Wikipedia

Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive 5

< Talk:Gordon Brown
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Leonig Mig in topic Failure
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

More claims that Brown was abusive to his staff

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Now we have another Labour Party insider - Lance Price - also reporting that Gordon Brown has abused staff:

From UK Press Association: "Claims in book over life at No 10":

Although he does not stand up stories of Mr Brown throwing mobile phones around the office, Mr Price quotes one insider as saying his behaviour towards junior staff was "unforgivable". And he adds: "Shouting at staff, jabbing an angry finger, throwing down papers, even kicking the furniture are far more common." One witness is quoted as saying: "It isn't a very nice place to work. However bad it sometimes looks from the outside, it's far, far worse from the inside. And the atmosphere is very much set by him."

--Mais oui! (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Before we get into this again, we should probably remind ourselves of what BLP actually says rather than simply bringing our own opinions of what we wish it said. Regarding well-known people it says,
Further, what used to be called WP:RS says, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." Whether some users like it or not, that includes the Daily Mail, which has been sneered at in the past. -Rrius (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Gordon Brown criticised by anti-bullying chief, Telegraph 21 Feb. How many more do you need? This behavior is atypical of a modern head of state. It is well-documented and notable. To ignore it, reveals bias in the editing consensus behind this article. --66.66.187.132 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Civil service chief warned Gordon Brown over abusive treatment of staff"

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion

Please note that Stephen Pound MP (Labour) confirmed on Sky News on 20 February 2010 that Gus O'Donnell had warned Gordon Brown about his behaviour. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a link, I can find this on twit twit twoo, but not on sky? Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you just posting links here Mais Oui ? what is your desired addition? Was it an official recorded warning? Who were the staff that made the reports to him? What was the outcome? This is titillating partisan speculation without foundation in any detailed reporting and is unworthy of inclusion in the Biography of a living person. If there is one single person that has stood up and made a report then there will clearly be a case to add the report and the outcome, however this is clearly not the case at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tories' poll lead cut to six points It is the smallest gap in the series of polls since December 2008 Mr Brown, who has used recent media appearances to try to soften his remote image, has seen his personal rating improve greatly - although it is still negative overall and While 64% do not trust Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling, only a tiny fraction less - 63% - doubt Mr Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne. there is a lot of current support also around for Brown. Number 10 has commented...and described the claims as "malicious allegations that are totally without foundation".

  • Perhaps we could add a section about the conservative attempts to attack brown as a way to win the election? There was recently public backlash after the previous attack that people thought excessive and looking at the reporting and poll results there is continued rejection of the idea that personally attacking Brown is the wrong way to win support, in fact, the excessive personal attacks appear to be working in the opposite way, support for Brown in the public polls and his party appear to be growing. From the link An Election that looked like a shoo-in for the ‘Cameroons’ now seems to be a genuine contest, with talk of a hung parliament. The mood among Tory MPs is anxious to the point of feverish. In private, they complain that there is no central message. ..This lack of a central message from the conservatives is what has resulted in the idea that simply attacking the leader of the other side (Brown)will win public support, this if it continues will be notable enough and verifyable for a section.Read more: Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I previously commented before Rawnsley's book was published. We now have something more concrete to work with. A carefully worded "Journalist Andrew Rawnsley says that..." could be included, but what would we complete this with? We should be careful with this, I think, but a short specific and well supported allegation could be included.

There's also a second allegation on bbc news about the calls to National Bullying Helpline. It's extraordinary timing for a charity only a couple of years old, launched in the Houses of Parliament, and whose five patrons include Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe and Conservative local councilor Mary O'Connor.[1] Anyway, that's all original research, obviously, so shouldn't go in the article. But it is quite interesting in my opinion. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Let Rawley publicize his own book, we want names not allegations, such allegations require actual people who it happened to, until they stand up and confirm the claims it is imo a BLP issue to add it at all.Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • As for the bbc link..,Hello, is that the bullying helpline, yes..ah thanks, I work for Gordon Brown and he is a terrible bully...well thanks for calling, whats your name..ow I would rather not leave my name, bye. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
There were claims that brown had a bit of a temper, brown denied it and said I am no shrinking violet... Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Gus O'Donnell has said today that he has never warned Gordon Brown about his behaviour. From the telegraph here .."The Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell would like to make clear that he has never raised concerns with the Prime Minister about him acting in a bullying or intimidatory manner in relation to No 10 staff, let alone giving him any sort of verbal warning," he said. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The "unnamed sources" criticism is getting old. Rawnsley has written that each of these allegations comes from a source who was actually present. What's more, a denial is no more credible than an allegation from an unnamed source, and did not include allegations he personally believed if he thought the evidence insufficient. Your attempts above to paint this as somehow part of a Tory smear campaign is utterly bewildering. Rawnsley is by no means a Tory, and his sources are Labour, including Brownites, and civil servants. At this point, the bullying should absolutely be included because there are now so many sources supporting it that there is no question of BLP anymore. There is enough verification now that including all of it would be cumulative and overdoing it. The only question is how to word it the denials. Do we get specific? If so, how many examples do we give? We have to include Brown's admission to tantrums and trowing papers, right? -Rrius (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, if you feel it is worthy of a report and adding to the article, do so, be bold, or post your desired addition here for discussion, imo none of it is worthy of inclusion but feel free to add as many of the claims and rebuttals as you feel is warranted. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In the book of rowsly there was a few claims that brown had attacked his staff, no one came forward except to deny the claims, and Pratt of the bully hot line said people had called her and she had email! It was reported that brown was warned about his behavior by O'dowell, he denied this the next day, some member of staff said it was a pleasure to work for him , Pratt had comments on her web site from David cameron and other conservatives, one of the board of the bully line resigned saying confidentiality had been breached, Pratt said she would not resign at least not yet, and the people who are not as stupid as the press think, saw through the whole biased attempt to smear brown and browns popularity rose. Brown said he once threw a newspaper. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That is opinion, speculation, and a little anti-Cameron smear. Let's stick to facts, shall we? -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
More unsupported claims are required? All of the personal attacks on brown and his public support is rising. If you want to write something to include about these claims of bully boy, I would nominate it for DYK or front page comment for you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
All of the patrons of the bully helpline has resigned now..cite.even widdicombe Off2riorob (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's exasperating even to attempt an understanding of what you are talking about. There are credible claims of bullying, and even Brown admits he has a temper that has induced him to throw paper about. You cannot deny that there are reliable sources for that. The effect on Brown's popularity is another question entirely, although you have failed to produce any evidence that one has affected the other. You simply throw the two facts out there and let post hoc, ergo propter hoc do the rest. If you are done with weird rants about Cameron and bully boys and opinion polls and DYK, can we get on with discussions about improving the article? It appears you are letting political leanings get in the way here, but it is hard to tell since your peculiar view of BLP would lead you at least part way down this path in any event. -Rrius (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss with you and open to consider additions beneficial to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, the allegations of temper tantrums and the like are clearly noteworthy and are amply verified by reliable sources. How should we add this information in a balanced way? -Rrius (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Brown was rumored to have notable temper tantrums when asked about it brown said I am no shrinking violet ! Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown 'named in bullying email'

"from your link from Pratt. "I have even received an email from someone who is alleging that they have [an] issue with Gordon Brown also, but we will be addressing that confidentially and separately and I will be obviously referring that to Number 10,” she said, She later said: “I have received an email. I cannot discuss the detail. It does name Gordon Brown but I'm not able to go into that.“It's someone who has got an issue and I need to look into that" further.”
I sent an email saying that it was not gordon brown but it was the other guy wot dun it. Pratt again, I have had an email,,yea, please feel free to write a comment and we can send it to Guy Fawlkes blog where it has more chance of inclusion. Cameron, and Clegg said there must be an inquiry (they would wouldn't they) and Geoff Hoon said he would like to be prime minister, pratt said her job was safe, the public looked on in shock and awe. Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Bullying charity faces complaints..from there "There has also been a withdrawal of support by the Nasuwt teachers' union - which once donated to the charity. It said it "would be most unlikely in future to donate to or advise any member to use a service which had behaved in this way".The union's general secretary, Chris Keates, said there was "something unsavoury and certainly unjust about releasing information into the public domain which cannot be challenged or verified".http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8528075.stm
"Twittle tattle" said Prescott. The Gordon Brown I know is no bully http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/23/gordon-brown-no-bully ... BullyHotline reports on Pratt.Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of bullying section

