Talk:David Cameron/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Insertion of penis into a dead pig's mouth

According to Conservative peer Michael Ashcroft, some currently unpublished photographic evidence, and as reported in many of the British newspapers, Cameron sexually assaulted a dead pig during his student days at Oxford University. This probably warrants inclusion in this biography somewhere. Perhaps under the 'Personal life' or 'Education' sections. 195.99.34.218 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Tabloid sources are not appropriate for a Biography of a Living Person as per BLP guidelines, especially for a potentially libellous claim Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it a tabloid source though? The story's been covered in quite a few non-tabloid newspapers by now, but surely the source itself would be the Ashcroft book anyway? I think it definitely merits some mention given the scale of the response to it. 86.14.118.207 (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The book isn't published, it will be next month, and this information may become verified in reliable sources in time, or a story about the impact of the allegations might be. Right now it isn't. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Further, and I add this only as a legal point, the allegation refers to a dead pig, not a living pig, so it would not qualify as a sexual assault, or any other illegal act.

Absurd. A tabloid paper is a perfectly acceptable source when it is serialising a book. Mezigue (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Until you can quote the actual book, I would leave it out. Wikipedia should not be engaging in tabloid gossip Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the BBC and Sky News have studiously avoided directly discussing the pig allegation even when reporting on the Ashcroft book. If, and when it starts being directly referenced by appropriate sources, it's probably going to need treating with the appropriate degree of scepticism given Ashcroft's obvious grudge against Cameron... Dtellett (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, both necrophilia and bestiality are illegal. This info should be in the article, but if it has to wait until the actual publication of the book, so be it. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Bestiality involves penetration of the "vagina or anus" of a living animal. Necrophilia involves having sexual intercourse with a dead person.[1]

Though I'm not about to put it back, I will note that both the DM and Ashcroft were happy to put this out there under UK libel laws, knowing precisely how they work, and knowing that this is the sort of thing you can't even imply about someone powerful in the UK without very strong backing (which is why I didn't immediately remove it) - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The BBC are now coyly reporting about allegations, without going into details, although here has various BBC correspondents going into more detail. And we have a broadsheet, The Guardian, fully reporting on the story. We should definitely tread carefully though. Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree - this is in all the broadsheets now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.131.198 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Indy has it [2], as do the Grauniad [3], the Telegraph [4] and The Times [5] Longwayround (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

They are commenting on the claims, not making the claims themselves Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So, can we say something like, "In September 2015, a biography of Cameron by Lord Ashcroft, serialised before publication in The Daily Mail, made a number of claims relating to Cameron's time at university and after, including of drug-taking and an initiation ritual in an Oxford University drinking club."? Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If anything is to be included, it should be something like that. But to be honest, there have been allegations about Cameron at Oxford for a long time, and most (all?) of them are just rumours with nothing substantiating them. This particular allegation is a tabloid reporting a partisan source who claims an unknown person saw a photo belonging to another unknown person who claimed it was Cameron in the initiation ceremony. Other sources are just reporting the reporting of the allegation. Given the BLP rules, I think it is the best course not to include anything. 137.222.248.138 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. We have to mention it some way, because the story has been news all over the world (Washington Post, Liberation, Der Spiegel, Sydney Herald, etc. The only thing we have to be careful of is reporting anything that was said in the book as fact or in Wikipedia's voice. I think the idea that Bondegezou mentioned above is probably the best way to proceeed. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because a story is in world news doesn't mean it has to be featured in a biography article. Note that a story about Jeremy Corbyn having an affair with Diane Abbott, and then appointing her to his cabinet were not included in his article after discussion on the talk page, I believe their reasoning is also valid here 19:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)78.150.217.1 (talk)

Perhaps we should invite Telegraph journalist James Kirkup to write the footnote he predicts we will end up with JRPG (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@78.150.217.1: Diane Abbott was above the legal age of consent, the pig wasn’t. FivePillarPurist (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a major news story, covered by a large number of reliable sources. I feel we should say something. The wording I suggested earlier or something similar should cover WP:BLP issues. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There are new reports this morning, and we'll see what more comes tomorrow. Bondegezou (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

