first became PM he did very well in the polls, then he hit rock bottom, but then he started to catch up in the polls again and now hes losing it again. To claim its been all just a disaster is unfair and simply inaccurate. You also dont have to actually achieve anything for it to have mixed / positive fortune. Infact in some cases doing nothing sometimes makes people more popular as they do less damage. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is not whether he did well in the polls, it is whether he did a good job. Parenthetically - arguably the reason he started so well in the polls was that he was not Tony Blair. The section saying he has had a mixed time lists only failures. Either he has been a complete failure - and the list is accurate (or at least representative) or his failure is not complete - in which case why not list his positive achievements.Sam1930 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He had the so-called "Brown bounce" for four months after becoming Prime Minister, then his approval ratings fell sharply. For a while at the end of 2008 it seemed things were getting better, but now at the end of January 2009 he has fallen far back in the polls once more. (92.14.251.180 (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

The point is its not all been down hill and when it comes to doing a good job how do we define that if not by the polls? I think hes done some good things and some bad things in the past year and a half which is why its right that it says hes had mixed fortune. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall though it has been mainly negative. (92.8.233.79 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

I think using opinion poles as a metric for his sucess is moronic. Given that the PRE in Mexico and I am sure Robert Mugabe would probably do well in opinon poles they should be given very little relevance. Historians do not judge or rate people by opinion poles...it is his actions as prime minister: unmitagated disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.219.39 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown Bounce more like as soon as tony blair went the labour party became a little less unpopular ! A monkey in charge would have got that bounce Robin48gx (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Look this is Wikipedia. One cannot just write that his time in office has been an unmitigated disaster. Mixed reception -orobably. Some problems -maybe. Unmitigated disaster -too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.48.119 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

well tell me what he has done that is good ? Anything showing vision and forward thinking restraint of a problem likely to occurr ? He lets the banks lend madly, and then his solution was to put the country in incredible debt. He sold masses of the countries gold in a price trough, he taxed private pensions, he destroyed the telco industries, 42 day detention on suspicion, if we must have nuclear power lets use british workers not hand it all over to the french, I cannot think of anything he has done RIGHT ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin48gx (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that he has been an unmitigated disaster, the problem is to reflect that in objectively verifiable terms. By the way, the current text, saying he has had "mixed fortunes", without citing or even being able to mention any material positive contribution he has made is equally non-neutral point of view. The current wording is also non-neutral in suggesting that he has had to face the consequences of various events in a way that appears to imply that he wasn't a major contributing factor to those problems in the first place. 81.174.148.106 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nose Picking?

Should the article not cover the nose-picking incident while Brown was in the Commons?

No. Gavin (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus3xMachina (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No BritishWatcher (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes --Hasney (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Misortie (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record even if more people come along to this page and claim to support it being added, this will not justify its inclusion. Any attempts to add this to the article will be undone and if people are really serious about adding it then we will pass it onto the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and im very sure the majority who respond there will oppose it and say such things should not be added. So please lets not waste any more time on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes 58.88.40.221 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I hereby put the notion forward to the house that BritishWatcher faces prosecution for being a Facist and trying to ruin our fun. All in agreement? :3 86.30.14.139 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for adding content to an article needs to be more substantive that just "yes". Bluewave (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep out, the nose picking incident. It doesn't effect his Ministry in any way. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Royal We? 94.194.211.181 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

opening sentence - order of brown's titles

i would expect to see PM coming before head of labour. since article is protected and i am not a registered editor i can't make the change. perhaps a registered editor will drift through discussion, concur with my ordering of titles and make the change.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't see it making a big diference, but i'll make the change. YeshuaDavid (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that he is PM as a result of being elected leader of the party, so PM comes second. But it hardly matters. Bluewave (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

PM should come before the labour party. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, as one doesn't have to be leader of the largest party (or any party) in the House of Commons. In theory, the Queen can choose somebody from the House of Lords (or elswhere) to be Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pleased people have been bothering to update non-negative elements of Gordon Brown's article. There is still a lot that needs to be updated, such as his relationship with Obama vs Bush, his chairing of the recent G20 summit and his role ("saving the world") in the recent global recession as being associated with one one of the commonly adopted responses to this condition. --86.149.156.184 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Weebl's Stuff

Weebl just recently released a video about politicians. It depicted Brown as boring, fat, etc etc. Should it be mentioned in the article? Everything, even South Park references are mentioned in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.75.241 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

while it's the funniest thing I've seen about Gordon Brown (and is exactly what I always thought about him, as a Canadian who don't care much and only think it's funny we never hear of him in the international news) ... no. Not Wiki worthy. (70.49.65.43 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Makeup

I see that the makeup incident has been reported in the Sun, the Telegraph and the Times Online, as well as a host of international newspapers, so it's notable. Not just because the Prime Minister's makeup tips were made public, but because it was a significant breach of information security, with the itineraries of high-ranking officers being compromised. --Slashme (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirections

Could we have the following redirect to this page, as opposed to the search page:

• Gordon Brown MP
• Gordon Brown PM

Crazy Eddy (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Done --Slashme (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

and by largely benign economic conditions

Brown's time as Chancellor was a fair while, house prices and markets moved rapidly over that period so benign is the wrong term to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.211.181 (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Presiding over a period of growth

Correlation does not imply causation, and while Mr Brown can be fairly credited with improving child poverty and making the BoE independent, it is a complete stretch to credit him with a global bull market which began before he entered office. By the same token he is responsible for the current economic collapse we keep hearing about - also unfair.

I have removed this - "presiding over growth" is not an achievement when the growth is caused by external factors. Markets are cyclical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Beganlocal (talk)

Lowest historical Labour polls

Hi there, I notice that in the lead there is a mention about a "dramatic decline in poll approval ratings". I think this is not as strong and (more importantly) accurate as it could be. I think there needs to be at least a mention about the fact that under his leadership Labour's approval ratings sank to its (current) historical low.

Also, describing his premiership as "of mixed fortune" is euphemistic at best, but more likely a biased (and unreferenced) statement. I get 188 hits searching Google news for "Gordon Brown disaster" in the past month alone. 114.146.68.149 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, to be more explicit, this is a request to fix at least the first point. I would do it myself, but this article is locked. Thank you. 114.146.68.149 (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The introduction should be corrected to note that there is once again immense doubt over Brown's position, particularly if Labour is decimated in the European elections on 4 June. (92.11.239.118 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree the introduction comes across as sympathetic to its subject (in comparison to say, the condemnatory tone shown towards Anthony Eden, to whom Brown has been compared), and that it arguably understates Brown's own contribution to his government's misfortune, but it would be helpful if you could suggest an alternative wording. Lachrie (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact wording does not really matter since it is probably going to change by the time he is (finally) out of office. Who knows what people will think of his time as PM in the future? 83.146.12.118 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic; this is not the place to speculate on Gordon Brown's future, and legacy - this counts as original research. Also bear in mind WP:CRYSTAL. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Historically low approval ratings is not WP:CRYSTAL, and not OR either. We have (at least) one source. Can someone add it please? Thank you. 114.148.210.42 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed "of mixed fortune" comment per request above and also due to WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of metonymy

In the Expenses claims section of this article, the metonym "Downing Street" is used to refer to some organ of the UK government. I'm an ignorant American and do not know what Downing Street is a metonym for. Can someone please fix this, and use the actual entity to which Downing Street (in this example) refers? Metonyms are appropriate in newspapers, but not in encyclopedias. --24.99.83.64 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinked to 'PM's Office'. More is just dumbing down. It would be equivalent to changing any reference to the 'White House' to the 'U.S. President or his staff': pedantic. Lachrie (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with our American friend. There are too many instances of this, and it's unencyclopedic. Even if we were to Wikilink them all it would not be good enough. 114.148.210.42 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 threat to leadership

There needs to be a new section on Labour's disasterous performance in the local elections, the resignations of Cabinet ministers, the renewed threat to Brown's leadership and the forthcoming devastating European election results. This is already mentioned in the introduction, but needs to be elsewhere in the article. (92.11.150.122 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Definately true, feel free to add information about it, as long as it's properly sourced. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The user above cannot add any information because the article is protected. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that ony some can edit. 114.148.210.42 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that has certain parts that only some can edit because otherwise there would be a crapflood of vandalism. Hadrian89 (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to go on a tangent, but I think protection and semi-protection go against the fundamental Wiki assumption that there are more people willing to do good (including reverting vandalism or building bots that undo blankings etc) than bad. 114.148.210.42 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki assumption you mentioned is true when applied to the project as a whole, but not necessarily to individual pages; also, it is an assumption rather than a law: we will assume that this is the case, unless and until it has been shown otherwise (as, I presume, happened here). Anyway, I'm sure an autoconfirmed editor will be happy to add the information suggested by IP. Hadrian89 (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, this local election was not just "disastrous", it was Labour's "worst ever local election results" [1]. 114.148.210.42 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly a new plot to oust Brown as Prime Minister and Labour leader. A new section should be created for this purpose. Monday will be an important day in this respect as the Labour MPs react to the European election results. It is significant to note that Brown currently has the support of less than half of Labour members, not just MPs. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

The Lede

The Lede is too long, rambling, and includes a lot of mostly negative unnecessary stuff which would be better in the article. Have a look at Wikipedia:Lead_sections and when editing remember this is a Encyclopediac article about a living person and please refer too WP:BLP(Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

The intro should also mention the spate of high-profile resignations which has further damaged his position. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Makeup Incident

Removed Suggest deleting this section. Of all the political issues he has faced, including any over image, this is an absurd one to include. SOmething like the Youtube video is fair enough, as it was referenced widely not only in the media but also in the house itself. This tabloid line hardly even got a mention in the mainstream press and doesn't merit being on this page. Caspar esq. (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I agree, when I read the article earlier and read the sun story at the link I almost removed it then. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it should have gone, it was trivial. Lachrie (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The fat comment.

This is rude and adds nothing to the biography apart from insult, and should be removed. The Sun tabloid newspaper appears to be getting worse ( if it could be any worse ) and I would say that along with the mirror and daily star, that they fail wikipedia's standards for citing. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

thanks for you comment. removed. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree the fat comment added little of value and ought to have been removed, though in general I don't think mass circulation dailies can or ought to be excluded as sources. Lachrie (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Disputes

poor / historic / worst ever results

I feel that poor is enough in the lede.. poor is almost self explaining.. equals .. not very good... worst ever and also historic are meaningless POV pushing terms and do not belong in the lede.. poor is fine in the lede and then you can add detail to the body of the article..like so and so says it was historic and according to this way of working it out it was the worst ever... just to help .. labours vote was one percent less that the previous year and the main opposition party was eight percent less than the previous year and the percentage of voters was very low and was widely considered to be due to the publics negative feelings after the expenses scandal which all parties were involved in.. so there are many details to this result and poor is fine in the lede... does not push a POV and if according to these figures and because of this they are historic or worst ever then that can be added to the article. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for responding in the talk page.

My arguments for describing as a historic defeat as follows:

i) It is popularly referred to as a "historic defeat" in the media - see the sources already given in the article. "Complete wipeout" (no councils), "historic defeat", and "worst ever" or "worst since WWI" are commonly stated in all sections of the media, not just right wing.

ii) In the English council elections, Labour did not gain control of a single council in the entire country. This is unprecedented since the first world war. Certainly an event of historic note.

iii) We are discussing the election results in the context of a series of (fairly historic in itself) calls for the resignation of the prime minister, which would not be contributed to by merely "poor" results. It is the fact that it was a historic defeat (in the EU elections, pushed into third place) and a complete wipeout not gaining control of a single English county council that is leading to calls for a resignation.

Not trying to push an anti-Brown or anti-Lab POV, however I do feel that "historic defeat" is sufficiently descriptive and factually accurate. Merely stating "poor" does not reflect a major party being pushed into third place or losing all its councils. "Poor" results does not justify calls for a resignation either.

I have consulted WP:Lead when considering this matter. I would refer you to WP:Lead#Relative_Emphasis. Also WP:SUBSTANTIATE may give us some guidance here - perhaps given that the election results are current and important enough to be in the lead, we could remove any impartial tone by attributing the descriptor "historic defeat" to one of the many newspaper sources to have called it as such?

I would appreciate further discussion to reach consensus, and with references to WP policy and guidelines where appropriate. I am a new wikipedian and the way I interpret the guidelines above is just that : my interpretation - it may not be correct and I am not "quoting the rulebook", just providing my rationale for my edits.

Thanks Beganlocal (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

yes... good ... start a section expanding about this apparently historic result...

look at it this way... what does historic defeat tell you...

does that represent getting one percent less than the year previous year? for example it was historic last year and this year it is one percent worse than the historic result of last year...no it does not... feel free to write a section explaining these historic realities but poor is enough in the lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Historic defeat means that the results are of historically significant note - ie above and beyond a 1% change year on year. Your objection appears to be against the prominence of the terminology, rather than the terminology itself. you say it is okay to term "historic defeat" in the article but not in the lead. Why is this? Isn't the purpose of the lead to include the most significant and notable information about the article? If so, then merely "poor" results probably don't even belong there. It follows that calls for a resignation and possible leadership contest are notable enough to be in the lead, then the contributing factors - expenses scandal, high profile resignations, and historic election defeat are also relevant. Why use the word "poor"? Is this not weasel words? What does "poor" mean - it is a normative statement - poor compared to what? "Historic defeat" is a factual statement with two components - a defeat (winning no full control of any councils), and the historical aspect (it is unprecedented in post-war Britain). Poor....isn't as clear or helpful in my view.