I started a section on the allegations of bullying which I originally started at Premiership of Gordon Brown but which I think could be more relevant here. Any thoughts anybody? TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What confirmed reported named complaints have you got? If it is only press and partisan commentary, imo it should not be included at all. The Tangerine dream complaint from below perhaps could go in the comedy section. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I see your point I suppose. Nobody's actually come forward yet (as far as we know) to confirm these allegations so I won't fret too much about it being removed again. As for the tangerine episode, well . . . nice to see we can rely on the Tory press to report all the important news stories. :) On another note, as we're (possibly) coming to the end of Gordon Brown's premiership the time may have come to consolidate the Premiership of Gordon Brown article. I've pretty much written it singlehandedly over the past year or so, including stuff I thought might be important at the time, but there's probably a lot of stuff that could be chopped out or rewritten. I might put it up for peer review or something or mention it at WP:UK Politics. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (replied there) Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed some odd-looking redirects to Gordon Brown: for instance: The great ditherer, Bottler Brown and Non-election. I assume these are intended to be malicious rather than helpful, unless I've missed the point! Should these sort of things be deleted and is there an easy way to do it? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, lets have a look at them and see how they came to be created. Here they are. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Non-election could be ok as a redirect as there's a section on that at Premiership of Gordon Brown, but the others are definitely malicious. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Titles, honours and awards

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It's not "Mr.", "Dr.", or "Rt Hon", its "Mr", "Dr" and "Rt Hon."

I can't edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.229.21 (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


This article is locked so I can't edit it. Obviously we've had a bit of an irregular situation this election in that Labour have (probably) lost the election and Gordon Brown is, in some sence, unlikly to be prime minister for all that much longer.

I know that some people I have spoken to are confused by the fact that it says he is prime minister and they are wrongly assuming that this page must be out of date. I suggest that, while the tory/Lib-Dem talks continue, that first sentence (which currently reads: 

'Gordon Brown "is prime minister of the..."'

be changed to "is still prime minister of the ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.5.199 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This would make it clear that the page is not out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.5.199 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, Brown has tended to prefer being addressed as "Mr", not "Dr". This is not uncommon amongst PhDs outside academia in the UK. In UK politics the term "Dr" has tended to be used only by medical doctors (e.g. Dr David Owen). If this were not the case the House of Commons would be littered with Drs! RomanSpa (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Policy and relationship with Israel

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The article ought to make mention of some prominent interactions with other states. The European Union / Lisbon treaty is covered well. We ought to have a few sentences on the relationship with Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not the Zionist connection, this is his biography, if it is of value anywhere it would sit better at the premiership of Brown article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, not Zionism. Zionism concerns the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people. The issue of the British Passports, the issue of magistrates being asked to issue arrest warrants for Israeli diplomats, and the recent conflict in the middle east - the Lebanon situation. I think it is worthy of a mention. I feel it is important for our leaders to support the only democracy in the middle east. Beganlocal (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Democracy is a fantasy of the political mind. Not here, perhaps in another article. This article Premiership_of_Gordon_Brown we are currently in the process of attempting to raise it up to good article status. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Place naming policy

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

There is a very clear policy on UK place names at WP:UKPLACE It states:

-*Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under placename. Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland. Where the settlement is significant and disambiguation is needed, articles should generally go under placename, Scotland. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross.

I was made aware of this towards the end of a debate on one page and it seemed to me to settle the issue so I tidied up the modern UK Prime Ministers to conform with it. I'm nor really surprised that Irvine22 went on a revert spree, he has a pattern of disruptive editing (see here) and a recording of picking up a minor theme and running it over many pages (for example labeling any Irishperson born in England as English, even a Provisional IRA commander). More recently he has move this campaign to the Welsh from the Irish including edit warring on my own article on Wikipedia. His pattern of editing is to push to the limits of tolerance with the community, then back off with either an enforced or a voluntary withdrawal from editing for a period before he returns to start all over again.

I will also post a notice at th talk page of WP:UKPLACE but pending a change of policy agreed by the community at that location Irvine22's recent edits should be reverted.--Snowded TALK 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Please take this tiresome United kingdom obsession away from this article, this is a good article and stability is one of the requirements, leave it at whatever is has been long time stable at. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not to much fussed what decision is made Off2Rio, but we need something consistent across a range of articles. Should be simple if its not picked as a battleground. I thought WP:UKPLACE settled it quickly but obviously not. Debate needs to take place elsewhere and then be implemented, it shouldn't be discussed on the individual pages. --Snowded TALK 12:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I personally, am sick to death of the obsession a few editors have that is a never ending attempt to eradicate the UK from the whole wikipedia, if editors put the same energy into doing something of value, there would likely be no uncited BLP articles. regards.Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Yes, the nationalist POV-pushing around "UK" is getting really silly now. Facts are facts, and nationalist fanatsies are nationalist fantasies. Irvine22 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is trying to eliminate UK from the whole wikipedia - the precedent looks to me to say that town/county makes most sense, but if the community wants Town-County-Country-UK then that is fine by me, provided we have one agreed approach. --Snowded TALK 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can agree to disagree about my comment that there is a campaign to remove the UK from wherever possible, something to do with nationalism of some kind, tiresome. In this situation, me personally find it similar to overlinking, everyone knows where scotland is and if scotland is linked that is enough information in my opinion, but I actually don't care about it at all, my desire in this case is to keep the article stable, I have seen this UK issue turn into elongated edit wars at many articles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As we have (agreed to disagree) on if the BNP is fascist! Agree we need stability. I though this was on one article, but then changes were made on many. I went to what I thought was policy, but the immediate revert worried me so I am trying to create one place to have the conversation and settle it. I think your over-linking point is the most important one, an information box needs to be simple --Snowded TALK 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So, at least we can use this for a change to agree to agree, excessive overinking in infoboxes is not necessary or particularly beneficial to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Note: the US Presidents & Canadian Prime Minister infoboxes, avoid using United States & Canada in the PoB & PoD. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment statistic

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Off2riorob, I'm not sure why you felt the need to delete the entire thread of my suggestion. I'm sure in the grander scheme of wikipedia, one error isn't a huge thing. But, it still is an error, and such a simple thing to resolve that I can't see the harm in looking at it. After all, isn't that the point of the discussion thread; to raise issues regarding accuracy. If there is a problem with what I'm suggesting then, please, just say. It isn't so polite to resort to deleting other people's contributions or leaving sarcastic comments about 'private conversations'. AlexTartu (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it appeared to be one person talking to the same person and I added a tag to your page that you could be a sock of Harvey Carter. The other editor in the conversation was blocked indefinitely. If you assert that you are not a sock of that blocked user HarveyCarter then I will happily show good faith and we can refresh your issue, I did think it was pretty much naval gazing about unemployment figures bing eight million. Best thing is if you present here the text you think is wrong and the text and citation that you want to replace it with, please provide the citation as well. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue.(reopened)

The article states: "since becoming Chancellor, inflation has been kept under control, consistently below 5%,[33] but unemployment increased to 7.9%"

The source provided shows that unemployment only started to increase (very steeply) in Summer 2007 - at this point Brown was no longer chancellor but prime minister. It seems a little disingenuous to suggest that it is a hallmark of Brown's chancellorship, given that it doesn't apply from 1997-2007.