For serious readers, this is about Ashcroft's relationship with Cameron. I started a small section on it & wording along Bondegezou's ideas above logically add to it. Bondegezou can take this as my vote for him to add it to this section. JRPG (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The people who don't want it put up are deliberately playing politics, which is against Wikipedia policy. This is a major news story and is being reported around the world. STOP PLAYING POLITICS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.234.223.21 (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PigGate

Wikipedia shouldn't operate like the british home office and the BBC and censor stuff by protecting the page. Hundreds of news articles are emerging. I do agree that biographical data should not be libelous but if the allegations are verified (which as of today they have not been just rumor mongering) and the alleged photo turns up, then it may be relevant info. It's certainly relevant that the non-dom status of Ashcroft is something the PM may have known about and that's important. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This page (as most high-profile politicians are) was made protected long before this latest story broke. If you have a specific request for an edit, please place it on the talk page and editors will consider it Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think as of today the piggate material belongs in that article unless it erupts into a full scandal that affects his role of the PM. The materials are tabloid, unverified, and published as some sort of revenge angle. That type of content doesn't belong in a balanced bio. On the other hand, the allegations he was brokering positions in the UK government and knew of Ashcroft's non-dom status and concealed it would be relevant is this were verifiable. However, Ashcroft, in going on a revenge kick, has suspect credibility and his book I would not consider a reliable source unless there was some evidence. So at this time, I think it may deserve a mention about the party tiff between Ashcroft and Cameron, but the pig thing doesn't belong here. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As The Independent put it, “it is the pig part which is the story here, not the wider and well-known fallout between Cameron and Ashcroft.“ (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbcs-refusal-to-report-the-dead-pig-allegations-against-david-cameron-is-unacceptable-10511162.html) FivePillarPurist (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should decide what goes in articles based on what The Independent says Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've no particular opinion on this, but the Indie is possibly the only British paper that (a) isn't tabloid nonsense, (b) isn't the Guardian, and (c) isn't run by Murdoch. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it is not certain whether these allegations should appear in article. However, Call Me Dave warrants inclusion in Further Reading, Full Biography perhaps marked as unauthorised. It exists, even if only some of it is true - an uncontroversial statement about any biography... Morganfield (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Article length