I would appreciate if some other editors would weigh in here in order to achieve consensus. Beganlocal (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

poor... equals ...not very good...equals ...poor.

historic...these results from a turnout of 33 percent of the public are not historic at all. more than poor is POV pushing... and I am happy for you to add comments in the body of the article about this historicness and the worst ever but in the lede and unexplained it is too much undue weight (Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

What I was saying is that if you add worst ever or historic to the body of the article or as a section then I will happily add citations to dispute that. In the lede poor is more than enough. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I hope this can be a compromise meanwhile. I have changed the lead to read: During June 2009, pressure on Brown to stand down resurfaced due to a number of factors, including his Commons defeat over Gurkha immigration, the expenses scandal and Labour's results in the County Council [12] and European [13] elections on 5 June 2009. I have not commented "poor results" or "historic defeat", just that the election results contributed to the pressure to stand down. I think this is fair and NPOV, and avoids the disagreement and lack of consensus so far. I have also started the 2009 election section in the article and look forward to your edits. Thanks. Beganlocal (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

that is hilarious.. for your sillyness you have made the article worse... poor is fine.. poor is what the results were...you have taken all meaning away now...Are you serious in this?

Professions

I did not add journalist, it was there before. As Off2riorob points out this is unreferenced, although I presume it stems from his former employment as a journalist and is therefore acceptable.

On "academic", it is irrelevant how long this term has remained on his wikipedia page if it is unsourced or incorrect. As my comments in the edit made clear, an accepted definition of academic is one who is employed in a research or teaching role at an educational institution such as a university. It may also include one who is widely published in a research discipline. Neither applies to Gordon Brown. We need sources for this claim. Citations where he has been termed an academic in a respectable source, or use logic to bring him within an accepted definition of academic, or we must remove the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 11:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what this is about? the academic is fine by me and the journalist, I would say the prime minister deserves a tag of academic..camerons page says he is a political scientist and of course there is no citation for that ,, it is silly in the laughable extreme to waste time with this sillyness. His proffesion is politician isn't tit... prime minister..what a laugh. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

The journalist is fine. Why does the Prime Minister "deserve" academic? Does he deserve Economist also? Former prime ministers Blair and Major do not have "academic" on their pages. I didn't see Political Scientist on Cameron's page, but have now suggested it is deleted or replaced with "politician" on his talk page. Thank you for brining that to my attention - it looks incorrect and almost putting in a "profession" for its own sake - not everybody has a profession.

What this is about is calling somebody an academic when they are not an academic by profession, having never been attached to a university in a teaching or research capacity. Can we compromise on profession: politician, journalist? If you want to keep academic I think we ought to insist on providing at minimum one citation describing him as such in a reputable source. If you can provide this I have no issue. For what its worth I agree it is a little silly, but don't believe in giving people titles which do not apply to them. This isn't about Brown or Labour for me - I also edited Fred Goodwin's page to remove references to him being anything other than a Chartered Accountant by profession. Beganlocal (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

At least I am having a laugh..Goodwin is and was a banker with a W. which you will find on his page... (Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

As the article says, "From 1976 to 1980 he was employed as a lecturer in Politics at Glasgow College of Technology", ie he is an academic. Occuli (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Brown is a politician, he is not a journo or anything else he is a politician. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

We don't put their profession as "politician". That's obvious, that's what the infobox is their for. The profession section is to display their prior professions. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is for prior professions it should say prior professions....I once worked as assistant milkman but its not my profession, is it? your profession is the one you make a career of, and in browns case that is politician. So it should say ( if you want to add Journo.. previously worked as...journalist, which it already says in the body of the article. It is not his profession, his profession is Politician. Or take profession out altogether. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Then leave it out. We know he's a politician. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mouth Thing / Eye / Hands

There is no mention here of the fact he has a glass eye. There is no mention of the bizarre thing he does with his hands off camera (clasp, shuffle, grip lectern in repeated cycles) OR that REALLY weird thing he does with his mouth - which has been commented on elsewhere (iss this physical or is it a "tell" - a sign he's lying?). Could a section be included to cover these quirks - he's the "national leader" so these tics and physical things should be included I think (they would be in a biography in print so why not here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.86.125 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

...and also the more recent thing of that fake smile he keeps doing when he's on camera trying to be positive and friendly. He's normally so dour (I personally don't have a problem with that) and the fake smile just makes him seem, well...fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.102.239 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the glass eye should get a mention (he is, I believe, the first PM to have one) but the hands and mouths are mainly opinions and are hard to source neutrally--TimothyJacobson (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction is Wrong

Brown didn't reshuffle his cabinet, the cabinet reshuffled iself. His position is still far from secure and further attempts to oust the enelected PM will be made in the summer recess and in the autumn. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Do you have sources for those claims? Right now the article is citing Reuters fairly closely ("that prospect [an early election] looks less likely now that Brown has fought off a challenge to his authority and reshuffled his cabinet." (Reuters; my emphasis). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

He didn't reshuffle the Cabinet, most of them quit before he could do anything and he is so weak he couldn't even fire Darling. Mark my words, he will be forced out later this year, probably during the Summer recess just as Blair was in 2006. Brown was never elected by anyone and he is unelectable. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Beganlocal (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but the fact remains that he didn't reshuffle his Cabinet, it was already done for him with the mass resignations of James Purnell, Hazel Blears, etc. I would also add that he hardly "fought off" the challenge, it just failed to materialise because there cannot be two unelected Prime Ministers without a General Election. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

There were some resignations, but there were not imo mass resignations and there was a reshuffle. Whether or not there are more challenges, Brown did fight off the recent challenge to his leadership. Unsourced remarks such as "Brown is unelectable" are contrary to WP:SOAP. Viewfinder (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If Mandelson really did say that he expects a leadership challenge by October, then that can be added provided it is supported by a reliable source. Viewfinder (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that could be added, but not in the lede. Perhaps in the plots against leadership section. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

edit conflict. Yes, there was a reshuffle and some people jumped in relation to their expense claims, he did actually fight off the challenge..the challenge was quite strong and he fought it off. Regarding the worst ever, we have discussed that quite a bit and as a result there was a section written about the elections where the details could be inserted..please see..5.10 2009 Local and European Elections(Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

He hasn't fought it off at all, there is still a plot to oust him led by Charles Clarke and it will come back during the summer recess. The reshuffle was very minor indeed becxause many of his cabinet members resigned before they were pushed. He is too weak even to replace his Chancellor. And yes, Brown is not only unelected but unelectable as well, and the polls prove it. He doesn't have any way at all of winning a general election. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Please do not edit the Brown article to attempt to reflect your stated personal opinion. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

It's not my personal opinion at all, it is fact. He is unelectable, his position is very weak, he did not carry out a proper reshuffle, and he is still facing a major plot against his "leadership". I know this from sources of my own in the Labour Party thank you very much. The introduction as it is glosses too much over the catastrophic events of the past month. Brown is presenbtly a dead man walking and there is NO way he can remain in office for another year. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

This page is not a soapbox. Viewfinder (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And why is there no mention of Brown's crucial meeting with Labour MPs following the disasterous results? (GranvilleHouston (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Find some cites and add it to the body of the article. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

In case any party in this edit dispute is not aware of it, please allow me to point out WP:3RR to all parties. Viewfinder (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Viewfinder, I am well aware of the 3 revert rule and I was sinking in the quagmire there for a while. I am glad it's over..hopefully. Discussion is the golden key. Best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

The mass resignations of ministers and the emergency meeting with Labour MPs should be mentioned because Brown's position remains very serious. Only today in The Guardian he admits it may soon be over, and Lord Mandelson expects another challenge to the leadership this year. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

where is the cite that says he called an emergency meeting? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I can find plenty of cites for the emergency meeting. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

and the cite that says that it was by holding this emergency meeting and by reshuffleing his cabinet that these things resulted in survivings the challenge?

where is it stated to confirm your edit ..that it was by reshuffleing his cabinet that he survive the challenge..I thought that there was to be a reshuffle anywat and the fact that ministers were not going to be getting jobs in the new cabinet encourages one or two to resign and as purnell was going to be basically sacked by brown that he chose to state his lack of support for brown. Please only incert cited comments and not your personal opinions. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

The emergency meeting and the support of leading Blairite Mandelson were indeed the ONLY things which saved Brown following his disasterous defeat, but there is going to be a challenge in the summer. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes indeed, I see you are adding more stuff...some cites would help granville, what about that dead man walking comment you wanted to add... there is going to be a challenge...who will chalenge..we should put that in too, dead man walking to be challenged..om bonfire night he will be atop all the bonfires in england (Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

POV?

Continuing from the discussion going on above I can't help but feel the lead into this article is pretty biased against GB. Just because Newspapers report as fact events which are simply opinion and interpretation, and often spin that does not mean they are worthy enough to be included as fact in the lead to the article. In a latter section discussing his period as PM yes but they have to be outlined as mere opinions- not presented as facts. Gavin (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead Gavin, WP:BEBOLD (Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

One editor, GranvilleHouston, has been attmpting to add POV material and biased tone into the article lead. He has been reverted by myself and two other editors. This contribution from him is still in the article: Brown fought off the challenge to his leadership by holding an emergency meeting with Labour MPs and reshuffling his cabinet, following the resignations of several key members. There was a reshuffle following resignations, and a meeting with Labour MPs, but the claim that it was emergency or used to fight off the challenge at least needs to be cited; the current citation does not make these claims. Viewfinder (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Granville, could I put it to you that if you want material to stick to the article, you start by contributing more material to this page from given reliable sources, and putting down your own soapbox crystal ball. Viewfinder (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked him about that and he said he had lots of cites, It looks like adding 1 and 1 to get 3 to me. Brown did fight off the challenge but suggesting he did that by holding an emergency meeting or that the reshuffle helped is personal opinion and uncited and should be removed. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I think that sentence has been, neutralised. Gavin (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been neutralised Gavin, thanks for that. I recommend reverting to the simple reality that was my edit and which was supported by the cite... here is the simple statement from the cite....

Brown has fought off a challenge to his authority and reshuffled his cabinet. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

The statement now is still not supported.. did brown really arrange a meeting of the parlimentary labour party to discuss its future...no...keep it simple and clear. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Granville, do you want to discuss this? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

How about now? To be honest I prefer your version Off2riorob but perhaps this more extended one will be more suitable to Garnville. Gavin (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are doing ok Gavin. Bold and Cited. Our objective is not to keep any old tom, dick, or harry appeased. To be honest It looks worse now... clean and simple is good in the lede...there is already a huge paragraph about the failed attempts to remove brown.

We should put our party allegiance to one side and remember that this is the leader of the political country, one of a long list of highly respected and special people to england... I, when I came to the article had the honour of removing the fat slur that had been inserted by some ...editor (Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I prefer the current version. "Brown has fought off a challenge to his authority" tends to imply that the challege is over, which it may not be. Viewfinder (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In real time the challenge is over. that is it. look out of your window..do you see any challenge? no...so actually it is little more that supposition and speculation to declare that it is not over. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)) I am going to insert my simple cited clear honest edit. If anyone else wants to add more they should add it to the body of the article. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok, cool...three cites at the end there is, too many, one would suffice. And are you happy to remove the neutrality template Gavin? Or do you have more neutrality issues within the article? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)) Done

I still don't like the edits to my fantastic edit, it seems to be a lot of personal opinon... which is not true..brown had more than sufficiant support to fight off this so called ..coup.. d'état. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I still do not like your edit. You should have waited longer to give others time to respond. Your edit undid a reasonable compromise. Despite what the source states, the challenge may not be over. Viewfinder (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there may well be challenges. I disliked the compromise, it was one and one makes two, this edit is the best, cleanest, clearest,well cited and shiney.. I have to insert it. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I like Off2riorob's version. There is no reason to be so detailed about the form of the coup and the way in which Brown fought it. I mean, if we go down the road of maximum detail we would have to include Mandy's role, Milibands change of heart over resignation, Darling's position etc. The current edit is better, though I am not sure about the term "fought off" I guess it is better than what was before. Gavin (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Gavin, If you want to change the fought off I could agree with that.. the coup was weak and encouraged by the press, actually he didn't even need to get out of bed to resist the coup.. but to add all that in the lede is a bit much... we could add... that the attack was weak.. but that is opinion ... lets leave the fought off....if people want to attempt to create a coup when there isnt one then brown should at least be allowed the pleasure of claiming he fought it off as it is clearly in the cite..even if there wasn't any real coup at all... (Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Point taken about lead detail. But although "he fought off the challenge" is sourced, it still imo POV and is likely to continue to be challenged. I therefore suggest that we delete these words. Viewfinder (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brown hasn't fought off a challenge at all, he is too weak even to replace his Chancellor with Ed Balls and Labour MPs are going to oust him later this year, wither in the summer recess or at the autumn conference. There is massive discontent and Nick Raynsford has assured me that he and his allies are not prepared to go into the next General Election with a deeply unpopular and unelectable leader. The fact that these elections were the worst Labour results since 1918 and left them with just 15% of the vote (a record low) should be mentioned along with the ministerial resignations. The meeting with Labour MPs was indeed an emergency one, and it was carefully orchestrated by the whips so that only a few rebels were allowed to speak. Had that meeting gone badly for Brown then he would have been forced out on that very day. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Can you supply reliable sources in support of the above claims? This still reads like your own personal analysis. Viewfinder (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can supply many citations and I think the "Local and European elections" section should be expanded with all of this because the article is actually written too much in Brown's favour. The fact is that he is in a very weak position, much worse than John Major who actually fought and won a General Election, thus securing a mandate from the electorate as well as increasing his party's parliamentary majority. Just because James Purnell was the only Cabinet member to call for Brown's replacement does not mean that there was not - and still is - a plot to remove Brown. I predict that after a few more by-election losses we will see a lot more rebels coming out of the woodwork. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

(GH) He is too weak even to replace his Chancellor with Ed Balls and Labour MPs are going to oust him later this year, wither in the summer recess or at the autumn conference. There is massive discontent and Nick Raynsford has assured me that he and his allies are not prepared to go into the next General Election with a deeply unpopular and unelectable leader. The meeting with Labour MPs was indeed an emergency one, and it was carefully orchestrated by the whips so that only a few rebels were allowed to speak. Had that meeting gone badly for Brown then he would have been forced out on that very day. Pure POV, still no citations. Viewfinder (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Only yesterday Brown told The Guardian that he is going into teaching after politics. We all know he can't win an election but now he is making clear that he knows he might not lead Labour into the next election. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Oh please, GH, stop stuffing this section with your own personal opinions and analysis. Viewfinder (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The threat to Brown is certainly not over, just ask Charlesc Clarke or Stephen Byers. Even Lord Mandelson has said there will be another leadership challenge. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Well we can report that when/if it happens. In the meantime getting the neutrality balance right is very important in this article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Brown as PM

I don't think the facts back up the claim of 'mixed fortunes' in the intro. His polling is generally on a downwards trajectory [2] as is his electoral record.