We could simply remove the end comment that looks to have been sort of tagged on to the original cited content? Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I understand the confusion. I can assure you that I am me and only me : ) Your suggestion seems like a fair solution. I'll let it lie now, I promise! AlexTartu (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  Done thanks Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Real unemployment figure

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Now that the real unemployment figure has been confirmed as 8.16 million should Brown's article mention that he has presided over the highest ever level of UK unemployment? (92.11.154.54 (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

What is your source for that? A news story I saw less than an hour ago said the 1990s recession peaked at over 10 million unemployed and the 1980s peaked at a higher level than that. Road Wizard (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - Ignore the figure I quoted, the IP's units got me a little muddled. Channel 4 News says unemployment peaked at 11.7% in 1980s, 10.7% in 1990s and 8% in 2010. Road Wizard (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The news confirmed today that unemployment is higher now than it has ever been before. (92.11.154.54 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

  • IP is a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
8 million unemployed? Unless we are counting those not in the labour force, such as students etc. which aren't counted as "unemployed" for obvious reasons, I don't know where that figure comes from. They do make nice, sensationalist, numbers though. 8% or 2.5million are what the sources: BBC, Guardian say. – Toon 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There are officially over 8 million adults of working age who do not do any form of work at all. Even Michael Portillo said so on This Week with Andrew Neil. (92.11.154.54 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes, but if they are not in the labour force, then this number means nothing whatsoever. If they can't work, aren't looking for work (i.e. stay-at-home parents etc.) they aren't unemployed. – Toon 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They are paid not to look for work, therefore they are unemployed. (92.12.57.205 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

This argument is pointless as we won't be editing the article based solely on your opinion. Quote your source. Road Wizard (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Images in Foreign Policy section

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

There are currently two images side by side in the Foreign Policy section of the article, which causes the text to be sandwiched between. User:KingOfTheMedia made an edit to separate the images,[2] but was reverted by User:Off2riorob.[3] Off2riorob has asked for a discussion here before reinstating the edit.
From what I can see KingOfTheMedia's edit complies with the Manual of Style (specifically MOS:IMAGES), "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." Are there specific objections as to why the edit shouldn't be restored? Road Wizard (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The following comments were merged into this section at 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC). [4] Road Wizard (talk)
The two images in the "Foreign policy" section are on directly opposite sides of the prose and this has harshly decreased readability in my web browser. I moved one image down a few lines to improve this issue, but it was reverted by a user who claimed that the previous format was "fine". I changed the issue again, but the same user reverted again, claimed that the issue should be ignored because "no one else has complained" and asked that I bring the issue here. It doesn't take more than one user to "complain" in order to make a simple edit such as this, so I am about to change it back again. Due to the time that has elapsed, I will not be violating WP:3RR. If this edit warring continues, I will have to report this user for article ownership. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You are edit warring if you revet it again, you should wait for comments here to see what other editors think. I prefer it as it has been happily sitting for about six months Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of discussion; if a user can not read an article because of disruptive images, something should be done per WP:BOLD and WP:COMMONSENSE, especially at a time like this when an article is getting high traffic. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is fine, those pictures were sat there for a long time, it is a matter of discussion, you should wait for other editors to comment, you are simply ignoring my objection. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob do you have an objection besides I don't like it? Road Wizard (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I had not seen that, as it says at that guideline, . Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.. I like it much better when they were side by side, the text was fine to read and no one has ever bothered about it before. As there are now, it look messy to me. It would look better if the old picture of him and bush was removed IMO. So lets get rid of the bush pic, we have one picture of an american president in the section, two pics in the section is now a bit messy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Why remove the picture altogether when two can co-exist? It's a section on foreign affairs, after all. Let's analyse what else you've said-

The two articles co exist very badly, and they disrupt the text, we have plenty of pictures. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The above user went on to remove the image, which I reinstated as this discussion is still ongoing. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
KingOfTheMedia you are up to 3 reversions and Off2riorob is up to 2 reversions and 1 edit without confirming consensus. Can you please hold off on the edits for a while and discuss this? The world isn't going to end if we leave the article in either state for a few hours while we try to reach consensus. Road Wizard (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I have taken another look at the article and I have to agree with Off2riorob that the two images together look strange. The Foreign Policy section is simply too small for two images to be that close together. I would suggest removing one of the images and finding something else to go in the section immediately before or after Foreign Policy. Road Wizard (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone apparently has removed the Bush photo (it's not clear why it wasn't just replaced from the first). Anyway, that was really a secondary issue. KingOfTheMedia was right to remove the sandwiching, and his edit was the least disruptive course as it retained both photos in the relevant section. Rob should not have reverted a readability edit just because he liked the way it used to look. From there, the discussion should have been whether to retain both images and where to put them. I put the Obama image at the top right of the section because it seemed kind of random coming in the middle, and I was showing just a few words of text underneath the picture—orphaned, as it were, from the rest of the sentence to which they belonged. Unlike KOTM's problem, mine was simply aesthetic, so I don't care if I'm reverted. -Rrius (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No need for both pics. IMO. The current layout showing the current US President is absolutely fine, no need for Bush, he was a lame duck at the time Brown became the lame duck PM.  ;) Leaky Caldron 14:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of office?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page presently says Brown is no longer prime minister as of May 7 2010. Given that the elections haven't happened yet, this is confusing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.49.102 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The 7th May date was a vandal edit added less than half an hour ago. Thank you for notifying us of the problem, it has now been corrected. Road Wizard (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bigoted woman" comments

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Given Brown's "bigoted woman" comments today I thought I should open a discussion on the matter to pre-empt any possible edits related to the subject. It's being widely reported (as one might expect - and here are a few examples [5] [6] [7] [8]), but is it relevant to the article? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Her views were a bit..er whats the word? Opinionated, would have been more politically correct. If is is added, we will have to add her comments to explain what Brown meant. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree, balance or nothing. I'm inclined to leave it, there will be lots of things during an election --Snowded TALK 13:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally I imagine a lot of politicians must express opinions about people they meet. He was just unlucky that his mic was still switched on. I agree that her comments would have to be included to put the whole thing into context, but perhaps only if it was to end up having a significant bearing on the election. I doubt it will. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You never know, with the level of kndergarten political debate in this country. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This is being reported verbatim and will be widely covered in the press. It could be a vote changer and should be measured against other political gaffs, such as the Prescott punch, or when Brown got a soldier's name wrong in a letter. He is going to visit her to apologise in person - so more notability - PMs don't routinely do that sort of thing. Once there are some decent sources it should go in. Leaky Caldron 14:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well in a section about the campaigning for the 2010 election, actually , not in his BLP it is not a notable thing in his life, but in the Premiership of brown article it may well get included, that article is good for this type of political pititude. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
totally agree, Rob. Leaky Caldron 15:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
And me, maybe even more so. This event, whilst very notable, is far to minor in context to live in the BLP. If, as it may well, it has a serious affect on United Kingdom general election, 2010 then it's more than worthy of inclusion on that article - but not here at present. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I agree even more so. This is far too insignificant for a biography as deep as this one; the fact that Brown is alive is immaterial. If he dies tomorrow, this won't suddenly become worthy of inclusion. The only way this ever becomes worthy is if Labour loses the election and we have reliable sources claiming that this was an important reason why. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There will never be a reliable account that Mrs. Duffy caused Labour to lose. Nobody knows that except God. If they claim that Mrs. Duffy is the definite cause, they are unreliable, even if previously reliable. I do not seek inclusion or exclusion. I am merely commenting about reliable sources. The threshold might be if Mrs. Duffy is mentioned in reviews of the election often. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC give it two paragraphs in about a 30 paragraph summary of "The political career of Gordon Brown", published now that he has decided to leave Number 10 (or Nick Clegg told him it was a condition of him talking to Labour?). Not that it wasn't painfully obvious at the time which everyone has been in denial about, citing all sorts of irrelevant policies to pretend it never happend, this was always going to be an event that will be mentioned in any review of this man's life. This is merely the first of many sources that will mention it in future. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good find, but the point still remains that this is the article about Gordon Brown, and not "Gordon Brown's political career". I've no big objection to it going into the article of course, but in the whole context of his life maybe a sentence or two at best, not much more? Certainly as time has moved on and events unfolded it has (possibly) become more relevant. Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not British and have no opinion. Maths is often a good way to decide. What portion of his biography is his political career? 80%? What part of his political career is related to Mrs. Duffy? 0.5%? If so, 0.4% of the article should be devoted to Mrs. Duffy. Is the article 40kb or 40,000 bytes? If so, a maximum of 200 bytes should be devoted to Mrs. Duffy. If 200 bytes is insufficient that either Mrs. Duffy's incident is too minor or the editor is too verbose. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fat comments, adds nothing of value

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

My recent edit reporting on three newspaper reports from two national newspapers about the way he is depicted in the media and his response to that was removed as adding no value. What utter tosh. I'll be putting it right back in without a better reason for its removal. GDallimore (Talk) 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia good article and not a place to add comedy cartoon comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you haven't done me the respect to actually read what I added. Do that, then come back and comment properly. GDallimore (Talk) 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As a political figure, Brown is often caricatured and parodied in the media. Different cartoonists have represented him in different ways, although often as a large, hulking figure. Brown has complained to several cartoonists that he is not as fat as he is depicted. Nick Garland, cartoonist for The Daily Telegraph, has said Brown should take it as a compliment that he is seen as a heavyweight political presence as opposed to the way that William Hague was often caricatured as a shrinking gnome.