This article is far too long - WP:Article size says that any article over 100 kB should "almost certainly be divided" and it is currently on just under 180,000 kB. I propose removing a large chunk of the "Media Commentary" section, and possibly creating a new article "Early Career of David Cameron" (possibly with a better title!). What do others think? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also suggest removing a large chunk of the "Ancestry" section - there is already a full article on this and the content in this section alone is much more than a quick summary. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nonsenseferret which parts of the article would you cut/split off instead? It is clearly too long, your edits have taken it back up to 117,000 kB which is still well over the guidelines as I have written above. There is already an article for Cameron's ancestry and it does not need such in-depth detail about distant relatives. We could go into endless detail about the reaction to Cameron as leader, but there is no need for a one-sided set of paragraphs detailing how people felt about him at this stage. If you think it is notable enough, you could create a new article "Media portrayal of David Cameron" or something similar Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with these wholesale cuts of well sourced and relevant material. --ℕ ℱ 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing the fact that they are well-sourced or relevant to Cameron, the problem is that if we included all information that fitted into this category, then we could have literally thousands of articles that have been written about him. Are you happy with the current length of the article or can you suggest an alternative? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I do, this article needs loads of cutting. Just look at the lead; it's an unholy mess. Of course, it's easy to say that without suggesting the changes, but it's pointless putting the time in until there's consensus that changes need to be made. Bromley86 (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Could someone else comment their views so we can get a consensus here? Thanks Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that this article has grown to an absurd size and that the "Political commentary" section should go or be trimmed to a few elements. This is what happens when every editor with a bee in their bonnet adds a sub-section. Additionally, there exist articles such as Political positions of David Cameron, First Cameron ministry and Second Cameron ministry where a lot of material could be profitably moved. Mezigue (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the family section is unnecessarily long, especially with a separate article existing for this. The other section which needs the most attention is the "Policies and Views" section, which reads more like a menu of things certain Wikipedia editors find important than a definitive summary of Cameron's core positions (there appears to be little reason at all why his rather unremarkable comments on antibiotic resistance or congratulations of Modi warrant their own subsections. On the other hand, a more glaring issue than the length is that some sections don't appear to have been updated in 2-3 years; I'm inclined to attempt to rectify that as an even higher priority. Dtellett (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions guys, I've removed the extra content on his distant family and placed an updated poll in there. Dtellett which parts would you like to update? I also presume you mean the Political Commentary section as the antibiotics/Modi comments are in this section not the "Policies and Views" section. Are there any bits of this section anyone would like to keep or move into other sections otherwise I will delete it. There are not similar sections in other major leaders BLPs, e.g. Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Jeremy Corbyn Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I also suggest changing the "Standing in Opinion Polls" to just cover polls on his personal ratings - there is no need to cover Conservative ratings as well Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me as, in history, the ultimate poll is how the party performed in elections under his leadership, and that will be covered. I'd only mention party polls if they were especially relevant, for example if the Conservatives were polling at 25% but Cameron was polling at 70%. Further, note that there's no such section in the Ed Miliband article; that just mentions key polls, where relevant to other statements. Ditto Tony Blair. So we might want to take our lead from those and cut the entire section. Bromley86 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, agree with this. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to add a couple of very important points about this argument about page size. The page size you are referring to is not calculated in line with the guidelines, you have to look at the readable prose length which is significantly less than the total page size in bytes which includes the markup of tables and templates etc in addition to the prose text. In fact the readable prose size of this page is in fact within reasonable limits, is broadly in line with the length of articles such as Barack Obama. Secondly, even if it were too long, which it is not according to the guidelines, then we would of course be following Wikipedia:Article_size#Breaking_out_trivial_or_controversial_sections which means that a proper summary would need to be written of any controversial material that is moved to another page. Simply deleting well sourced content that doesn't exist elsewhere and without providing a summary in this page would simply be beyond the pale unacceptable. In this case, since the page is not too long by the guidelines it is somewhat of a moot point. --ℕ ℱ 20:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to add as of this edit, in case people are having difficulty calculating themselves, the current readable prose size is 69 kB (11578 words). --ℕ ℱ 20:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE re ">100 kB Almost certainly should be divided" applies only to readable prose.

22:53, 17 September 2015 it was 72 kB (11988 words) "readable prose size", just prior to this thread being started.

The current version, 23:23, 23 September 2015, is 69 kB (11552 words).

There is no urgent need for chopping chunks or splitting. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Parliamentary votes

I think this subsection should be removed as a list of apparently arbitrarily-selected primary-sourced list of pre-2006 whipped votes with minimal commentary doesn't really belong in an article about someone now serving their second term as Prime Minister. Hopefully this will make it easier to expand the section on Cameron's policies and views with appropriately-sourced commentary on what his main views actually are and whether they've changed. Some of them are already covered elsewhere in the article, such as his votes on LGBT issues. I guess the fact his opposition to the hunting ban was influenced by him having participated in hunts could be added to the "personal life" section if anyone think's it's necessary to keep that in the main article? His votes on the 2003 Iraq war could be added to the existing section on his positions on war in Iraq which already highlights that he supported it and subsequently supported calls for an inquiry. Any objections? Dtellett (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed re. removing the section. Cf. other political leaders' bios. Bromley86 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Piggate AfD

{{Merge from|Piggate}}  Disagree: The piggate scandal is something temporary, while the David Cameron article is supposed to be about more relevant facts about the prime minister. It is better that the piggate article remains as a standalone about an event that happened and was later forgotten Huritisho (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree: An event that will no doubt fade from the public conscience. If Piggate should be merged anywhere, it should be into Ashcroft's biography as one of many allegations made there about Cameron. This is Paul (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As Paul says, although I suspect it will never quite fade. Bromley86 (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree: The allegation is referenced in the existing article in adequate detail; the other material is superfluous and if it belongs anywhere else it's in the Call Me Dave article Dtellett (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Descent