Rsloch (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we don't really know the ins and outs of the pollsters questions do we, usually polls are very complicated. I would actually say imo that the results from the last elections show a weakness in the tory vote and although people say in the polls and vote in one way in a by election how they actually vote in the main elections is different altogether. There has been amassive campaign to get rid of brown and yet he is still there, and if he is so rubbish why don't they just leave him there till the election? If as it looks the economy picks up by then the banks are paying back the loans and we are beginning to make money from the bank bail out then the victor of an election is not certain at all. Anyway for now mixed is sufficiant. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

"Mixed fortunes" is a joke, the introduction should say "generally negative". The one and only reason Brown is still there is because there cannot be TWO unelected Prime Ministers without a General Election. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

no it's not a joke..It's a middle of the road encclopediac comment.. backed up by cites from both positive and negative comments..(Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

No it's a joke, his premiereship has been nothing less than a disaster for Britain and Labour, and there are NO positives at all. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

That is flatly false, i'm not getting into the details as this is not a forum but what you said is utterly misleading and completely POV.86.168.10.214 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The polling data shows a steady decline in the Labour vote (just look at the graph), as does share of vote in elections, so a downward trend there. The first coup attempt was a damp squib, the second could have toppled him, downward trend. Unemployment, tax, and debt going up, downward trend.

So what's getting better for him?

As for the election, winning in the last year of a term has only been done once (Major, 92), and a 14 point swing in one year has never been done. But that's all pub trivia as what has happened is what matters. Rsloch (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also say that when you consider the credit crunch catastrophy and the attacks to attempt to get brown out, the fact that he is still there is reflective of mixed fortunes. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Then John Major had mixed fortunes from 1992 onwards lol Rsloch (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

we can delete this pub gossip ... the election will be over soon enough and we will all Know in a few months, It seems like the press have been going on about it for about 4 years now, the desperation of 24 hour rolling news. True political understanding in this counrty is at kindergarten level...(Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Brown has had serious downs but he has also had ups. The Economic Summit in London for example. I think while he is probably the had the worst ratings in history his term is marked with "mixed fortune" as he has had good and bad days. Gavin (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't compare Brown with Major, at least Major actually fought and won a General Election, secured a mandate from the electorate, and ended speculation about his position by fighting off a direct leadership challenge by John Redwood. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Brown's time as Prime Minister has been nothing less than a complete disaster, especially for the Labour Party. The one and only reason he hasn't been forced out is because there cannot be two unelected Prime Ministers in a row without a General Election - which Labour would lose by a landslide. Nevertheless, it is very likely that Brown will still be forced out before an election is called in order to try to minimize the scale of the Labour defeat. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

This section reads like a forum. Let's have some references. What do reputable commentators and biographers say about his performance as PM? Viewfinder (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mixed fortune" is much too mild, "generally negative" would be better since there are very few high points. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Let us keep it as neutral as possible and let readers judge for themselves. Granville, it is very evident that you are using both this page and the main article, especially the lead section, to push your personal anti-Brown agenda. You have not, as far as I am aware, provided even one citation. If you continue in this manner I will report you for breach of WP:BLP. Viewfinder (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of lead section by editors with anti-Brown agenda

I agree with this edit. Even if the material is true and verifiable, it does not necessarily belong in the lead, and should not be there unless there is consensus among editors in support of it. We do not want to give weight to short term news. Are some editors with anti-Brown agenda editing the lead section because they think more people will see their edits there? That's breach of WP:BLP. We have a section about the 2009 elections. Let's use it. Viewfinder (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I make a further suggestion: that we replace the last paragraph of the lead section with this: His time as Prime Minister has been of mixed fortune. Initial popularity and poll leads were followed by the credit crunch, the 10p tax rate confusion, the 42-day detention issue, poll deficits and poor election performances by his party. Questions about his continued leadership have surfaced. The lead section reads as though it has been added to piecemeal over the last two and a half years by editors who want their points to be placed where they will get maximum exposure. Ergo its length is excessive. The deatil can be transferred to there sections. Any comments? Viewfinder (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, there is actually too much filler in the lesd...negative in my view, have a look at the cameron lead to see a good article. I would be happy with a trim and rewrite of this lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

His unelected premiership has been nothing less than a complete disaster, certainly not one a "mixed fortune" at all. He has no achievements at all to point to. Oh, and the emergency meeting needs to be mentioned in the article. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

(Snipped crystal ball) Why don't you provide a reliable source in support of your claim that the meeting was emergency? Viewfinder (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the meeting, carefully orchestrated by the Labour whips so that only a few rebels could speak, was instrumental in ending the immediate threat to Brown it should certainly be mentioned, and there is no need to mention that it was an emergency meeting. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

The Meeting of the PLP

Quite a bit of fuss is being made of this meeting and as such it is worthy of being mentioned in the article. But what do we say about it? It was an emergency? Can we prove that? Is that an established fact or the opinion of some? Did it save Brown's Premiership? How can we prove that? What if it didn't? What if his premiership had been secured before hand or after the meeting his leadership still looked shaky and it wasn't until Darling refused to resign that Brown was secure? We know why the meeting was called. As a response to the Election defeats. Was it an emergency meeting? Unknown. Did it save Brown's premiership? Unknown. The article must reflect this lack of knowledge considering the meeting and not report media speculation as fact. After a few years and memoirs are published a more definitive picture will be avaliable and we can write about the meeting with more certain. Until then the sources do not exist with which to establish much about the meeting, other than that it took place. Gavin (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Several people came out of the meeting saying that the threat was over, and others that they had changed their minds about calling for him to go. Had the meeting gone badly that email asking him to stand down would have been sent, and signed by MPs. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

2009 Local and European Election Results

This section needs to be substantially expanded to mention the plot to oust Brown, his private meeting with MPs, the mass resignations of ministers and the public calls from Labour figures for him to stand down. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

What sources exist which can give us reliable accounts of what happened, why and how? None do at the present moment in time. All we have is media speculation, government spin and a whole lot of uncertainty. Gavin (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we know for a fact that there was and is a plot, that the private meeting went well for him, that several ministers resigned for various reasons, and that several prominent figures like Charles Clarke, Stephen Byers and James Purnell have publicly called for him to go. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC))::

In order to verify that, which is required for wikipedia, we would need reliable sources. They do not exist however, thus we can only present these events as speculation not as fact. Gavin (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The expenses section

This section seem almost irrelevant to Brown, the fact that he paid a cleaner is totally nornal and no addition to the article at all. And the double payment..if it is notable which I would say it isn't .. then the ammount should be inserted as it was a small amount. I suggest taking it all out as in ref to Brown these details now are not noteworthy at all...has he done anything wrong? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, he has flipped houses for a start. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

So? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

The expenses scandal is absolutely relevant , and in any case it all came out on his watch.(GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

While you are here can I draw your attention to the statement st the top of this page...

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

And please take some time to review these wikipedia policies..Article policies

WP:No Original Research .. Neutral point of view Aand Verifiability (Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

The cleaner claim is tabloid filler, there is nothing at all about brown paying for the cleaner in this way and the comment requires removing. And the other part, is it really of value to say he claimed by mistake 120 pounds or whatever small discression it was and that he paid it back.. if he flipped and gained excessivly over this or avoided capitol gains tax..then if it is citable then that is worth inserting...(Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Both points definitely need mentioing and how do you know it was a mistake? (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

There are plenty of cites from brown saying it was..why do you think the cleaner claim is valuable to this biography of a living person? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

He can claim what he likes, it doesn't mean it's true. Since he has also abused the expenses system it must be mentioned in his article. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Do you have any cites that claim he was not telling the truth? It was 159 pounds the double mistaken claim..You did not answer my question..why do you think the cleaner claim is valuable to this biography of a living person? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Do you have any cites that prove he was telling the truth? The expenses scandal is a major event in Brown's premiership and he was personally involved in overclaiming, as he has admitted, so of course it must all be mentioned. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Gavin what do you thing about this cleaner comment? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

You have not answered my question yet..here it is one last time .. why do you think the cleaner claim is valuable to this biography of a living person?(Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Because it shows that he was personally involved in the expenses scandal just like all the other MPs. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

In what way do you think the cleaner bill was wrong? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)) There is nothing wrong with brown having a cleaner at all. Actually in his situation it is normal and he paid her through his brother,, so what.. totally fine.... needs to go, it is worthless tabloid filler. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

NO IT IS NOT FINE AT ALL AND IT NEEDS TO STAY. IF YOU REMOVE IT I WILL JUST PUT IT BACK. YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY CONSENSUS ON THIS. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Because he deliberately abused the system. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

In what way relative to this specific cleaner? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Please do not add all caps. Please tell me exactly why it needs to stay? What is important about the cleaning bill? What was wrong with him paying the cleaner? Paying his cleaner is in no way claimed to be an abuse of any system..It is tabloid filler and is going to go unless you can tell me what is so special about it? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

This is almost as important as Watergate and it must remain, since what he did was illegal and immoral. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

What? Paying his cleaner was immoral and illegal? Brown did nothing illegal at all. Neither did he do anything immoral(Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes he did and so did his brother. The revelation was absolutely shocking and must remain here because people are quite literally up in arms over what he did. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

What exactly is wrong with paying his cleaner? It is not illegal.. it is not immoral..it is not a problem at all..why don't you like the fact that he paid his cleaner? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

He thought he could get away with overpaying his cleaner using taxpayer's money. This is a resignation issue. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

There is no accusation about overpaying..Is that your total claim to keep this cleaner comment.. that he overpaid her with taxpayers money? there are no cites for that at all.. it it your personal opinion? And do you really think that we should add that due to paying his cleaner that he should resign?(Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Had I committed such a grave act against the elecorate as Brown did with regard to his cleaning expenses then I wqould certainly resign at once. What he did was shocking and unprecedented. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Have you had a look through the links that I gave you Granville ? The objective here is an attempt to write a neutral verifiable encyclopediac style biography of The present prime minister of the uk. Gordon brown..It is not a place to come just because you don't like him (Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Let us take a step back here. Granville you have made some statements about the subject of this article which might make it difficult for other users to edit along side you without feeling you are POV-pushing. Of course I believe that per Good Faith we will all work together harmoniously even though we disagree on various things and we will all value each others contributions. However it is important to remember that the Good Faith policy does not mean that there is no responsibility on the user to ensure his/her conduct makes it easy for others to assume they mean well! Was what Brown did illegal? No. That is the conclusion of the authorities. Was it immoral? That is a point of view and personally, I don't think so. Yet how does this relate to the article? Well it is important to note in the section that deals with Brown's handling of the expenses crisis- perhaps the biggest event of his time in office, more so than the Credit Crunch- that he too was indicated as someone who had done wrong. (Though as I recall the telegraph later retracted that a allegation) Yet it should only be a minor sentence as it was an issue nothing came out of. Perhaps like. "Brown himself was implicated in the expenses crisis for claiming for the payment of his cleaner. However the Commons Authority did not pursue Brown over the claim and no legal action was taken." The cleanergate scandal- as so named by Granville- is hardly a scandal at all. Nothing has come of it because nothing wrong really happened. It is a side note in the Expenses saga. Though Granville I feel you are on a soapbox and are not making constructive edits in regards to this issue. Remember what wikipedia is not. Gavin (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So we can take it out..and add a note somewhere that the tabloids filled up some column inches with the fact that brown pad his cleaner. It is worthless and should go from the article. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

No it is not worthless and it should stay. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Why? What is it good for? why don't you like the fact that he paid his cleaner? Why do you think it was illegal and immoral? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

You need a reason to keep it granville..a real one...(Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

here is the statement from the telegraph... Claim: The prime minister paid his brother, Andrew, £6,577 for arranging cleaning services for his Westminster flat for 26 months.