Cited to these three opinionated editorials all from January 2009, fifteen months ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4331533/Steely-jowly-cloudy-why-cartoonists-struggle-with-Gordon-Brown.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordonbrownyear/4331544/Gordon-Brown-takes-offence-fat-cartoons.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/stop-all-these-savage-cartoons-fat-chance-1515742.html

So what if the editorials are opinionated? These are important comments about the way he is depicted in popular culture. If these comments need removing, the entire section needs removing as pointless trivia. GDallimore (Talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
And you'll notice I didn't include the Daily Mail as a source. Rather, two respected national papers whos editorials should be listened to. GDallimore (Talk) 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
They are not important at all, they are opinionated insults and over a year old opinions, not even up to date, he is depicted as all sorts of things, a bully a big clunking fist, its all valueless and open to cherry picking, I have see him in cartoons depicted as the Saviour of the world with a crown and a throne. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Taking your points in turn:
  1. Age is irrelevant. Might as well remove the entire section about his early life if that's a guiding factor. His look hasn't changed much, nor have his caricatures in their general form, which is what the additions were.
  2. They're no remotely insulting. Brown is the only person to use the word "fat". It's about how many cartoonists depict him and his response to that.
  3. They are important. The pieces are all discussions about how Brown can and is depicted in caricature and at least one of them mentions the importance of image.
Still not a single good reason for removal as far as I can see. GDallimore (Talk) 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Its cited to opinionated editorials and dated. Its basically just insulting really, Brown is drawn as a fat person in cartoon and says he doesn't like it and the reporter says he should be happy he is portrayed as a heavyweight politician, ho ho ho. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, what's important is that essentially ALL cartoonists draw him as large. Then there are comments about that. That's his depiction in popular culture, as the heading of the section says. You need to stop owning this article as shown by your initial "this is a GOOD ARTICLE so sod off" comment. GDallimore (Talk) 19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I have done a lot of work on this article and worked to keep this article as a wkipedia good article, if that is owning it then yes I own it with the beneficial quality raising work that I have contributed to this article, I have not simply come here to add some, ow look how fat brown is , ho ho valueless insult. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Not a neutral lead and incorrect lead statements on last paragraph

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Neutrality disputed

Neutrality disputed

I have read this articles lead and found that it was not neutral in accordance with wikipedia guidelines.

The article was edited by me to go to neutral status on the last paragraph of the lead, stating fact with citations, this was reverted by another user who says the article is agreed by a number of users as ok at the lead - I disagree.

This article is not neutral at all and the claims made in the last paragraph are of its lead are not fact they are opinion that has used press reports from a bias source.

The paragraph stated Labour party members want Gordon Brown to resign, however Labour party members support Gordon Brown as shown by my citations, his re election to parliament as MP also shows opposite opinion to the statement that the public are giving him pressure to resign, these two statements in the lead are in contradiction of wikipedia neutral article guides and aims.

Further the article is using sources that are not in themselves neutral and are known to be bias on this subject. This article cannot stand as a neutral article in its present form.

There were a number of other areas in this article that were also opinions from bias sources and not cross checked again other sources where the opposite opinion is stated, therefore the article is not generally neutral.

My edit reads:

After initial rises in opinion polls, [1] Labour scored badly in local election results in 2009.[2][3]. Gordon Brown was re-elected to serve as a member of parliament for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath constituency on 6th May 2010 with 29,559 votes representing 64.5% of votes.[5]

The paragraph until my edit:

After initial rises in opinion polls,[6] Brown's time as Prime Minister has seen a general fall in Labour's approval ratings and the Party's worst local election results in 40 years.[2][7] Despite public and parliamentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour Party.

I feel I have achieved a neutral paragraph from one that was bias.


(Rovington (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

What about the disasterous election results in May 2008? (92.0.51.62 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Covered in the article: "In the local elections on 1 May 2008, Labour suffered their worst results in 40 years finishing in third place with a projected 24% share of the national vote". Admittedly, the section that starts with that sentence isn't named with brevity in mind... but it is accurate, and May 2008 is covered. Or do you think it should be expanded/changed? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 12:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the introduction. There was much more speculation about Brown's future after the heavy defeat in May 2008 than there was in June 2009. (92.0.51.62 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

The intro currently says "After initial rises in opinion polls,[1] Labour scored badly in local and European election results in 2009.[2][3]". It could be changed to read "...in local election results in 2008 and 2009, and European election results in 2009"? If everyone's happy with that, I'd suggest linking the years to the relevant articles - linking United Kingdom local elections, 2008 to the first occurrence of "2008". How does that sound? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think both the 2008 and 2009 results should be mentioned. (92.0.51.62 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Out of curiosity - how come? The 2009 local elections were worse (for Labour councils), and the overall summary - initially good, then worsening - is correct. I think the current wording can be improved, but it's hardly inaccurate or non-neutral. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the 2008 elections were a disaster for Labour as well and were followed by intense speculation about Brown's future and a series of by-election losses. (92.4.232.165 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Sure, that much is clear. My question was how the intro is non-neutral or inaccurate - it currently summarises Brown's leadership as being initially poll-positive, then worsening. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe, I don't remember a time when Brown was ever popular. (92.4.232.165 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

OK, so you're saying it's the first part of the sentence you disagree with? Sorry, I though the issue was around the 2008 council elections. I'll need to check the refs for the first part of the sentence - I've not paid it any attention to now. TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the first part of the sentence is referring to the "Brown Bounce". There is a cite, and I'd suspect you'd find it hard to gain traction on the idea of changing the first part - the "Brown Bounce" is fairly fresh in (most) people's minds (probably because it's a horrible phrase...) ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article lead is now looking much better and neutral in content, I really do feel its important to set aside our political opinions when writing on party leaders. I think it is also important to ensure the article keeps to factual content and avoids opinion. Its looking good. (Rovington (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Specualation

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone has posted "[Brown will remain PM] unless it becomes apparant that he cannot command the confidence of the House". Do they work for The Sun? How about some proper information on parliamentary procedure and official statements made by Brown, Cameron and Clegg? (Also they might want to learn how to spell 'apparent'.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.0.231 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the speculation added to the article, we cannot speculate on wikipedia we must stick to facts. We have to wait for matters to settle on all these talks of coalition.

One of the leaders must see the Queen to form a Government. Maybe its the end of his term as PM. At present we cannot put a date on his end of term. The final result seems to be down to the other parties now depending on who forms pact. I am not adding any of this paragraph to the article it would be wrong to speculate although I think we all know that its just a matter of time.

Have added back into the article the result of his local election as no matter what the outcome as PM he remains MP, that is a fact.

Gordon Brown was re-elected to serve as a member of parliament for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath constituency on 6th May 2010 with 29,559 votes representing 64.5% of votes.[4]

It may yet come to pass that his last entry will be similair to that of Edward Heath.

(Rovington (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

New York Times link

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ottre has accused me of 'edit warring' because I added this standard link to the New York Times collection of news and commentary about Gordon Brown, which was then inexplicably removed. Considering Brown has always championed the 'special relationship', and the NYT is considered the US 'paper of record', I find this a bit rich. However, as Brown will not be PM much longer anyway, I don't actually care. If this is how supporters of 'NuLabour' behave, throwing hissy fits and threats around if some non-British news source is referenced...well, it explains a lot, doesn't it? I wish you well in your future endeavors, but I reserve the right to uncontrollably lol. What a piece of work you are. Flatterworld (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks cables: related to Brown

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see:

There are many other refs. This ought to be mentioned in the article. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Worst election result

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't the intro mention that the 2010 General Election was Labour's worst result since the 1931 General Election? (92.5.82.41 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Why? Do you feel that "losing 91 seats" isn't sufficient? Or that mentioning that he stood down as leader isn't sufficient? In what way do you feel that the lead would benefit by your proposed addition? Incidentally, the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article-proper. The article doesn't currently mention that the 2010 genral election was Labour's worst ever. I'd suggest that such a factoid would be better suited to the article about the 2010 general election. TFOWR 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, you could probably raise this at WP:NPOVN along with your Tony Blair concern. Meantime, I'm not playing with socks. TFOWR 17:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Your (92.5...) claim is wrong BTW, see e.g. United Kingdom general election, 1983. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.TFOWR 14:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)> TFOWR 14:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did he think he should work for the IMF?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

He ran a deficit during a boom - when the collapse happened the UK national debt was doubled within two years. Why did he think he is entitled to "run the IMF?". Is this part of his socialist notion that all failure must be rewarded?