Since reporting the arrangement, the Telegraph group has clarified that there "has never been any suggestion of any impropriety on the part of the Prime Minister or his brother"....that is hardly illegal and immoral is it granville?(Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes it is. Brown presided over this scandal and he was heavily involved on a personal level. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

This is quite absurd, do not feed trolls.86.168.10.214 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mixed fortune"

This description for Brown's premiership is just laughable, it might have applied to Blair but not to Brown. "Generally negative" would be more appropriate. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps on guy falkes blog but not here.. are you in the correct place? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

That is an opinion though, though so is mixed fortune. Perhaps we should just remove that line all together and not take it upon ourselves to describe Brown's premiership and instead let the events of his time in office dictate that. Gavin (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the facts speak for themselves, although most people would describe Brown as a disaster whether they are Right or Left. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

yes Gavin you could totally take it out for me. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

The line is gone. Oh, and whether or not Brown's time has been disastrous or not isn't really relevant to the article as it is an opinion. As you say the facts speak for themselves, and as long as they are verifiable they can be included in the article. Gavin (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Now the introduction is far too biased in his favour. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

How? It says he was at first popular, which he was but this popularity declined and people have even called on him to resign. This is not a pov but rather a brief summary of the facts of his time in office. The only thing wrong is it uses the word popularity three times.Gavin (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It was better before because it gave mention to all the negative things that have happened on his watch. I don't even think Brown was ever popular at all, I think for the first four months people were just glad that Blair had finally been forced to resign. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

The lead is not there to list every negative thing Brown has done, or indeed every positive thing. It is simply there to give a brief overview of Gordon Brown. The current setting is totally unbiased. Gavin (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, when you say "the current setting", do you mean the version of 15:01 by GranvilleHouston? I still see the extra details as belonging in the relevant sections, but if you disagree, I will not continue to contest them. But the "continually declined" claim is at odds with [3] which shows his rating above its low point and that the decline has not been continuous. I would also like to see a cotation for the "substantial decline after four months" claim. Viewfinder (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"this substantially declined after four months. His personal popularity and that of his party have continually declined" .... unnecessary repetition? Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I reaffirm my opposition to this edit, and in particular successfully fought off is POV. Also I think that the lead material about his premiership should have remained in a paragraph of its own. Viewfinder (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Granville has gone for 3 days for his disruptive editing to another article, and will be readily reportable if he returns and continues his disruptive editing here. Other editors that continually push their edits here without discussion on the talk page should in my opinion go down the same road. There has been nothing but disruption here and it comsumes the time of editors who would be better dealing with more constructive edits. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Please raise up your attitude of civility and good faith towards me== objections to this edit... ==

brown sucsessfully fought off...

Well he did... there was a concerted effort to get rid of him and it failed ... he was too strong for them...let me know your new edit and I will likely agree... (Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I would be happy to have some comment about his premiership reinserted. It should not be too neg or too pov.. middle of the road..nothing controversial..(Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

An alternative POV is that the challenge is still there but no longer on the surface. Regarding the last sentence, I would prefer to revert to my version of 14:52, simply "questions about the continuation of his leadership have surfaced", but I will not oppose the version of 15:58. But please don't let's reinstate "continually declined", "substantially declined after four months" (unless sourceable), or "successfully fought off". I will see what other editors say before editing. I urge other editors to do the same. Viewfinder (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We can't just say there have been challenges to his leadership...what happened? who challenged? So what happened to the challenge to his leadership...there have been challenges to his leadership...but he is still leader...why..? Keep the lede simple. about Brown and without party politics. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

There is a massive section explaining what happened..Plots against leadership..He is still leader and there has not even been one official challenge has there ..and yet we have this massive section..(Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

The lede as it stands now is still a load of negative anti labour opinions. That is not what should be in gordon browns bio.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Here it is to talk about it...Brown's time as Chancellor was marked by major reform of Britain's monetary and fiscal policy architecture, transferring interest rate setting powers to the Bank of England, by a wide extension of the powers of the Treasury to cover much domestic policy, and by largely benign economic conditions. His most controversial moves were the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in his first budget — a move that received criticism for effectively wiping out defined benefit or final salary pension schemes in the UK,[6][7] - and removal of the 10p tax rate in his final 2007 budget.[8] During his Premiership he has faced challenges include responding to the repercussions of the credit crunch, the 10p tax rate row a political battle over 42 day detention, poll deficits and poor performances by his party in the 2008 local elections and the 2009 local and European elections.

(Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Firstly..benign, what is that all about? What does largely benign economic conditions mean? and is it citable at all? No its not citable ..is it? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Without prejudice to my preference for restoring my version of 14:52, which includes his initial popularity and excludes the disputed word "challenge" from the leadership question, I cannot agree that the above as "a load of negative anti-Labour opinions". It looks pretty hard fact to me. You left out this, imo POV: Brown successfully fought off challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009.

Imo the economic condition were benign, but I agree in principle that that is POV. Viewfinder (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that "he has faced challenges" does not pass judgement on how well he has faced up to challenges, or even whether the challenges were within his control. Viewfinder (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Benign needs to go.. I am agreed with you..he faced challenges..is nice and neutral.... here is the issue....

Brown's time as Prime Minister began with early popularity and poll leads, but his popularity substantially declined after facing many challenges.

I find this a bit false...Was he ever really popular at all? and where is the evidence of his widespread popularity? And if there is no evidence of this widespread popularity then you cannot really say that his popularity has substansially declined...the facts as I would look to source them . would be that blair was forced out and by then the press and polls were negative towards labour and they have been negative towards labour ever since. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Here is a quick citation for Brown's early popularity. Viewfinder (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are one or two polls that encourage brown to go for an election.. not much and I can find easily polls to repute the popularity..the reality is that he has never been popular. And therefore cannot have had his popularity substansially declined.. he in unelected,,,came to power when a labour party was falling in popularity with a large anti war feeling.. brown has never been popular. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Please look again at the above citation, and if you still doubt that Brown's fortunes have declined since his initial honeymoon, see [4]. Viewfinder (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You say you can "easily find" polls to refute his popularity, but you have not cited any. Also, I think it should be possible to show that from 1997-2007, worldwide growth was high, with low unemployment and inflation, i.e. economic conditions were benign. Viewfinder (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reflection of benign conditions.. it has to go ..it is unexplainable... Yes I have not bothered to as yet look for cites to support my position.. I am hoping you will accept that he has never been popular..and that we can just remove it .. It will likely not be easy to support my opinion but for you also to clearly portray that brown was ever popular will also be difficult..I will dispute it and imo in the lede it will be messy ...better to somehow agree to take it out and find a middle road and expand about the fantastic early popularity of brown in some other section...according to ...whoever.. I must have been on another planet when he was popular. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

What about.. and I think I could find cites to support it.. that we say..... Brown was unpopular when he came to power and he has remained unpopular...in the polls and the press. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

perhaps we could mention and find cites to add...in a time of global growth. ..no .. how can we add that when I can find cites to say that during this period more people starved and that in the uk more children slipped below the poverty line .. no .. benign it was not.. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I have provided two cites that show that Brown did have a honeymoon when he first became PM. Unless you provide cites that show otherwise, you will not convince me, and I doubt it you will convince many others. The benign claim is about world economic conditions, not your unsourced claims that more people starved and slipped below the poverty line in the UK. Please... would all contributors to this page, stop pushing their own personal analysis and provide more links to what is in reliable sources. Viewfinder (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A honeymoon...Not really in the lede.. the polls ..this poll and that polls when asked this question and that question ..

I am trying to discuss this with you ...benign is worthless in the lede and if you try to add that brown was popular and that now he is not ...I will dispute it and find cites.. I have asked you not to bother attempting to insert this in the lede... if you really want to add a load of poll results then start a poll result section. I am attempting to find middle ground with you and then we can know what it is that we need to source... you can not support benign... and I will resist and add cites to dispute the fact that brown has ever been popular. Please do not comment in regard to me that I am pushing my opinion. I am aiming for the middle ground If you think that your two cites are beneficial to the lede then please add them .(Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

You say that I will resist and add cites to dispute the fact that brown has ever been popular. Better would be to add cites to this page here and now. The above paragraphs are full of your personal analysis but unless I have missed something, you have provided no more cites than Granville. I have noted that Granville is blocked but note also that I could have got you blocked earlier this week for breach of WP:3RR after a warning. Viewfinder (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please raise up your civility towards me. And your poor threats are no path towards our combined satisfaction. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Then please provide some reliable sources in support of your claims. Viewfinder (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tonight they are ..have a look out of your window, cites.. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Lead section (continued)

Here us what the last part of the lead paragraph currently states:

During his Premiership his popularity has declined after facing challenges include responding to the repercussions of the credit crunch, the 10p tax rate row a political battle over 42 day detention, poll deficits and poor performances by his party in the 2008 local elections and the 2009 local and European elections. Brown successfully fought off challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009.

I would still prefer the following changes:

• The above passage should have a separate paragraph.

• There should be mention of his initial popularity, citable here.

• His popularity's subsequent decline can be cited here.

• I see no need to mentiion the local and European elections. What about by-elections, including his successful by-election at Glenrothes? The sentence will soon revert to an essay.

• I don't like the last sentence and want to return to "questions have surfaced about the continuation of his leadership". As another editor has pointed out, what challenge? Nobody has formally stood against him. And we do not know that he has successfully fought off the questions, or if and when they will resurface.

Viewfinder (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't ever remember Brown being popular at all. I do remember in mid-2007 there was a lot of talk about David Cameron not being up to leading the Conservatives, maybe that made Brown slightly less unpopular by comparison. (92.13.217.210 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree he has never been popular, even in his own party there has always been a 50 50 split with the brown blair support and it is these blairites that have continually calllled for brown to go..clarke, byres and purnell..it particular.

Your point that your cite means that he was innitially popular is not supported by the cite, and is really ...whats the expression were you get a cite and use it to support something that is your idea. Brown has never been popular.. if you want to insert something about initial polls results being good..then you would need to add the details of the questions.. which would fit uneasy in the lede... I suggest you forget attempting to insert any reference to Brown popularity... It would be more realistic to insert that.. I feel you are attempting to insert...that browns popularity and that of the labour party is in decline... and it is a bit pushy to want to insert that in the lede...

The fact is that there have been attempts to get rid of brown ...many....and you can not insert that they ;might reserface. Also what do you think we should say ..that he has been laying in bed doing nothing and these attacks have just gone away...no.. he has resisted them...we can change it to say that ..there have been these attempts to get rid of him but his support for him within his party has been strong enough to keep him in power.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Looking at what we have now ..it reads fine..and has been stable all day. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

in the lead

In now says that ..labours poor performance...they are not circus people or actors...the people didnt vote for them... you cant say that in the election labours performance was poor. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. All we can say is that their results were poor. In my own 'umble opinion, their performance was poor... and they're a load of clowns. But opinion isn't verifiable or reliable. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict...The results were poor. We shouldn't suggest that results are tied to performance. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC))  Done

Now we have this.... poll deficits and poor results for the Labour party in the 2008 local elections and the 2009 local and European elections....

What are these poll deficits ? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)) we have this at wiki..Deficit (Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

The lead section implied that declining popularity was impart due to challenges including poor results in local elections. This, while in a way true, is not what was meant (I think) so it has been changed to separate Labour's results from particular policy issues facing the Government. Gavin (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong,, but this is not an article about how labour is losing in the polls is it? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Looking at it ...I quite like what is there now...It mentions labours declining popularity and also browns decliniing popularity, but reads balanced in its expression...[[5]] .. Can people agree or dissagree as we could use some stability in this lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I like that edit too. As for poll ratings, as being Leader of the Labour party and PM is probably the major thing Brown will ever do in his life, the poll ratings of the party he leads gives an important indicator of his personal popularity with the people and also can be extrapolated as an indicator of how good a job Brown is doing/is perceived as doing- thus they are essential in an article on Brown himself. Gavin (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The points I listed in the previous section have not been addressed. One citation I provided shows that he was initially popular, at least in the country, even if not within the Blairite wing of the party. The other shows that Labour established a substantial poll lead in the early months of his premiership. But I don't mind mention of this staying out of the lead. I am more concerned about "successfully fought off the challenge" and reaffirm my opposition to this, but I have neither the time or the inclination to go on arguing about it. Can we agree on "Brown has resisted pressure to stand down as leader"? If not, I guess the current version will remain. At least the shorter lead section appears to have stuck. Viewfinder (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Where in the lead does it talk about fighting off challanges? I thought we had agreed to leave that out, I meant did he actually fight off the challenge? Was there actually a challenge? We can't prove that and so, that line which is now gone should remain gone, I think. Though perhaps in the lead we should indicate that the Brown Bounce did happen. Gavin (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

oops! I see that the line you refer to is there! We really should remove the "fought off" bit. Perhaps, going for what was there some time ago. "No direct challenge appeared and Brown continues as leader." Gavin (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The added reference states (my bold type):

The head of Labour's parliamentary group, Tony Lloyd, said he now saw little chance of Brown being ousted from office. 'I do not believe there will be any challenge to Gordon Brown within our party,' he told Sky News. Brown critics at the meeting said the prime minister had been 'put on probation', suggesting there would be no immediate further challenge to his leadership.

The bold clauses contradict each other, and I can't see "fought off" in the source. Gavin's suggestion, "no direct challenge appeared and Brown continues as leader", sounds fine. Viewfinder (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a flurry of editing ..this is what remains over the fought off buissness....Brown remains leader of the Labour party despite facing challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009 ....

I suppose it is neutral...but the cite did refer to Brown beat off the challenge . Have a look at the cite..again..there were other cites also commenting on this..(Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Here is from the cite I added.. LONDON, June 8 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown beat off a challenge to his authority on Monday, winning over Labour members of parliament after admitting mistakes and taking responsibility for a week of political turmoil. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

What's wrong with Brown remains leader of the Labour party despite facing challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009?

I support the current version but not rigidly. I believe there is better wording we could use- though I can't quite think of it right now- but I do object to "fought off". Even if it is in the cite, is it accurate? Can we really know if he did fight off anything- if there was anything to fight off. Also does the cite not actually mean that he fought of the prospect of a leadership challenge. There was no actual challenge! Gavin (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't know for certain what Brown did behind the scenes in order to prevent a challenge. We know for a fact taht the Labour whips told every backbencher that a leadership change would result in an early election (in which many of them would lose their seats). We also don't know if the challenge has been fought off because as Lord Mandelson said it will probably reappear by the autumn. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

negative portrayal of brown in the lede.

The lede is starting to look like an attack piece again. The two editors editing today User:Gavin Scott and User:Viewfinder can I ask you both .. do you have any conflict of interest regarding brown? I notice you are both from scotland.. do you have allegiance to scottish independence and Alex Salmond?

(EC) How is it looking like an attack? I think we should look back at the talk page and edit history and find out who it was who has pushed for neutrality! The lead is neutral- as it should be! At least, that is what I think. (P.s. remember to WP:AGF. Gavin (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I deny conflict of interest I came to this page to help you fight off another editor's attacks on Brown. The lead section mentions and sources that Brown bounce, that he is still party leader despite the attacks, and does not imply that he is to blame for the problwems he has faced. Your award addition at best belongs in another section, there is no information about its importance. Viewfinder (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am applying good faith, will you answer my question? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

You have absolutely no right to ask that question. There is nothing wrong with the lead...it seems to me you have gone from being a helpful editor into Granville the second. Might I recommend you look back at all we have said and done- we are attempting to achieve neutrality, I thought you were too. Gavin (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I answered your question. NO! Viewfinder (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The lede is actually full of negative comments.. my edit that is an important award for brown helped balance that and in his biography I would imagine it is good award.. why can we not leave it in the lede to help the balance? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

there is also only one m in Upon becomming(Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

What parts of the lead do you find negative? It has more positive aspects about Brown than it has ever had before- yet remains neutral. What parts do you have a problem with? The award is not notable enough to be in the lead. Gavin (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This was my first edit to Gordon Brown for some time and I hd only ever been a marginal contributor. The lead contains no direct or implicit criticism of Brown, only hard facts about his time as PM. Viewfinder (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say this accusation of bias has really thrown me. I thought we were all moving in the same direction, towards a better article based on verifiable references, fact and no original research. Yesterday Off2riorob was quite supportive where did we part ways? Gavin (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree the article intro is overwhelmingly negative. When u compare it to Tony Blair or David Cameron there is a clear balance issue here. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually i take that back, the intro isnt as unbalanced as it once was, its fairly reasonable now although the final paragraph of the intro could probably be improved a bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lede is the issue, (Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

You are welcome to suggest improvements, but please discuss them here before editing. Viewfinder (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is inevitable that the introduction will sound negative because Brown's two years as Prime Minister have been overwhelmingly negative for him, the Labour Party and the government. And this is not POV, just fact. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

'Poor results' in the fourth paragraph of the lead seems much too coy and euphemistic and probably ought to be strengthened to 'historic lows' to balance the strong new emphasis on the early Brown bounce. I'll make the change unless someone can come up with a plausible objection. Lachrie (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the results were truly terrible for Brown and Labour. (92.12.98.143 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

It's preferable to 'poor results', which is too vague and represents the losses at less than their true value, and only serves to mask the seriousness of the situation. The losses were so heavy that the results were historical lows, as a matter of statistical fact. Lachrie (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet Reshuffle

Is there anything in this article that mentions the resignation of ministers and that he had to reshuffle his cabinet. If not, could it be added?

Yes, this should definitely be mentioned. I have added it. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

GoBro nickname

The page should include GoBro as his frequently-used nickname, in the popular culture section.Red Hurley (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it frequently used? The Guardian article you cited was the first time I'd encountered it, to be honest. I've reverted your edit for now, pending a source that shows it's a frequently-used nickname (or several sources, all using the nickname).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of it before...I have heard SuBo for Susan Boyle but never GoBro. Gavin (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just been made up. Anorak claims to have coined it. It isn't notable. Lachrie (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, figures. Damn stupid nickname anyway - with the best will in the world Gordon Brown isn't exactly seen as dynamic. Still, Anorak should be very proud - quietly, and not in an encyclopaedia article. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it is ironic, in the alternate sense of "go, brother". I know some people out there "don't do irony" or puns. Its use in both the (usually Conservative) Telegraph and the (usually Labour) Guardian is surely much more notable and mainstream and frequently-quoted than South Park and a comic book, and so I'll quote both. (And I signed my edit! - mid-morning issues...).Red Hurley (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'd caution against describing it as "frequently used" (unless you can explicitly cite that), however - just mention that it's been used by both the Telegraph and the Guardian. Wikilink the titles so readers can see that they're considered to be on different sides of the political spectrum (and avoid calling them the Torygraph and the Grauniad - I read way too much Private Eye and really struggled to type the correct names when posting this...!) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The only two sources that seem to exist for this both mention Brown in close proximity to Susan Boyle. It seems to me that GoBro is just a parody of SuBo and is unlikely to be used in any other context. As such I don't think it's particularly notable. MFlet1 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

gobro is unworthy of a mention at all. we usually don't add press nicknames, this is not commonly used at all. We are not here to work for the press by adding every worthless citeable twaddle..gobro, what rubbish. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

Agreed with Off2riorob, there really is no justification for the includion of GoBro or what ever it was, it should be removed. I notice David Camerons article doesnt mention Hug a hoodie dave or what ever it was, that was a far more widespread used term BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So if people look up GoBro on this worldwide encyclopedia, you think it's right that they should find nothing? I am not a UK voter, just a literate contributor. If someone like me living outside the UK has noticed it, my guess is that others will also. I did not put it on his premiership page, and the "in popular culture" is the right place on this article.Red Hurley (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Unexplainable comments in the lede

this is a bit much in the lede, it is a broad sweep of reality..

During his time as leader the Labour party has suffered the worst council results in at least 40 years at the 2008 local elections and similar results at the 2009 local and European elections.

I would like to see it trimmed and less opinionated. for example..now we have ..the worst ever council results in at least 40 years...this explains nothing at all. And comes over to me as just a negative comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC))....worst ever...at least 40 years...and similar results.... similar worst ever results ? what that means is well anything really negative that you want just add it .. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

There appears to be a consensus amongst those making the edits that the election results are not only historic and notable, but they are also directly relevant to Brown's leadership and therefore should have prominence in the article. I agree that the language should be tightened up, however it is quite in order to mention just how historically significant these results are. Why you keep lobbying to use the vague and unhelpful term "poor results" is beyond me. I am correctly assuming good faith here. Perhaps we could try out some new language in the talk page and reach consensus.

The middle ground here appears to be emphasising that the results were historically poor without mentioning things like "worst ever" or using emotive language. Comments appreciated. Beganlocal (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a negative POV being inserted on this article in the lede , best is to try to reflect a fair picture. Please stop adding negative comments like...worst ever, historicaly bad, badder than ever before, really really awful results.. the baddest terriblist of all ever time and then a bit worser than that...(Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Believe it or not I actually agree with you, however I think you do your argument an injustice by your edits. Continually re-writing to "poor results" is pretty uninspiring. The edits made by others obviously shows that "poor" isn't a good consensus. I agree that "worst ever" is too far the other way. Couldn't we have something more encyclopaedic? Beganlocal (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus..is not a handful of anti labour anti brown editors having a laugh with browns biography. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Of course it's negative to quote 'worst results in 40 years'. It's also true. Those results were the worst in 40 years. How else would you like us to say it? 'The results were the poorest for 40 years'? 'Compared with the results over the past 40 years, these were statistically the worst'? I'm sorry, but a quick Google search of yourself shows you're quite active as a pro-labour supporter, and I think perhaps your own point of view is clouding your judgement. Comments such as "Vote for the tories and tell me how fabulous your life will be ...not. " and an edit history that is almost entirely defending labour politicians does not a neutral editor make! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are poor accusations and unworthy of you. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps go and have a look at David Cameron article to see a neutral article . (Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

The argument doesn't bear scrutiny. The election results are factual. The numbers are not a matter of opinion, and nor are the historical comparisons of the results highlighted by the press coverage. The attempt to dismiss statements of fact as mere opinion, and the repeated attempts to insert a form of language which does not accurately reflect the news reports cited in support, are themselves strongly suggestive of bias. Lachrie (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In electoral terms, Brown's government has an extremely bad run. That is undeniable. To be appropriate, the language should reflect the reality, and the usage is directly and repeatedly sourced. The "negative language" accurately reflects the negative situation. It therefore cannot be assumed to reflect a political bias. Rather, it reflects the reality of the situation, and factual reporting of it. Lachrie (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that it is quite normal for a goverment in power for the length of time labour has been, usually suffers by election losses and local goverment losses, in fact it is less historic and more usual. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

That's your personal opinion. It's not reflected in the sources, so it has no place in the article. An incumbent government usually suffers losses, but not to the extent that has happened on this occasion, hence the defeats were 'historic', as stated explicitly by the cited sources. Lachrie (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected.

The Gordon Brown article is now fully protected due to warring and more warring and is up for discussion.Thanks to the Admin for that good move. The edit warring is only in the lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Protected

I've been asked to take a look at the current content dispute, and am protecting this article for a week as a result. From what I can see in the article history and the talk page discussion above, it looks as though an edit war is on the verge of breaking out, if it hasn't already. During this week, I would ask everyone to carefully consider if there is truly a consensus for your edits, and recall that a consensus does not mean you're the only one talking. If necessary, seek out some form of dispute resolution. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hersfold for his timely necessary intervention. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

A lot of the disputed material should (or should not) be on the Premiership of Gordon Brown page, and not here.Red Hurley (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that simple statement. Simple solution, just take it over there.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Gold

This edit from Beganlocal, where he adds this [[6]].. what is actually a minor story to the lede, gives it undue weight. We have lost many many billions to the credit crunch and this is small beer in comparison. It is unworthy of an addition to the lede.(Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

the gold story has this... Brown destabilised the gold market by selling half of Britain's gold reserves at what later transpired to be a 20 year low. Brown adversely affected the price achieved by pre-announcing his intention to sell substantial portions of the nation's reserves.[9]

and the credit crunch...which is the most the biggest financial challenge the free world has faced..has this ...

after several challenges emerged including the repercussions of the credit crunch........

so according to Beganlocal this minor gold story is more important than the global credit crisis.

The gold story in the lede is being given undue weight and should be removed.(Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Regarding neutrality, I fail to see how this addition from Beconlocal fits in...It is much minor than other stories and the cite added was from ..

From The Sunday Times

April 15, 2007 Over two years andUser_talk:Beganlocal feels the need to add it to the lede today...? Nothing has changed for those 2 years.. Its an awful addition to the lede and should be removed (Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

The gold sale was a complete blunder. I noticed references to Brown's "most controversial decisions" as chancellor and thought this was on par with the abolition of the starting rate and the ACT/pensions debacle. Agree that it is better covered elsewhere, and do not object if my contribution is moved out of the lede. Was just trying to add more information, but on reflection it doesn't exactly help the POV debate at the moment re his portrayal in the lede.

I posted a message on the NPOV noticeboard regarding what was starting to become an edit war, and assume this is the reason for admin intervening. Lets get some consensus over the coming week. Cheers. Beganlocal (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the editors comments and his statement that this golden addition is better removed from the lede, and I would request an admin to remove it, or move it somewhere else in the body of the article. {{editprotected}} (Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

This is the edit in question..[[7]] it it requested to revert it and or add the material to a suitable place in the body of the article, this edit is supported by me and the editor that added the material. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

I've reverted that edit. Please continue to discuss where (if anywhere) that sentence should occur. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Martin.

Beganlocal, would you like to reinsert it? And if so where? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

negative portrayal of brown in the lede.

The final part of the lede has become a long list of negative comments, words are unnecessarily being added that are totally unexplainable and out of context. This is being done to strengthen the negative portrayal of Brown and Labour. Words like Historic losses, the worst ever results etc, it is enough to say that there has been some poor results. All governments suffer losses in interim elections, by election results and poorly attended euro elections and local elections are not historic at all, they are minor issues and will soon be forgotten about after the next General Election. Basically we have this now..the brown bounce, which is almost a press fiction..build him up so we can say .. look how far he has fallen. So the brown bounce added as an excuse to say that ..look it is not a long list of negative items..so we have this...

Brown bounce..but it didn't last long.. and there was soon decline..losses and losses here and historic losses and then some worst ever losses and this terrible thing and that terrible thing.

this is a neutral edit.... During his time as leader the Labour party has returned poor results in some local elections and European elections.[13][14] Brown remains leader of the Labour party despite facing challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009.[15]

as I have said before, there are relevant sections to explain the exact historic details of these elections, and sections were created for that purpose. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

As has been pointed out repeatedly above and elsewhere, your wording does not accurately reflect the language and sense conveyed in the multiple cited news sources and consequently does not appear to be a neutral edit. The sources linked refer to the election results as historic defeats and the meaning is actually more factual and less ambiguous and misleading than your "poor results", which is vague and merely implies a result falling below some unspecified expectation, which in effect serves to obscure and minimise the seriousness of the actual tabulated results. Lachrie (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Second World War is historically important. I ascertain that using the word historic or worst ever as has been continually inserted in the lede, is totally meaningless unless there is the chance to explain why , and the other factors that surround the elections, for example,a party that gets 100 votes when 100 percent of people vote, then only 10 percent of people vote due to a flu epidemic.then you can say that the party got a historic low vote, as you can see from this simple story, it actually is true but

to quote the historic low vote alone would fail to reflect the truth of the situation. That is why a section was created where the details could be inserted.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

The electoral results are factual. They are matters of quantitative history. Since they have concrete consequences in terms of loss of seats (and with them, confidence), they're actually much more important and pertinent than the early opinion polls you've given disproportionate space to in the lead, which actually tends to unbalance it. The complex causes and your interpretation can be left to later in the article, where they can be dealt with in greater detail. The low turnout - partly a result of a voter strike - was a contributing factor to the result, but it's the result which actually has concrete political consequences. All you seem to be doing here is putting your own positive spin on the situation, by misrepresenting the content of the sources by using obfuscatory language which doesn't accurately reflect it, and inserting your own private opinion, in defiance of the sources, in an encyclopaedia article where it simply doesn't belong. Lachrie (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not add the Brown bounce. so I did not give it any disproportionate space anywhere.