This isn't relevant to the factual content of the article, and isn't signed. Should be removed? Shrimptoast (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

After Prime Minister

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

first official engagement after two months - AU summit in Kampala

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10750077 Gordon Brown has used his first major speech since leaving office to say the future growth of the world economy is reliant upon the development of Africa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/24/gordon-brown-african-union-kampala Gordon Brown resurfaces with call for African growth Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


"Other Positions" - The reference for this section (Ref 117) is a dead link; remove the section?Shrimptoast (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I formatted the external links in this section Gordon Brown#Otherpositions - and they both seem fine now. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

European elections

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article quotes the 2009 European elections turnout as 'historically low'. If the implication of this statement is that it was the lowest turnout on record in the UK since direct elections started in 1979 then this is incorrect. Of the 7 Euro elections in the UK, 3 have had lower turnouts. If the quote was intended to refer to European turnout as a whole, then this is a disingenuous statement for the fact that the Euro elections segment discusses the turnout's effect on Gordon Brown's premiership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.120.209 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Tony Blair: New Labour died when I handed over to Gordon Brown"

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

... etc etc... --Mais oui! (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I would add that to Tony Blair if I was you. It is about him and his new labour ideas. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Brown tried to bring back "old Labour" ... It totally failed. 81.156.206.113 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Brown wanted the details of his son's condition kept private..."

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

There's no evidence to support this other than his recent pronouncement. Had he, at the time, wanted the story not to run he could have quoted article 3 of the PCC code and the story would have been spiked immediately.

This needs to be re-written. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is disputing his position. I thing we are able to take Brown's words in this case and report them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No-one is disputing his position? Riiiiiight... --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8635107/Spare-us-Gordon-Brown.-You-sacrificed-your-morals-to-Rupert-Murdoch-long-ago.html

One example of scores which show that not only did Brown do nothing before publication when advised of the upcoming story - when he quite easily could have PCC'd The Sun lock, stock and barrel, then his cosying up to the editor of the paper that published (Brooks) on numerous occasions after publication (went to her 40th birthday party, went to her wedding, invited her to Chequers for a 'pyjama party', etc.)

To suggest no-one is disputing his position is wholly inaccurate with even a cursory gnews search. It's a totally erroneous sugestion, and needs to be changed to acknowledge the facts, not just Brown's revisionism. It's a very weak sentence at present. Even 'Brown subsequently claimed...' would be more accurate. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we can be assured he knows his own position. adding brown claimed he wanted to protect his son seems a bit undue to me. Looking back , brown jept his children mostly out of the press and there was some kind of block on reporting, I don't remember if that was a legal or a personal agreement.Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • We can be assured he knows his own position, but that's not what the copy says. Nor am I suggesting he 'claims' to want to protect his son; again, that's not what the copy says. It remains the case that all the evidence before and after the story went to press posits very strongly that Brown had (at best) no problem with publication. The article remains erroneous and misleading in this regard and proof of this position is all over news and opinion sites. The sentence is still inaccurate and needs to be changed to reflect reality, not an agenda. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I made a small alteration/addition in an attempt to resolve your issue. Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a slight improvement. --213.220.85.188 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fairness interpreted as Distributive Justice

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it right that the terms 'responsibility' and 'justice' under the religion section link to articles on 'moral responsibilit' and 'distributive justice'? I'm particularly concerned with the later interpretation which, though it may be exactly what Brown meant, may also be putting words into his mouth.

Since when did Wikipedia begin interpreting the words of politicians? Surely anyone with a real interest could search 'fairness' themselves, and make a judgement on what Brown was referring to.ObiterDictum.nz (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your quite correct, we don't link internally within quotes as we do not know what the person meant with the words they said. Removed, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo: beeen

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

94.193.93.109 (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Alistair Darling’s memoirs

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Please see Talk:Alistair Darling#Alistair Darling’s memoirs --Mais oui! (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Partisan titillation - add it to Darling's BLP, it says more about him than anyone else. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Brown was "hopeless" as prime minister - Alistair Darling: - "Mr Brown agonised over decisions, frequently changing his mind. Mr Darling says the management of his time by Downing Street was "hopeless" and adds: "There was a permanent air of chaos and crisis." - "Gordon's style of operating was like an old-fashioned court: he was the centre around which trusted courtiers moved." - "their "blind loyalty" meant he was only told "that which he wanted — or could bear — to hear" - "Former prime minister Gordon Brown failed to grasp the seriousness of the recession and ran "a fairly brutal regime" Alistair Darling wrote - 81.156.206.113 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And, what of it? Opinions from someone from someone Brown wanted to sack. Nothing at all worthy of inclusion here. Perhaps you could add to Darling's biography, Darling became upset after being briefed against and attempted to be removed by Brown.Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is called "Talk: Gordon Brown" ... his former chancellor revealing the opinion that he was a "hopeless" premier is worthy of discussion. 81.156.206.113 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues without chance of inclusion are unworthy of discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Dearie dearie me. Methinks that Off2riorob has a very bad case of WP:OWN. Perhaps you ought to read WP:CONFLICT too.
This article is not your article on GB. It is our article on GB. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me dearie, your dislike of this person is littered over the history of the talkpage. My COI is only in support of neutrality. As I said, Darlings book promo partisan attacks positions are well known and imo don't belong in this Bio but perhaps in Darling's own. there are lots of such people in a Blair/Brown divided political party adding all their partisan opinions is perhaps better in a chip wrapper then a encyclopedic Biography. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another thing Off2riorob: The published memoirs of Gordon Brown's former chancellor are hardly "partisan titillation". 81.156.206.113 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are partisan if you consider the fact that brown wanted to and tried to sack darling and the fact that Darling could easily be described as a Blairite. Titillation as in designed to excite, promote, and sell his book. As I said , perhaps in his own article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be some balance when the Labour camp STILL describes Brown as some sort of an economic saviour. The revelations by Darling (considering he was chancellor) are explosive. Discussion needs to be had as to what kind of an incompetent Gordon Brown is exactly. Off2riorob: You think it was all Alistair Darlings fault? I think you want to keep discussion of Darlings' memoirs off this page because it's embarrassing to Brown. 81.156.206.113 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)— 81.156.206.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please keep your opinionated attacks against the living subject of this article to yourself and off this talkpage. - WP:BLP applies just as much on a talkpage as on an article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That is pretty rich. Off2riorob's own comments about Alistair Darling could easily be interpreted as slander. WP:BLP applies just as much to Darling as it does to Brown. Any further outbursts like that will be reported to the BLP noticeboard. People in glass houses ought not to throw stones. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Give over. You are boring me now. Just take the page off your watchlist and we will get on better - is that IP you? Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You are really starting to ratch up your breaches of Wikipedia policy and standards of behaviour. By all means keep going. It reflects perfectly the type of person who admires the Kirkcaldy member. Mais oui! (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I have violated nothing. Report me if you think I have. You have violated boring person guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Off2riorob is partly corect. Darling is clearly simultaneously trying to smear a political enemy of his and trying to absolve himself from all blame for the working's of the ministry he headed by shifting the blame to the then PM. It's also only Darling's personal opinion. Such writings thus need to be seen with some apprehension. For each point Darling raises Brown could probably retaliate to show the ungratefulness and disloyalty of Darling. It's all opinion. Darling's comments certainly belong in the article on Darling (vis-à-vis his working relationship with the PM) but not directly in Brown's. -- fdewaele, 5 September 2011, 18:13 (CET)

It doesn't matter if Darling has reasons to lie about the issue. It's a notable criticism so it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. If Brown has made a response, we should include it as well. But whether he can, or has, or has not made a response doesn't affect whether we should include these criticisms. FurrySings (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, insiders on the labour front bench (primarily, the two Eds who were GB's prodigies) aren't queuing up to deny any of Darlings remarks and to stick up for GB. The silence is deafening. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

IMF speculation 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Complete trivia of no notability at all - and the press wrote this rubbish and they sold a few papers and nothing happened. Trivial chip wrapper crap. Off2riorob (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In 2011 the press speculated that brown might get the IMF job - jonny said brown was crap and harry said brown wasn't so bad and brown said nothing - someone else got the job. Off2riorob (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Do you live in North Queensferry Off2rob? This was a big story over many months. For the record, here is the section Off2rob is trying to remove:

In April 2011, press reports linked Brown with the role as the next [[Managing Director]] of the [[International Monetary Fund]] following the scheduled retirement of [[Dominique Strauss-Kahn]]. These reports received mixed reception, [[Ed Miliband]], who succeeded Brown as the [[Leader of the Labour Party|Labour Leader]], backed Brown for the role as his handling of the global economic crisis three years earlier had been “outstanding.” However, Brown's successor as [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]], [[David Cameron]], spoke of the possibility that he would block Brown from taking the position, as Brown “didn’t know” that the country was deep in debt during his leadership and that for this reason Brown might not be the best person to run the International Monetary Fund.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13127225 | work=BBC News | title=Cameron hints at blocking Brown bid for IMF job | date=19 April 2011}}</ref> Following the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn for alleged sexual assault in May 2011, and his subsequent resignation, these reports surfaced yet again as finding a replacement became instantly necessary.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13421068 | work=BBC News | title=Strauss-Kahn resigns: Global fight for IMF top job | date=20 May 2011}}</ref> Prominent economist and former [[President]] of the [[World Bank]] [[James Wolfensohn|Sir James Wolfensohn]] said that Brown would be an "excellent choice" to take over the position.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/24/economist-backs-gordon-brown-for-imf-top-job-115875-23152474|title=Economist backs Gordon Brown for IMF top job|publisher=The Mirror|date=24 May 2011|accessdate=17 July 2011}}</ref>

--Mais oui! (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's proper to speculate about another's motivations. In any case it doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. FurrySings (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


IMF speculation

Latest comment: 12 years ago36 comments4 people in discussion

Off2riorob, please make clear exactly on the talk page not in edit summaries what exactly your reasons for removing the section on IMF speculation are. The section re-instated by RJwimsiBot seem perfectly accepatable containing good citations. For Brown to be considered, even by the business press and the BBC, for the next boss of the IMF is noteworthy and so is the fact that both the British PM and his opposite number felt compelled to comment on them. It would also be appreciated if you do not take it upon yourself to 'archive' the talk page and thus present a false impression of 'all is well with this article'. Thanks, --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no false impressions and all is well with this article, It gets a lot of partisan attackers which is boring, but such is the way of the wiki and the world. I suggest you look in the history if you are so interested - You have never edited this article at all, and have only made one other talkpage comment which If I'm not mistaken, was just a personal deafening silence so it must be true personal opinion of yours - 6 September 2011, Tuesday (27 days ago) (UTC+1) - as I remember it was nothing but press speculation and some attacking partisan opinion and negative association coatracking and actually nothing happened we are not a newspaper with sales issues and such speculation is not an encyclopedic event in Browns life. - ignoring the factoid speculative nature of the content, the encyclopedic NPOV detail would leave this - In 2011, press reports suggested Brown was being considered for the, then vacant, post of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.[1] On July 5 Christine Lagarde was announced as the new director.[2] - as you can see its speculative trivia. If the IMF had commented that they were considering/shortlisted Brown that would be notable. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Continually you personally adjudge negative reports of Brown discussed here "trivia" User:Off2riorob. 217.44.201.17 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't respond to aan editor who continues to edit his initial reponse every minute or two. I'll wait until you quit your rambling before I come back. Bill Reid | (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Your post itself is attacking. You haven't even made a wiki edit for over a week and now your in a hurry, these are not my ramblings as you call them - they are my good faith reply to your question. - give over your battlefield mentality and commentry. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
My post is "attacking"? Attacking what, precisely. "You haven't even made a wiki edit for over a week and now your in a hurry"—do I have to make irrelevant edits every 2 minutes? In a hurry for what? As you will have noticed, as you have been checking my edit history, I rarely get involved in talk pages nowadays and confine my edits to main pages (could the same be said about yourself?) but I made an exception of this talk page because, as Mais oui! has pointed out, you seem to have an ownership issue with this article. This prevents you from allowing other editors with differing opinions to yourself from having an input.
Now back to the the 6.35 post that in effect was continually edited from 6.35pm through to 7.45pm. Addressing your points—do I need to have edited this article before I have the right to comment on its content? No. Apart from the fact that I don't understand most of your rambling, grammatically lacking, 126 word one sentence response, you should know that 'press speculation' in non-redtop titles and the BBC is for the most part well informed and hence Cameron's and Milliband's input. You say we are not a newspaper with sales issues and such speculation is not an encyclopedic event in Browns life. You miss the point, it is not WP that is speculating, it is WP describing the speculation. The newspaper reports were/are valid and should be recorded as such. The left of centre paper, The Guardian printed an article on Friday 20 May 2011 titled ' Gordon Brown makes IMF pitch as race to succeed Strauss-Kahn intensifies'. So please address the points within the deleted section and say exactly why they are inappropriate. To merely trot out press speculation and various other trivial phrases in support of a very weak argument for the removal of this section is wrong and you demonstrate a very obvious lack of NPOV. The whole issue is important. Don't impugn my motives just address the issues.--Bill Reid | (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what you think should be added from that article http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/20/gordon-brown-imf-strauss-kahn - theres nothing there at all , apart from , and the guardian suggested a speech Brown was making in S Africa was "stating his case for the position" - there is nothing in that article to add imo - also we don't usually add attacking quotes from the opposition leader such as the one you are desirous of adding in this case this is just a partisan slur, David Cameron, spoke of the possibility that he would block Brown from taking the position, as Brown “didn’t know” that the country was deep in debt during his leadership and that for this reason Brown might not be the best person to run the International Monetary Fund. - Please try to not be so personally attacking in your discussion, thanks - if there is anything you don't understand please specify and I will attempt to clarify for you. Brown did not announce candidacy and was not shortlisted or considered at all by the IMF. If you think the whole speculative issue is important then lets add this , In 2011, press reports suggested Brown was being considered for the, then vacant, post of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.[5] On July 5 Christine Lagarde was announced as the new director.[6] Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be wrong to suppress all mention, but we should limit coverage to a brief statement on the lines that "a 2011 bid by Brown for the top IMF job was opposed by the coalition government". Inevitably, the motive for opposing the bid was political, so the quotation is superfluous. Lachrie (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
..even though Brown didn't announce his candidacy his candidacy was preemptively opposed by this opponents. Brown never made a bid, he was never a candidate and was not considered for the post, he was simply included in the list of possible names by the press. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
To argue on those lines is to over-formalise the informal way politics is conducted. It's not a serious objection. Politicians send out feelers to each other and float ideas in the press. Lachrie (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Blanking the talk page is peremptory and unusual. On reflection, the informal IMF pitch could be seen as "significant" in the narrowed context of Brown's post-premiership career. The domestic opposition it aroused reflects Brown's contested record as an economic manager. I'm not sure I'd have added it, but it deserves consideration. Off2riorob can be praised for his diligence and consistency but he does scrub the biographical articles so clean of negatives that they resemble official press releases. His interactions aren't always collaborative, and may well be having a chilling effect on less determined and less emotionally-invested contributors. I fear his usual high-toned defence—the "encyclopedic" style—isn't beyond criticism either, because traditional encyclopedias reflect the preoccupations of establishment authors. It's often simply lack of space in traditional encyclopedias which prevents the inclusion of much critical analysis, producing the terse but factually highly-selective (and thereby often incidentally flattering) "encyclopedic" style. Lachrie (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

True critical analysis from a NPOV point of view can clearly have a value but I think its especially true in regard to the political sector that most of the, and his supporters supported him and his opponents derided him is of no value at all, encyclopedic ally that is. Off2riorob (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, we do have to try to incorporate balancing views or we end up with either little to no analysis or taking the subject at their own evaluation by default. Lachrie (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a point of intellectual balance, but not a point of partisan one. Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
When these can be differentiated, certainly. Lachrie (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In 2011, although he didn't officially announce his candidacy, Brown was included in the speculated list of possible candidates for the vacant IMF position. The coalition government were opposed to Brown's candidacy and Cameron threatened to veto it. There were only two officially announced candidates and on July 5 after gaining more support than Mexico's Central Bank Governor Agustin Carstens, Christine Lagarde was announced as the new director. - Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's going into too much detail. Lachrie (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats the point really its worthless press speculation and partisanship nothing more or less ... we could break it down to..
  • - In 2011 although Brown didn't announce his candidacy for the vacant position of head of the IMF, Cameron said if he did he would attempt to veto it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an objection to your suggestion as a compromise to close the issue down although the statement that he made a bid seems excessive..I could live with it. I just keep wanting to add (off course it was) or (obviously) to the end of it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • A 2011 bid by Brown for the top IMF job was opposed by the coalition government.
Such wording is suitably laconic and would be best, although the point of a talk page is to open up discussion to the virtual floor, rather than to close it down, so perhaps we ought to await opinions from other recent contributors, such as Bill Reid. 'Speculative' and 'worthless' are subjective value judgements which will admit room for reasonable disagreement. The press isn't just a passive observer: it's also an informal amplifier for senior politicians who at times operate cautiously and vicariously. The IMF leadership bid was still at a tentative and informal stage when it was nipped in the bud, but it was sufficiently transparent to bear the weight of that description. On the other hand, to elaborate beyond that would be less safe, factually, as well as risking the placement of undue weight on a non-starter. Lachrie (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of encyclopedic information