The effect is the same, since you're obviously content to retain it, despite the unbalancing effect of the disproportionate emphasis. Lachrie (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not responsible for things that I have not inserted, I am busy with something else.. historic..as it happens I care less about it, I actually think the Brown bounce is as irrelevant as the historic local election results. Gavin added it in an attempt to balance the negative comments like historic defeat and worst ever results. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Ok, Please explain..In what way are these results historic? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

You acknowledge the results are historic yourself because you refer to them as such above when you describe them as the 'historic low vote'. Lachrie (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth, keep it clean. I am disputing the insertion of the blind phrase historic in the lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

I quoted you directly because it shows you understand the meaning of the usage, despite your protestations of some lack of clarity. Lachrie (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The results are factual yes, but to refer to them as historic without a clear explanation as to what that actually means and the situation surrounding those results is not neutral and just because it is citable does not mean we have to insert it. You can't clearly explain it in the lede so it shouldn't be used in the lede. The results were not as bad as some had hoped..and the Tory vote was weak. I can easily find some cites that say that parties in power at the juncture that labour are presently would expect to do poorly at the by elections and local elections, that is also a historic fact. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

And..with this being Browns biography, how important actually are these results in respect of that? He is leader of a party that at this juncture would be expected to be low in the polls and with the weak economic conditions and the expenses scandal, how reflective of him are these local and Euro elections? And how much weight should they be given in Browns biography, this is not the labour parties bio is it? Perhaps we should just take them out of the lede and move the whole story to the relevant section where historic can be explained in detail.(Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

The electoral results are mentioned in the lead because they affect and reflect his leadership. They are more important than opinion surveys because they are the practical outcomes of the political process. The complex causes (which can be treated in detail further down in the article) are secondary to the practical outcomes referred to in the lead. Their inclusion in the lead is not even in question. What's in question is your attempt to put your own personal spin on the meaning by using obfuscatory language which isn't an accurate reflection of the wording in the original sources. The meaning of historic is not ambiguous. That's why the word is used as an accurate summation in headlines in the quality press. Historic means the results are the worst in history, to the extent that historical results can be reasonably compared by professional psephologists. The language of the sources is a better reflection of the reality of the situation, the seriousness of which your vaguer rewording attempts to downplay, in a manner removed from the meaning as actually conveyed in the sources themselves. Your rewording smacks of political manipulation. Lachrie (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way are they the worst in history? and why was that then? The word was used by the press to push their position and to sell papers as it is dramatic, this wouldn't sell papers would it...as usual the by election and euro elections no one was bothered and almost no one bothered to vote..oh, that was jolly historic wasn't it. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

What is so earth shatteringly wrong with this clear straightforward edit...During his time as leader the Labour party has returned poor results in some local elections and European elections.[13][14] Brown remains leader of the Labour party despite facing challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009.[15]........that sums it up if you ask me. ..

You think it should sound worse do you? worser than poor, historically bad, really really so bad, it will be remembered forever or at least until next june. What when someone reads historic results in the lede is someone supposed to deduce from the phrase? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

More to the point, why do you feel the need to massage and downplay the language of the sources, when it's factually accurate? It was the party's lowest vote share in European and local elections its modern history by various measures. It's lost control of many councils it's held for a generation, in what The Times explicitly identifies as 'its worst ever local election results'. Since you've read the source articles, you shouldn't even have to ask what they mean. If you actually had a case, you'd have been showing that the statement was factually incorrect. But it isn't. It's correct and accurate. Explaining why something happened is more speculative and less important than saying what actually did. The 'why' can be left for the main article, where a discussion of the causes and contributing factors can be developed, as appropriate. The 'what' is sufficient for the lead. And again, it's noticeable that instead of addressing the substantive issue of the historically low vote share, you simply fall back on adducing sinister motives in others (this time the mainstream media) that you can't actually demonstrate. 'Historic' may be dramatic (in your personal opinion), but it's also concise and accurate in a way that's less conducive to misunderstanding than your own deliberate understatement, which, again, pointedly fails to reflect the language and full meaning of the cited sources, and the actual scale of the electoral collapse. Lachrie (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So this is what is meant by historic..to quote you..It was the party's lowest vote share in its modern history by various measures. ...What measures? No I don't know exactly what they meant by historic. In which vote did this historic thing happen..all of them? the by election? the local election or the euro election? Historic in this blind position is unexplained and to the reader could mean anything at all. Would you clearly tell me exactly what in these elections was 'historic perhaps if we can explain it would help. I think in one election labour had a 1% fall in the share of vote and Tory had a 5% fall in the share of the vote, I would hardly describe those results as either historic or as you refer to them as an electoral collapse. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

It's stated plainly in the sources. You should not expect other editors to spoon-feed you. That's an unreasonable demand on our time. If you had a real objection to the factual content, you would be able to point it out, instead of insisting that others do the work for you. It's really objectionable. And if you don't consider verifiable historic lows to be historic lows, you're obviously just plain wrong. Labour suffers wipeout in its worst local election results: 'Labour dropped to an historic low of 23 per cent, 1 percentage point lower than last year'. Labour slumps to historic defeat: 'Labour has suffered its worst post-war election result after it was beaten into third place by UKIP and saw the BNP gain its first seats at Brussels. Labour's share of the vote at the European elections was just 15.3%'. Lachrie (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Tory vote is a digression, but for what it's worth the Tory vote was not at a historic low. By raising the separate fall in the still much higher Tory vote you're simply trying to deflect attention from the subject which is actually in hand, namely, the Labour vote, which was, as a matter of incontestable fact, at a historic low, in comparison with other elections in modern times where a comparison is actually relevant. And the 1% slide for Labour is just from a previous low under Brown. Lachrie (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In which election? the local ones? as the Euro hasn't really been going long enough to be called historic has it? Referring to a vote that has only happened about what, three times can not really be referred to as a historic..anything can it? I do actually think that if you want to say in the lede that in such and such an election labour's vote was the lowest percentage of the vote ever, that it would indeed be relevant to add some detail to explain that low vote. like low percentage turnout and also that the main opposition's share of the vote fell by a bigger percentage share than browns party. That is the problem with you insisting on the insertion of the totally isolated and blind unexplained word historic. It is unexplained... it is better to leave it out..call the results ..poor..no one would misunderstand or disagree with that.. you don't think poor is bad enough?(Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Don't forget this is Gordon Brown's biography, not the political historical results article or the labour party article. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

I am also not asking you to spoon feed me. I am asking you to state what is actually historic about the results. The fact that a word is used in the press does not mean that we are required to use it here, in fact we are actually requested to rewrite the points covered so as not to cause copyright problems. We are clear then that there is nothing historic about the results in the 2009 April European elections? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

So that's it then, is it? These so called historic results are actually a fall of one percent of the vote share in the local elections of April 2009. Don't you think that the expression historic is a bit strong for a one percent fall, given the extraneous conditions, like the fall out from the expenses scandal and the exceptionally low turnout, at a time when parties in power would be expecting to return poor results. Actually that is almost the least historic thing about that vote, a much more important thing was the exceptionally low turnout, and that needs to be added if you insist on calling a one percent drop in a local election .. historic. It was..undeniably a set of comparatively poor results for labour, that is undeniable and really needs no explaining. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

If thirty percent of the electorate voted and twenty percent of those people voted for you and you had a one percent fall in the vote share that means that 0.006 percent less of the electorate voted for you. It is my contention that to blindly describe this as historic in the lede and fail to explain anything about it is a poor representation of the facts. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedian Consensus

What does consensus actually mean on wikipedia? Wikipedia:Consensus.. is a good place to start..(Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

This is a comment from Jimbo about consensus... (Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales

ACT.

The comment in the lede about this , Advance_Corporation_Tax that brown effectively wiped out defined benefit or final salary pension schemes, is there a cite for that comment? As final salary pension schemes are still in operation twelve years later. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Reading the cites, I can't see it and history hasn't confirmed it. It looks a bit like original research to me. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

{{editprotected}}

“ His most controversial moves were the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in his first budget ”

(and sentance subsequently needs re-working.) ACT was not one of his most controversial moves, but the statement is unsourced anyway. Needs removing as is part of BLP. ninety:one^{(sch acct)} 13:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: please could you write the precise sentence that you would like it replaced with? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This was the exact comment that we talked about removing...a move that received criticism for effectively wiping out defined benefit or final salary pension schemes in the UK. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Leaving this....note I have also changed..his most controversial ..to ..Controversial moves included ... so this is exactly what is left..

Brown's time as Chancellor was marked by major reform of Britain's monetary and fiscal policy architecture, transferring interest rate setting powers to the Bank of England, and by a wide extension of the powers of the Treasury to cover much domestic policy. Controversial moves included the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in his first budget —[6][7] — and removal of the 10p tax rate in his final 2007 budget.[8]

(Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The 10 p tax story.

There are two mentions of it in the lede, which is a bit much and there is no mention at all of the change or removal of the condition, why is that? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Possible rewrite of the lead section

In an attempt to remove the stress and dispute out of the last two paragraphs in the lede, I propose this simple rewrite of the lede. It is a non confrontational introduction, and I recommend it to the house. ..

James Gordon Brown MP (born 20 February 1951) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Labour Party. Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007, after the resignation of Tony Blair and three days after becoming Leader of the governing Labour Party. Before this, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour government from 1997 to 2007 under Tony Blair.

Brown has a PhD in history from the University of Edinburgh and spent his early career working as a TV journalist.[2][3] He has been a Member of Parliament since 1983; first for Dunfermline East and since 2005 for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.[4][5] As Prime Minister, he also holds the positions of First Lord of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service.Brown's time as Chancellor was marked by major reform of Britain's monetary and fiscal policy architecture, transferring interest rate setting powers to the Bank of England, and by a wide extension of the powers of the Treasury to cover much domestic policy.

Since he became prime minister the Labour party has returned poor results in some local elections and European elections.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party. [15]

(Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

The current intro mentions "despite facing challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009". I don't think this is the best wording as it implies he faced & survived a formal vote on his leadership (like Thatcher in 1989), when actually there was a lot of noise but without many people actually prepared to stick their necks on the line or a formal vote on the matter (more like Major before he forced things to a vote in 1995). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More like this? ... Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Yep sounds good. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed above. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Hello all. I still have a problem with this paragraph, and I believe the debate over wording was one of the reasons for this page being protected:

Since he became prime minister the Labour party has returned poor results in some local elections and European elections.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party. [15]

I think this part of the lede should briefly reference the following: - increase in Labour support on becoming PM (Brown Bounce) - subsequent decline in popular support due to debt crisis, expenses scandal, etc - the 2009 local and European election results, giving them their due historical significance - waning confidence in Brown's leadership due to the above - Brown remains leader of the Labour party despite the above

Thoughts? Beganlocal (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you write it out so we could compare it to this possible rewrite? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

And could I ask you to read the quite lengthy discussion in the section above, entitled..negative portrayal of brown in the lede. Regarding the actual reality of the historic-ness of the results in the 2008 elections. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I will write mine out when I have time. I wanted to invite contributions and suggestions from others first, and had aimed for a collaboration before any writing out.

I have already read the section you refer to, and regret to note that I am still unconvinced by your arguments. Interestingly, at least one other editor would like to see the election results characterised in the form reported in the many well respected and reliable sources to which the article refers.

In my view there are three issues:

1)

Whether the 2009 election results are sufficiently relevant to be included in the biography of the Prime Minister

2)

If so, whether they are sufficiently notable to be placed in the lede

3)

If so, how should they be characterised

Can you please indicate if you agree with points one and two? I presume you do as you are in favour of including some mention of the results. Regarding the third point, as we are an encyclopaedia we are not permitted original views or research, and must adhere dilligently to reputable sources and ensure we provide accurate citations. I agree with the editors above that we should report the results using similar terminology and indicate similar historical significant as do our sources. Beganlocal (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The lead is completely POV. Gushing text about the "Brown Bounce" and "best poll leads in two years" yet nothing at all about Labour's lowest polling ever, not just in the last two years but since polling began.[8] Why is this not mentioned?--Johnbull (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, there are quite a lot of stuff about election results and polls in the body of the article, did you see my suggested rewrite of the lede? here it is..You,ii see that the gushing stuff has gone and also any overly negative stuff, I'd appreciate your comments on it. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

James Gordon Brown MP (born 20 February 1951) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Labour Party. Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007, after the resignation of Tony Blair and three days after becoming Leader of the governing Labour Party. Before this, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour government from 1997 to 2007 under Tony Blair.

Brown has a PhD in history from the University of Edinburgh and spent his early career working as a TV journalist.[2][3] He has been a Member of Parliament since 1983; first for Dunfermline East and since 2005 for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.[4][5] As Prime Minister, he also holds the positions of First Lord of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service.Brown's time as Chancellor was marked by major reform of Britain's monetary and fiscal policy architecture, transferring interest rate setting powers to the Bank of England, and by a wide extension of the powers of the Treasury to cover much domestic policy.

Since he became prime minister the Labour party has returned poor results in some local elections and European elections.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party. [15]

(Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Must we continue with "poor results in some local elections". Do any other editors actually support that phrasing, or is it just you? Beganlocal (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, well, I think it is a neutral enough comment and a clear simple reality. Have you found time yet to write your prefered version relating to your comments, so we can compare and debate. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Have a look at this from the lede of the david cameron page....

Cameron won the Conservative leadership later that year after being seen as a young and moderate candidate who would appeal to young voters. His early leadership saw the Conservative Party establish a lead in opinion polls over Tony Blair's Labour for the first time in over ten years. Although they went behind for a time after Gordon Brown replaced Blair as Labour leader and Prime Minister,[5][6] under Cameron's leadership, throughout 2008 and to date, the Conservatives have been consistently ahead of Labour in the polls.[7]

You'll see it is biographical and not especially party political..it does not rave on about how under his leadership the tories are winning hands down and beating labour into the ground..no .. it simply says that they have been ahead in the polls..simple. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Is there any objection to my simple neutral rewrite of the last disputed piece of the lede?

this is what we havw now....

Upon becoming Prime Minister the Labour party and Brown himself saw a rise in public opinion polls, the upward trend was called the "Brown Bounce."[9][10] The bounce was so successful that Labour had its best poll leads in two years.[11][12] However, Brown's early successes faltered and led to decline after several challenges emerged including the repercussions of the credit crunch, the 10p tax rate row and a political battle over 42 day detention. During his time as leader the Labour party has returned comparatively poor election results, particularly in the 2009 local elections and European elections.[13][14] Brown remains leader of the Labour party despite facing challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009.[15]

and this is the rewrite....

Since he became prime minister the Labour party has returned poor results in some local elections and European elections.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party. [15]

Is there any real objection to this? If not I will ask an admin to insert it, please don't just say ...I object.. and then go away laughing...please offer what you want to insert so we can compare and debate.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I object to this, for the reasons stated above - you're missing out verifiable facts so you can put a positive spin on Mr Brown. So far, you're the only one objecting to the phrasing of 'the poorest results in X years'. We get your point, and we understand it, but no-one agrees with you. Debating this isn't necessary anymore, it's been debated, and you're the only one who disagrees. We have a verifiable fact: "During his time as leader the Labour party has suffered the worst council results in at least 40 years at the 2008 local elections." I'm interested to know why we shouldn't include it if it's relevant. What you're suggesting seems to be akin removing references to World War Two from the history of Japan article, simply because they're 'overly negative'. Of course they are - but they're also true. You can't avoid something as clear-cut and obvious as this without giving a better reason than "it's negative'. You also need to convince everyone else, which so far, you haven't done - instead choosing to revert edits with some of the wittiest edit summaries I've yet seen. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The reasons stated above, beganlocal's reasons? So can you provide your offer? or are you just objecting? please write something to offer. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I have clearly stated my reasons for the insertion of blind unexplained facts into the lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I am exausted with this, why not write what you want to insert and we can have a straw poll (Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Straw poll is not required, as far as I can see. We work by consensus, remember - not voting. I think we should clarify the sentence "During his time as leader the Labour party has returned comparatively poor election results, particularly in the 2009 local elections and European elections." - namely, we should clarify what we're comparing it with. Something like "During his time as leader, the Labour party has suffered at local and European elections, posting the worst local election results for the party in 40 years." . That way, we're comparing it to something, rather than just saying 'comparatively'. If we do say 'comparatively', it makes sense that we need to state what we're comparing it to. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take a little time and write your proposed edit out, as it stands now with the comparatively and the brown bounce it reads awful, please try to write something from a neutral point of view to end this thread. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

"During his time as leader, the Labour party has suffered at local and European elections, posting the worst local election results for the party in 40 years." . Neutral, verifiable, and at least two editors not including myself agree with it, and I don't think that even the hardcore labour supporters can disagree with it! I'm glad we sorted this out, thanks for staying civil :-). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest a slight tweak? "During his time as leader the Labour party has suffered at local and European elections - posting the worst local election results for the party in 40 years." . The two commas stood out, and made it look like the sentence should be readable without the "the Labour party has suffered at local and European elections"-part. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better - good work on the grammar. I've got a BBC article as the source. Two questions for you TFOWR - is 'posting' the right word to use here, and do you think this is neutral enough? I can't make it more neutral without removing the '40 years' fact, which makes it less 'neutral' and more 'bland'. 'Posting' also sounds as if Labour are declaring the results, which they aren't. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bland is also encyclopediac, we are not responsible to attempt to make it exciting. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I agree! Which is why I suggested the fact above - it's nice and neutral. Now we've got this agreed on, I'm going to check the article over for any more POV statements, just in case. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, "posting" read OK to me initially, but now it seems odd. Maybe "receiving the worst..." might be better? It seems fairly neutral to me: it's kind of incidental - it was the Labour Party that received the worst results in 40 years, not Brown - Brown just happened to be leader at the time. The reader can make up their own mind as to whether Brown's leadership and the results are related. Incidentally, I also thought about "suffering the worst...", but thought "receiving" was more neutral.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

posting is correct for results..you post your results, good or bad.. and that is clarified in the worst for 40 years and suffered..Please see and comment on the solution at the bottom of the page. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gordon Brown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Feel free to help with this

Notified: Philip Stevens (talk · contribs), Tpbradbury (talk · contribs), Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs), Robin48gx (talk · contribs), Off2riorob (talk · contribs), Viewfinder (talk · contribs), Timrollpickering (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KEPT---TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. The article is in really good shape. I have identified the following issues for improvement:

• There is a few {{fact}} tags.
• Fix the following disambiguation links

done, Tom B (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I did fix the original ones but a live link means any that are subsequently added to article will show up, Tom B (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I am talking about links to the word press.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes someone can fix that and then tomorrow someone else can insert another ambiguous link. When you left your message on 21 June there were 4 ambiguous links including American president, i fixed them but more ambiguous links have been added since i fixed all of them, Tom B (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind fixing the new one that popped up. It is unlikely a new disambiguation link will be added every day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

thought i'd replied here but maybe i did it on main talk page. fixed them as you asked including one for geoffrey robinson, i think the disambig tool says - i'm having trouble accessing - there's still an ambiguous robinson link but i can't find it anywhere, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fix the following deadlinks

done all but AOL video one, checklinks tool says all Times links are dead but they're not, Tom B (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to spread the images throught the article instead of having them paired up like they are. Done

easily doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not enthused about the image placement, but I can live with it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed one picture, is it better? It is not easy spreading the pictures out andkeeping the pictures relative to the text. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

• Could the bulleted text be converted to prose. Done

doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Could the styles section be converted to prose. It could say something like Until YYYY, Brown was referred to as XXX1. Upon completion of his X degree on MM DD, YYYY,^{[citation #]} his title became XXX2. In YYYY, he assumed the title of XXX3 upon such and such occurrence.^{[citation #]} etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll do this. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with British title. Could you say something about whether right honorable is a title for life.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also, the Privy council needs to be merged with another section or expanded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've expanded the PC part (membership is for life, unless one resigns), and moved it to the "Honours" section. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now the section has three stubby subsections. Please merge them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Make sure all footnotes follow punctuation.

easily doable, anyone can do with peer reviewer tool Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Could you post a link to the peer reviewer tool? I've tried "checklinks" and "reflinks", which filled in some gaps, but probably not the gaps you're wanting filled ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was in response to Tom B. The tools I've used so far are Checklinks and Reflinks, neither of which seem best suited to the task at hand ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• How is this coming. I see at least four refs following spaces. I have not looked closely at other characters that they follow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see that many of these have been corrected. However, some citations follow alphanumeric characters. E.G., in the WP:LEAD see "Brown has a PhD in history[2]". All citations should follow a punctuation mark such as ,.?!)]"';: etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also, make sure all citations follow as opposed to precede punctuation. occurrences like "Sir Leonard Figg[99]." are also problematic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Commented below, but for the record this issues should both be fixed. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not fixed. See examples given.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, got it - I hadn't realised refs mid sentence were bad. Fixed now. I'd managed to completely miss the Leonard Figg one, not sure how. Also fixed. Done another "."-search in Firefox, and manually scanned for refs mid sentence. I don't suppose there's a tool to check this stuff? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mid-sentence is O.K. if it follows a punctuation mark such as ,;:)] etc. See refs 7 and 8.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I now notice that there are numerous places where punctuation is malplaced. There should be no spaces preceding commas or periods.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll fix. I did some copy-editing yesterday, but must have missed some. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should now be fixed. I used Firefox's "find-as-you-type" function to search for " ," and " .". I also searched for fullstops and commas to check that refs or spaces followed them. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that too many spaces have been removed. Sentences should be separated by spaces. Problems like "full third term.[52]Political" exist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should be fixed now - just done a search for each and every fullstop. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please reorganize to avoid one-line paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Done ?

doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to reorganize the paragraph about the children so that it does not look like two stubby paragraphs. Maybe mention the living children first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Done

I don't want to micromanage this process, so I accept the efforts that have been made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please make all images compliant with WP:ALT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Still not compliant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Working on it. I'll list issues below. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Infobox: I changed the image tag to read image = [[File:Gordon Brown Davos 2008 crop.jpg|200px|alt=Portrait: Gordon Brown, wearing a business suit]] per Template:Infobox documentation. No joy! Any advice from infobox experts? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ask at the talk page for WP:ALT. They are very responsive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• In hand - see here (and no work for me - great!) Once the infobox is fixed to allow alt text, I'll action this. I gather the signature also requires alt text, so I'll do that too. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• You still might get a faster response at the talk page for WP:ALT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd already posted there ;-) The portrait now has alt text; the signature field doesn't - as far as I can see that's not been fixed in the infobox template yet. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• ...and that's it! All done. This is the first time I've done WP:ALT text in many a long year, and never on Wikipedia, so if someone could double-check my work I'd appreciate it. I'm still looking for a solution to the infobox portrait issue listed above, too. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fantastic! Just the portrait and the signature in the infobox to do now. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both the disambiguation checker and the links checker above are showing new problems. I would like to say that at whatever time I approve retention of the quality rating that the links were taken care of. Thus, I would like someone to fix the new problems that have popped up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

' Done Checklinks [[9]] looks ok to me now.  Done also reflinks [[10]]  Done also disambiguation links [[11]] all good.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

• Tom, this is a very good article and I am having trouble convincing myself one way or the other. Do you have any commentary on the other comments that you have not addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, yes i've added some comments. it's pretty good article. as he's become PM since it was promoted it is harder to maintain and proseline tends to get added. i'd only generally demote if you're sure an article is clearly below other GAs, in order to avoid bureaucracy of demotion then repromotion, plus Off2riorob maybe able to make some headway here, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I missed this, I would have liked to help. The article is currently locked down with a little edit dispute over the detail in the lede. When the article is unlocked I would be available to address these small concerns. Off2riorob (talk 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes please this would be very good - see comments above. some should be easy to fix like the images and punctuation. the harder thing is to get a neutral, flowing article without loads of one-line paragraphs detailing the latest news, thanks very much i'll come back when i can Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Politician articles are hard because some supporters will try to cover up relevant information that is not completely favorable. Some may even try to get the good article award revoked, as could be the case here (or it is a coincidence)Calmano (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Autism

Shouldn't the article mention that Brown has high-functioning autism? (92.11.48.206 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Why, is that (uncited) factoid notable? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has been mentioned in the House of Commons by Opposition MPs on several occasions, and it would explain why Brown - in his own words - does not have good communicaton skills. (92.11.48.206 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Why do we need to explain why Brown might have poor communication skills? And wouldn't that be WP:OR? Again, I don't really see the notability in this. If his autism caused a crisis, then fine. As it is we're dealing with the tacky cut-and-thrust you'd normally expect in politics. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that George Osborne once suggested that Brown was "faintly autistic". However I think this was intended as a "joke", albeit a tasteless one for which he was rightly condemned. MFlet1 (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was a joke actually. It is widely believed that Brown DOES have autism, and I have often heard people refer to him as "Autism Boy Brown". If he does have this condition then the article should certainly mention it. (92.11.117.88 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

the solution

here is what is there..

Upon becoming Prime Minister the Labour party and Brown himself saw a rise in public opinion polls, the upward trend was called the "Brown Bounce."[9][10] The bounce was so successful that Labour had its best poll leads in two years.[11][12] However, Brown's early successes faltered and led to decline after several challenges emerged including the repercussions of the credit crunch, the 10p tax rate row and a political battle over 42 day detention. During his time as leader the Labour party has returned comparatively poor election results, particularly in the 2009 local elections and European elections.[13][14] Brown remains leader of the Labour party despite facing challenges to his leadership in the summer of 2008 and again in 2009.[15]

and here is what we are keeping..after removing the bounce rubbish and the list of challenges.....

During his time as Prime minister the Labour party has suffered at local and European elections - posting the worst local election results for the party in 40 years. Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party.

Are we near any kind of aggreement on this edit?(Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

At the risk of restarting a debate that's already been held (let me know if this has already been discussed - I had a quick read through of past discussions but it was by no means thorough), the "Brown Bounce" does seem notable - if only because the subsequent poor election results stand in start contrast. I'm thinking something like... "Despite initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls Brown's time as PM has seen the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years. Despite..."

Please disregard if this debate has been done to death already ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's two 'despites' in a row, but I like the idea. I don't like 'brown bounce', its weird and not exactly widely used. We should mention the changes though - just not the phrase. How about, "Brown's Labour initially enjoyed a rise in public opinion polls, but 2009 saw the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years. Despite public and parliamentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party." Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That works for me (embarrassed about the two "despites" - should have noticed that). I don't think it's worth describing the initial successes as the "Brown Bounce" - it'd require too much explanation for something only mentioned in passing. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Like in the cameron article but the opposite.. After inicial successes (cuse my spelling)...

During his time as Prime minister after initial successes in the polls, the Labour party has suffered (defeats?) at local and European elections - posting the worst local election results for the party in 40 years. Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party.....yES? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

This is also good from TFOWR.... Simple and clear and includes the worst local in 40 and suffered..I really like it.

Despite initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party.[15]

(Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

(Blushes!) Thanks! One point worth making about this is WP:RECENTism - we should avoid just looking at the most recent (poor) results; discussing the early bounce gives context. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up for grammar and style. I clarified that it's Borwns labour, not labour itself, and changed 'defeat' to 'setback'. We're looking at:

“ After initial successes in the polls, Brown's Labour party has suffered setbacks at local and European elections - posting the worst local election results for the party in 40 years. Despite public and parliamentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party. ”

Agreed? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am close, I can almost agree but I have a small issue with brown's labour party, he is leader but its not really his is it..I was thinking to add small comment about brown decreasing pop..which is indisputable..leaving this...