Once again, Off2riorob has reverted the article back to his preferred state despite the fact that 3 editors have now tried to reinstate the section. I think his accusations of Cameron's partisan slur rather exposes his own POV and perhaps reveals his own motives regarding the removal of the section for the article. An advanced google search revealed 868,000 hits on this subject among them from the BBC,The Guardian, The New York Times, CNN, Asia Sentinal, Daily Telegraph, Reuters, The Independent, The Mirror, Daily Mail, Channel 4, New Statesman, The Scotsman, The Herald, The Economist, MSN, The Financial Times, The Courier, The Japan Times, Worldnews.com and so on and on. Wikipedia itself reported on the issue [9] so let us please not pretend that the speculation in itself is not newsworthy and that the article should not refer to it. The section contained in the box above is small, balanced and factual and should go back in unaltered. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Inserting an undue section won't matter how many times it will never be stable in the article ( is it that you insist on keeping that comment from David Cameron that Brown didn't know the country was deep in debt in the article? ) - the attacking slur from the leader of the opposition will imo never be credible critical commentary worthy of inclusion in the article. It is imo a fantastic thing in Browns career to have been one of the eight people in the world that the press speculated could be a possibility to become the next head of the IMF. Although imo because Brown never declared or nominated himself it is all a bit speculative and not of much long term value, but in the interest of compromise I have written a couple of (due to the pure speculative nature of the details) less weighty, imo more NPOV writes of the speculation. The best write I have seen - the most NPOV and long term encyclopedic write is below .. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • - In 2011, although he didn't officially announce his candidacy, Brown was included in the speculated list of possible candidates for the vacant head of the IMF position. Some members of the coalition government were opposed to Brown's candidacy and Cameron threatened to veto it.[1] There were only two officially announced candidates and on July 5 after gaining more support than Mexico's Central Bank Governor Agustin Carstens, the French finance minister Christine Lagarde was announced as the new director.[2][3]
When Cameron made his remark he wasn't leader of the opposition, he was Prime Minister. You just don't get it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Brown declared his candidacy, it was to do with the speculation regarding his candidacy. Also three members of the UK government declared that Brown would be a poor choice - Cameron, Osborne and Cable - not the official view of the UK government. You say It is imo a fantastic thing in Browns career to have been one of the eight people in the world that the press speculated could be a possibility to become the next head of the IMF. Then, if it is a fantastic thing, why are you trying to censor it from the article? And why are you bringing stuff into your reply regarding the ultimate MD of the IMF, everybody knows that Christine Lagard got the job and has nothing to do with what I'm trying hard to get you to comprehend ie the speculation regarding Brown's candidacy which generated huge international interest. Are you making some sort of threat that the aticle will never be stable because YOU don't like it , you being the sole reverting editor to your preferred version? --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Your attempts and energy to direct this as an issue about me is a waste - you should focus on content. - Clearly Cameron's comment is a simple partisan attack unworthy of repeating in any encyclopedic NPOV article . I am not attempting to censor anything. I am looking for long term encyclopedic additions that have a reflective correct weight. So you suggest it is irrelevant that Brown was never a candidate and was never considered for the position? Although he was never considered fo rthe position and never nominated himself, partisan political opponents of Brown, including, Cameron, Osborne and Cable said he wasn't a good choice and supporters of Brown, harry and fred and mandy said he was a good choice...My addition imo is npov and clearly states, the issue(the imf job)- the opposition (the coalition and anyone connected to it) and the result.(Brown was never considered by the IMF and was not one of the two nominees) - In 2011 when the IMF directors position was available, Brown was one of the eight global economists considered to be a possible replacement for the position. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you actually read the international and home press speculation? It is inescapably obvious that Brown had been lobbying hard for the job but to get it he had to have the nomination of the government. Up until the point that Cameron publicly voiced his opposition, Brown was seen as a front-runner in the UK and abroad. That is important and needs to be part of the article. The section which you deleted and is reproduced in the box above is measured, accurate, balanced, brief and well sourced and to have it arbitrarily removed is wrong. The intense media specualtion is in itself notable and needs to be dealt with in the article. So once again, you said above It is imo a fantastic thing in Browns career to have been one of the eight people in the world that the press speculated could be a possibility to become the next head of the IMF. Surely a piece of information that describes 'a fantastic thing in Brown's career' should be in the article. No?--Bill Reid | (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Lobbying hard is also a simple matter of speculation. Who did he lobby? - are there and comments from him about his availability or desire for the position? I haven't seen any. It is at the end of the day nothing but speculation and that is important as regards weight. - It is imo a sign of how highly considered as an economist by the press that they included him in their speculative list, its just still speculation and he never applied and was never considered for the post. I personally think that the press included him on its list of possibles a sign of how highly he is regarded as an economist but I still don't see it as long term encyclopedic value because he never applied and was never considered for the position. If its to be mentioned those two facts need to be clearly stated. I think we seem to have a hurdle thats insurmountable, you are insisting that the attacking comment from Cameron is included in the article and I object to it as a simple partisan slur is that correct, you insist on its inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You just have to read the quality press online to see what was going on—see this one (and you need to read both pages) as an example, but there are plenty more [10]—just google for them. Someone wanting the job doesn't apply for it, he has to get a nomination from his or her country's government and if that isn't forthcoming then he or she is stymied. He didn't get the British government's support and that was that. Yet you are still talking about whether or not Brown wanted or didn't want the job while the deleted section is about the speculation regarding the possibility of him getting the job. They aren't the same. Cameron said he didn't approve of Brown's candidature and he gave a reason which was reported in the press and is a legitimate inclusion. He would need to say why he objected or lay himself open to a charge of spitefulness. Regarding your use of the phrase 'attacking comment' from Cameron—when did you last hear a politician praising an opponent? You are incorrect that I am insistent on this particular piece regarding Cameron is in the section, there are plenty more examples from the PM that could be used to ease your sensitivities but it was Cameron's response that killed his chances. -Bill Reid | (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Your Q, "when did you last hear a politician praising an opponent?" - we don't repeat simple attacking partisan comments in BLP article such as, and jonny's political enemy said, jonny was an idiot that didn't see his face in the mirror. - Good to hear that you are not insisting on the inclusion of that comment from Cameron - we may yet find a compromise position then - if you present another option that you want to add for consideration that would be great - personally imo it is plenty to say as I have suggested, that Cameron threatened to veto and not to add any claimed partisan reason - its obvious its was partisan opposition and I have seen that reported in a couple of externals - . your desired addition appears to be along the lines of, Brown was shortlisted for the position of the IMF president but was rejected after Cameron refused to support him - such a position appears completely speculative - Super busy to read these externals , I will get back to this in the next 48 hours - also your comment , "just google for them." - ... you are here to make your case for your desired inclusion, I am not going to be making google searches for you. That speculative editorial from the NYT says, "Mehmet Simsek, publicly threw his hat into the ring Tuesday, declaring: “I don’t have even the tiniest shortage in terms of experience or knowledge.” and as you will see in his article, even though he made a public statement of interest in the position (which Brown never did) , there is still nothing in his article about it. Thanks - regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Someone wanting the job doesn't apply for it, he has to get a nomination from his or her country's government and if that isn't forthcoming then he or she is stymied." - If this is true and can be cited then clearly that is why Brown would never have declared any interest at all - there is no chance at all that he could ever have expected any support from Cameron, - its all a non event completely. In 2011 Brown knew Cameron wouldn't support him so he didn't apply for the IMF vacancy. George Osborne was called “small-minded and petty” after he supported French economic minister Christine Lagarde for the post." Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(outdent)

I'm not really understanding what you mean by this: we don't repeat simple attacking partisan comments in BLP article such as, and jonny's political enemy said, jonny was an idiot that didn't see his face in the mirror.