'Despite initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen his personal polls ratings drop and the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party.[15] (Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Is it Brown's Labour party? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

After initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen his approval ratings fall and the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party.[15] . Can we agree on this...It seperates brown a bit from his party and gives some comment on browns personal ratings.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Aye, "Brown's Labour Party" would be OK in a newspaper, but is probably a little too unencyclopaedic.

"...his personal polls ratings"? It seems a little unwieldy. How about "his approval ratings"?

Other than that, I'm happy.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

After initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen his approval ratings fall and the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party.[15]

I offer this as a solution. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Works for me (but this isn't the first time I've said that - I'm easily pleased ;-) ). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor results?

Resolved

"Comparatively poor results" is a joke - they were the worst Labour results EVER. (92.11.117.88 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Hi Granville, whats up? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Granville, why are you talking about "Comparatively poor results"? The phrase under discussion is "worst local election results in 40 years". Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Granville should be blocked for this IP even if his address is the car whse. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Who's Graville? I was just pointing out that the phrase "comparatively poor" is wrong. (92.11.117.88 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice block. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Awesome, thank you! Granville's on DHCP, so I suspect he'll back with the "who's Granville?" line before too long. I suspect the best we can do is to simply ignore him. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection and consensus lede

I can only see the last paragraph of the new proposed lede. Could someone please post the complete proposal here so I can make some suggestions? Beganlocal (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

this is it......the whole lede......

James Gordon Brown MP (born 20 February 1951) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Labour Party. Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007, after the resignation of Tony Blair and three days after becoming Leader of the governing Labour Party. Before this, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour government from 1997 to 2007 under Tony Blair.

Brown has a PhD in history from the University of Edinburgh and spent his early career working as a TV journalist.[2][3] He has been a Member of Parliament since 1983; first for Dunfermline East and since 2005 for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.[4][5] As Prime Minister, he also holds the positions of First Lord of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service.

Brown's time as Chancellor was marked by major reform of Britain's monetary and fiscal policy architecture, transferring interest rate setting powers to the Bank of England, and by a wide extension of the powers of the Treasury to cover much domestic policy. Controversial moves included the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in his first budget,[6][7] and removal of the 10p tax rate in his final 2007 budget.[8]

After initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen his approval ratings fall and the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party.[15]

...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks.

Suggestion:

James Gordon Brown MP (born 20 February 1951) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Labour Party. Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007, after the resignation of Tony Blair and three days after becoming Leader of the governing Labour Party. Immediately prior, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour government from 1997 to 2007 under Tony Blair.

Brown has a PhD in history from the University of Edinburgh and spent his early career working as a television journalist.[2][3] He has been a Member of Parliament since 1983; first for Dunfermline East and since 2005 for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.[4][5] As Prime Minister, he also holds the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service.

Brown's time as Chancellor was marked by major reform of Britain's monetary and fiscal policy architecture, transferring interest rate setting powers to the Bank of England, and by a wide extension of the powers of the Treasury to cover much domestic policy. Controversial moves included the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in his first budget,[6][7] and the removal in his final budget of the 10 per cent "starting rate" of personal income tax which he had introduced in 1999.[8]

After initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen his approval ratings fall and the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years.[13][14] Despite public and parliamentary pressure on his leadership and several high profile cabinet resignations[ref] he remains leader of the Labour party.[15]

Rephrased some, fixed spelling, added that Brown introduced the tax rate in 99 and abolished it in 07. I trust this is in order. The more "controversial" point is that I see reasons for the resignations as being directly related to Brown and worthy of inclusion in the lede. In the event this is disagreed, can we have consensus for this as the last paragraph:

After initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen his approval ratings fall and the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years.[13][14] Despite public and parliamentary pressure on his leadership he remains leader of the Labour party.[15]

Cheers Beganlocal (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

not sure if pioneered is a good word ..perhaps it is ..has anyone a better word.. or I can agree...I can accept the addition of 1999.. as ok...I myself accept the last paragraph..and would prefer to see it kept uncomplicated. I fyou want to add the cabinet reshuffle to the lede we will need to start talking about that addition .......cabinet reshuffles are totally normal and a few people left before they were thrown out..lets try to keep it simple and move on..the fall of approval is there...the worst local election results is there...browns falling approval rating is there...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Better word : introduced. Brown isn't a pioneer and the lower tax was most likely proposed by some unnamed civil servant. I would suggest that reshuffles are normal. Numerous resignations of senior ministers necessitating the appointment of apparatchiks from outside of elected office to the Upper House in order that they may serve in the government is most unusual. Can a third editor weigh in on whether the resignations are relevant to Brown?

Off2rioRob - very pleased that we've agreed on all but one point for the lede. Thanks for your contribution. Thanks also to others who pitched in to help with this.

Beganlocal (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am pleased too. lets wait a little for feedback on your comment about the reshuffle. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Looks good to me. I'd agree about leaving out the reshuffle - reshuffles aren't hugely notable, and this one isn't any different - the notable event was the local election results. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Final draft

I agree. Can an admin please && unprotect and we can add this as the new lede:

21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold off for a few minutes, and I'll sort out the references... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, references in place. I've had a quick check through, and I was fairly careful, but it'd be good if someone more familiar with the old lede could double-check before this "goes live". Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Per our comments below, all references have been checked, re-jigged, and we're all happy for the following to "go live". TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done before I realized that the protection was off so you folks could have done it yourselves :) Shell ^babelfish 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

James Gordon Brown MP (born 20 February 1951) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Labour Party. Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007, after the resignation of Tony Blair and three days after becoming Leader of the governing Labour Party. Immediately prior, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour government from 1997 to 2007 under Tony Blair.

Brown has a PhD in history from the University of Edinburgh and spent his early career working as a television journalist. He has been a Member of Parliament since 1983; first for Dunfermline East and since 2005 for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. As Prime Minister, he also holds the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service.

Brown's time as Chancellor was marked by major reform of Britain's monetary and fiscal policy architecture, transferring interest rate setting powers to the Bank of England, and by a wide extension of the powers of the Treasury to cover much domestic policy. Controversial moves included the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in his first budget, and the removal in his final budget of the 10 per cent "starting rate" of personal income tax which he had introduced in 1999.

After initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls, Brown's time as PM has seen his approval ratings fall and the Labour Party suffer its worst local election results in 40 years. Despite public and parliamentary pressure on his leadership he remains leader of the Labour party.

Issues with references

This reference... "and spent his early career working as a television journalist." ...doesn't seem to support the claim. It says he worked as a lecturer instead of a journalist. It's possible he did work as a journalist, but we'd need a different ref to support it.

Also... I moved the previous ref back to the PhD part, as that's all it seems to support (nothing about journalism, for example).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

==== References ====

Looks good. Lets go live! Beganlocal (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have asked TFOWR on his talk page ...to trim the cites a bit..personally I dislike long lists of cites. Cite optimisation is cool...only the cites that are really needed to confirm the text..

What I have found from this process is that the admins leave it for a while...perhaps till tomorrow to see if there is any parties in dispute. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I agree we should possibly hold off a wee bit longer to get the cites right. We could also possibly do with some cites for the first paragraph, unless the same data is cited later in the article?

Many of the claims have two cites (or more in some cases). Could we go through each claim and decide on one cite (where possible) to use instead of two or more?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

twelve is enough to support this...After initially enjoying a rise in public opinion polls...and get rid of the others. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

The rest is not so bad...two cites is ok for a comment..especially if they are a bit opposed. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Call it a day? I commented out the extraneous refs for "After initially..." (11, 13, 14) - it might be worth double-checking I got the right one - I don't trust me this close to midnight ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea tomorrow, It looks correct now. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Scratch the "call it a day" part - there's still an issue with the "he worked as a journalist after leaving university" claim. We could either change it to "he worked as a lecturer" which there's a cite to support, but I'd prefer it if we could determine if "journalist" is correct - and cite it. Still, I'm up for leaving it 'til tomorrow, too! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet dreams. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Not done for now: I see you're still working on it. When you are absolutely ready to edit, and have a consensus, throw the template back up :). I'm not opposing the edit at all, just trying to clear the clutter in the category a little bit by removing tags that aren't ready yet. Cheers — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 12:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look round and found a bit about it but bloggy so if no one else can find a cite we could take it out for now. I do think it is true though. Between 80 and 83 worked for some scottish tv station(Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Found one! BBC too ("The Gordon Brown story" - immediately before the "Frustration" section). I've added it in - can you check it, and if it's OK we can reinstate the "editrequested" template - I don't think there are any more outstanding issues? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done, add the template and lets get the article unlocked and archive some of this bla bla off the talk page. *(Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

How to edit a talk page.

I have yet to read the page but this page needs some trimming. Apart from that, thanks to any and all the editors that contributed to the discussion over the lede. Could I ask all and any editors to stay involved to benefit the article and if able to assist in the small issues brought up in the good article reassesment. Thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Here it is..Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page (Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Wiki links in the lede.

All the wiki links seem to have gone missing during the small rewrite, does anyonr mind replacing them? Here is a look at David Cameron article to compare. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Too many wikilinks are bad. I would say in the David Cameron article they are being overused in the lead. (Yes that's right...I'm back!) Gavin (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Golden Brown

The link to the song is in need of removal asap. and I thought they bought euro's with the money and the euros went up in value and they made a lot of money, I don't know who added the story but it is written from a very negative position, but in the link there are also some more positive comments that could be added. Also those bullet points are wrong and need to go for the good article reassesment and merge the whole thing into one of two paragraphs (Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)) this cite.. [12] (Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Hi again. The Euros went up significantly less than the gold they sold. Selling so much gold was clearly a poor decision, not just in hindsight. Brown did not seek the relevant advices from the Bank of England. Also, various sources state that the UK received a terrible price because our intention to sell a significant amount was communicated to the markets far in advance of the auction. The gold price fell in anticipation of the new supply to come on the market. This is contrary to common sense- the Swiss work their gold orders in the international gold markets in small quantities broken up over several weeks and then announce the sales when they have been completed. This achieves a better average price.

Even if the Euros had increased in value more than gold (not the case), Brown would still be an idiot for 1) failing to seek and follow advice from the gold dealers at the BoE and 2) for announcing the sale ahead of time, guaranteeing a poor average price.

We didn't make any money. Gold has appreciated far more than GBP, EUR, USD, or JPY in every year since the sales. We have realised a loss due to the quantity sold, the announcement that we were selling, and the amount of dollars we purchased. Further, mainstream media sources term it anywhere form a blunder to a "disaster" comparable with "Black Wednesday", and it is common to mention our realised losses from this deal.

Beganlocal (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much negativity?

Another editor has commented that there is too much negativity in this article. I agree that this is a problem. We can either remove critical material, or add positive material. I am not in favour of the former as I believe the existing criticism is notable, well sourced, and objectively presented. We should not censor valid criticism because it makes an article appear negative. Those in positions of power need to be held to high standards and should be publicly accountable for their actions, even their negative ones. Like almost every politician, Brown has made some serious errors. These have had an affect on the governed and therefore should be reported. Equally like some politicians, Brown has made positive change in the lives of many, and has made positive contributions to his country and worldwide. I'd much rather we included some of these in more detail rather than simply removing critical comments.

I'd appreciate if some other editors could pitch in and make suggestions.

Cheers

Beganlocal (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is NOT how you make an article neutral. You cannot balance an article with the so called good and so called bad. You must be accurate and only report the facts in a neutral tone. If the facts make Brown appear like a lesser PM then so be it. As long as they are simply put forward as facts in a neutral tone...there is no grounds for objection. Though by all means add what is considered "positive" material, provided it is notable and neutral. Gavin (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I am going to request semi protection for Gordon Brown due to the multiple vandalisms today. Beganlocal (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

James Fraser

 Done thanks, (Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

In November 2006, James Fraser was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

The citation points here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5202830.stm

That article is from July 2006 and doesn't mention cystic fibrosis.

These two from November 2006 seem more helpful:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6157891.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6158479.stm

Gareth. 117.92.233.28 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Autism

Surely the article should mention the fact that Brown has autism? (92.9.93.215 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

If you are going to say something like that then you need to cite it. Be especially cautious considering that this is a living person. I am assuming good faith but think you should read WP:BLP before contributing further on this point. Beganlocal (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assuming good faith; we've already had this conversation once and Granville/Harvey/John/92.*/CarphoneWarehouseTroll failed to get any support for his proposal because:

• Brown doesn't, in fact, have autism - Granville is, in effect, asking when we stopped beating out wives. Granville's not offered any cite that Brown has autism, and the best the rest of us could find is off-colour jokes by Brown's parliamentary colleagues.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Brown does have autism, this has always been well known and even some of Blair's allies have acknowledged this as the cause of Brown's poor speaking and communication skills. I have often heard the PM referred to as "Autism Boy Brown". George Osbourne and other MPs have publicly referred to Brown's autistic behaviour on several occasions. (92.13.67.14 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some reference to this ought to be given in the wiki article on Brown. Even if he was not formally diagnosed with autism that doesn't mean he hasn't got it. The condition would probably not have been recognized during his childhood/teenage years. (RobMacLachlan (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

There is no evidence and it will not be put into the article. Granville/Harvey/John/92.*/CarphoneWarehouseTroll stop bloody trolling! Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a sockpuppet. Just because Brown has not admitted he has the condition, does not mean he doesn't have it. The article on Hitler mentions he was autistic despite never being diagnosed as such during his lifetime. (RobMacLachlan (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an explanation as to why that little Hitler-factoid is utterly, utterly, irrelevant. You may also find WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT informative. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)