  1. Who exactly is 'we' ? Do you mean that WP doesn't allow the use of a quote by a Prime Minister directly to the media concerning the competence of a former Prime Minister? That is not the case. If the quote is published by a respected newspaper or broadcaster then if the event is notable it can be used because it is verifiable.
  2. I do not have a desired addition to the deleted section, there is nothing wrong with it and it needs to be re-instated.
  3. Brown was shortlisted for nothing, the section is about the press speculation that he might be a front runner. The NYT piece is typical of the media reports of his interest in getting the job. It was Cameron's statement to the media that killed off any further speculation regarding Brown.
  4. What editors choose to go in to the Mehmet Simsek article has absolutely nothing to do with this one but he evidently had his government's backing or he couldn't have proceeded.

The speculation was notable (you yourself said It is imo a fantastic thing in Browns career to have been one of the eight people in the world that the press speculated could be a possibility to become the next head of the IMF). The section is suitably short and balanced and is fully cited and verifiable. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

IMF speculation 2011

  • - In 2011, Brown was reported to be lobbying for the position of head of the IMF and was included in the speculated list of possible candidates. Some members of the coalition government were opposed to Brown's candidacy and Cameron said he might veto Brown's appointment, saying that in his opinion, "If you have someone who didn't think we had a debt problem in the UK when we self-evidently do have a debt problem, then they might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems." Danny Blanchflower of the New Statesman said about Cameron's position, "This is the behavior of a petty, narrow-minded, vindictive person who is putting his and his party's interests ahead of the nation's." [4] Prominent economist and former President of the World Bank Sir James Wolfensohn said that Brown would be an "excellent choice" to take over the position. George Osborne was called “small-minded and petty” after he supported French economic minister Christine Lagarde for the post."[5][6] There were only two officially announced candidates and on July 5 after gaining more support than Mexico's Central Bank Governor Agustin Carstens, the French finance minister Christine Lagarde was announced as the new director.[7][3]

Issues of balance

So, O2rr who unilateraly removed the section originally without discussion and then argued persistently that it should not go back in has now recreated it but with a non-consensus, unbalanced, non-NPOV text.

  1. "although he didn't officially announce his candidacy" — as explained to O2rr several times, it wasn't within Brown's power to officially announce his candidacy just as the others being speculated about could not officially announce theirs at this point in time. There is no need for this phrase as it is misleading.
  2. "Ed Miliband, backing Brown for the role as his handling of the global economic crisis three years earlier had been “outstanding.”" — that's OK; Miliband's reason for backing Brown
  3. "David Cameron, speaking of the possibility that he would block Brown from taking the position — that's not OK; no reason given for Cameron's possible block. POV by omission of information.
  4. "Prominent economist and former President of the World Bank Sir James Wolfensohn said that Brown would be an "excellent choice" to take over the position" — OK as it stands but no coverage given to those who took an opposite position eg Swedish finance minister, Anders Borg.

I shall put up a balanced NPOV version soon. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

O2rr, your rather petty, silly, stupid (take your pick) changes to the section against the arguments I've put in front of you demonstrate your complete lack of NPOV. You are once again doing these changes without discussion and have gone back to your usual style of I OWN this article and I will do as I like and turning the article into an election pamphlet for Gordon Brown. I will leave the present version up for today only in the hope that you will self-revert or that someone else will get involved on either side of the issue. If you continue down this road, the next course of action will be a widening of the discussions, probably a RfC, to get resolution to this. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The edit war is disappointing. It seems to me that Bill Reid does give a reasonable explanation for his preferred wording. It does seem more neutral and balanced than the version being insisted on by Off2riorob, because Bill Reid is citing Brown's supporters and detractors in a more even-handed way. Right or wrong, the PM's opinion is more determinative and notable in terms of the outcome of the IMF affair than the opinion of Brown's own supporters, and should carry at least equal weight in the text. Yet in Off2riorob's version the PM's reasoning isn't explained but is effectively dismissed as a partisan attack on Brown. At the same time, Off2riorob chooses to emphasise the support for Brown and criticism of the PM, as if that could be assumed to be non-partisan. Particularly egregious is the following wording: "for which he [the PM] was accused of pursuing a vendetta against Brown for, and not acting in the national interests as Brown was seen by many as being eminently qualified". In terms of bias, that's pretty appalling. It reads like partisan spin. In the edit summary Off2riorob contemptuously dismisses the PM's position as partisan, while implicitly backing the position of Brown's supporters. The only explanation is that Off2riorob agrees with Brown's supporters, which, right or wrong, isn't being politically neutral.
Personally, I don't think the IMF affair is all that important, but I am persuaded that it deserves at least a mention in the context of Brown's career since losing the election. The most pertinent fact to come out of the whole affair is that Brown's nomination did not succeed, and a contributing factor to Brown's failure was the negative attitude of the British government. If editors do want to go into any further detail, then the opposing views about the merits or otherwise of Brown's candidacy have to be given approximately equal weight. And of the two, Bill Reid's version genuinely does seem much more balanced and neutral. I urge Off2riorob either to desist or to present a more neutral text than what's been suggested so far. Lachrie (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you regarding the need for the IMF speculation to be provided but perhaps needs to be worded more simply. Here is a stab at wording that maintains neutrality.
In April 2011, media reports linked Brown with the role as the next Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund following the scheduled retirement of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Brown's successor and Leader of the Opposition, Ed Milliband, supported Brown for the role while the Prime Minster, David Cameron, voiced oppostion to this. Following the arrest of Strauss-Kahn for alleged sexual assault in May 2011, and his subsequent resignation, these reports re-surfaced. Support for Brown among economists was mixed but British Government backing for his candidature was not forthcoming and instead supported Christine Lagarde—the eventual successful candidate—for the post. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This seems fine and very even-handed. The new wording is less informative and rather circumspect, but for that reason it's also likely to be less contentious, so I'm happy to support it. I thought your previous wording was also reasonable and I'd have been content to revert to the text you had before. But since the IMF candidature is a relatively minor story, I suppose the previous level of detail about the motivations of opponents and supporters could be challenged as excessive. Moreover, the controversy over Brown's economic record would be best dealt with in earlier sections relating to his time in government, without having to be repeated here. Lachrie (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ta. I'll add citations and put it up tomorrow. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Failure

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There doesn't seem to be any reference to the Gordon Brown's hubris and misjudgement. Why? Leonig Mig (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. Wikipedia is thoroughly packed with hagiography, but this dire article is one of the worst examples in the entire project. The reason is crystal clear: the horrific, blatant WP:OWN behaviour of one (currently blocked) user, who has even changed Username to attempt to avoid detection. It is time Wikipedia took charge of the article and allowed full discussion and sane editing. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Also agree. User:Youreallycan under his previous persona of User:Off2riorob is the self appointed owner of this article and wishes to sanitize all even handed treatment of Brown. I'd support reasonable well sourced development of the article. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I personally do not intend to waste a single minute of my time improving this article until we either get an assurance from User:Youreallycan (ie. User:Off2riorob) that they will desist all rude and aggressive editing of this article and Talk page (and that they understand why WP:OWN is an important official policy for the project, and accept its terms), or else we get Admin assurance that they are keeping a close eye on the article. Otherwise any time spent on this article is wasted time, and I have no intention of trying to engage with a User with the social skills and manners of a badly brought up 5 year old. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Understand what you're saying but the article is crying out for balance. It really needs to be rid of some weasel editing and replaced with unbiased, well sourced material. I'll try and do that.--Bill Reid | (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be worth putting a neutrality tag at the top of the article. This discussion is sufficient to rationalise it. Leonig Mig (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Cameron hints at blocking Brown bid for IMF job". BBC News. 19 April 2011.
  2. ^ Ewing, Jack (14 June 2011). "I.M.F. Names Lagarde and Carstens as Contenders for Top Post". New York Times. Retrieved 17 June 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  3. ^ a b "France's Lagarde elected new IMF chief". Reuters. 28 June 2011. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
  4. ^ "It is petty of Cameron to oppose Brown's IMF bid". The New Statesman. April 19, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessadte= ignored (help)
  5. ^ "Economist backs Gordon Brown for IMF top job". The Mirror. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 17 July 2011.
  6. ^ "Cameron hints at blocking Brown bid for IMF job". BBC News. 19 April 2011.
  7. ^ Ewing, Jack (14 June 2011). "I.M.F. Names Lagarde and Carstens as Contenders for Top Post". New York Times. Retrieved 17 June 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gordon_Brown/Archive_5&oldid=1136771921"