David says that his great-great grandfather was Jewish. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10692757/David-Cameron-speaks-of-Jewish-ancestors-including-great-great-grandfather-and-Yiddish-novelist.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.201.186 (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

One of Cameron's Jewish banking ancestors helped the Rothschilds finance the Japanese in a war against Russia. I see that Jews haven airbrushed this from the wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=682391128&oldid=682389366 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.174.70 (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100510170722/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/wales/ps/sites/roughguide/hall_of_fame/pages/david_cameron.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/ps/sites/roughguide/hall_of_fame/pages/david_cameron.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Links checked - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 31/01/14

Cameron's bike was stolen the first time at 6pm on the 23rd July 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7523144.stm Then again in May 2009 as per ref. 247.

This is reported under the cycling section.

Why include his 8th cousin??

copy ex rjensen talk page:

Accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the information about piggate be moved from the 'Education' section to the 'Personal life' section, under its own subheading 'Accusations of bestiality'?

These are serious allegations, and, if true, reveal some disturbing facts about the sexual predilections of the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Other editors keep reverting my edit, saying that David Cameron was only posing for a photo (so he was producing porn then?) and that the act doesn't constitute a sexual act, because the pig was dead and wasn't penetrated in the anus or vagina. So, oral sex with a dead body doesn't count? Not when David Cameron is involved? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-it-illegal-to-have-sex-with-a-dead-pig-heres-what-the-law-says-about-the-allegations-surrounding-10510743.html "Since the animal in question was not living and nor was its vagina or anus penetrated it would appear no offence could have been committed under the 2003 legislation" (bestiality allegations) and "Since animals are not granted legal personhood at law no offence could have been committed under the 2003 legislation." (necrophilia allegations). So no, oral sex with a dead animal doesn't count Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

These are comments made by British lawyers about David Cameron's actions viewed through the lens of the British law. The thing is, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the British law. We're not talking about whether he can be held accountable for his actions or not. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you are talking as if the allegation is true. The likelihood is that it's not. The author of the book has admitted that it is just third-hand tittle-tattle that cannot be stood up. It's not even certain that the story related to Cameron in the first place. I don't thik Wikipedia should be giving any further credence to this nonsense. -- Alarics (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The piece of text that I'm proposing to move is not about whether it's true or not, it's about allegations. They were made, received extensive media coverage (we even have an article on piggate), and, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the author says now. Who knows what kind of pressure they put on him...

Also, I'm not talking about it "as if the allegations are true". Notice my use of the phrase 'if true' . Your description of the story as 'nonsense' , on the other hand, betrays a bias. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In my view the article already says more than enough about this and I am opposed to making any more of it. The way it is written suggests an implication that it is probably true, while the consensus of serious comment in the media (as opposed to Twitter and tabloid hysteria) seems to be that it very likely is not true. I also disagree that what was alleged, even in the unlikely event that it is true, constitutes "bestiality", which surely means having sex with a live animal. -- Alarics (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record—I didn't write any of this, I merely tried moving everything.

Why does the animal have to be dead? What about necrophilia? Does a human having sex with a human corpse not count as sex?

True/not true is all speculation and should be of no concern to us until proven true or otherwise. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to call someone momentarily putting their genitals into the open mouth of a long-dead pig's head (not even a whole pig) "having sex". Especially with other people present. Obviously just a drunken prank, if it happened at all. To describe this has having anything to do with the person's "sexual predilections" seems to me absurd. -- Alarics (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The right place for this could be under Cameron and Lord Ashcroft since Call Me Dave is mentioned there already. We could perhaps quickly summarise this and other significant claims made in the book. I don't think these allegations should be included in his university or personal life as they are only allegations. This is Paul (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, no OR. So you need a RS that makes the case you want to. Finding one is exceedingly unlikely because, even if the allegation is true (and the evidence at the moment is tissue thin), the situation is clearly quite different from the case that you're trying to make/explore, i.e. that an initiation ceremony that involves a severed pig's head is sexual. I'm quite certain if you looked hard enough, you'd find people for whom that act would be sexual, but I'm equally certain that it would almost always just be a weird initiation rite. Bromley86 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As above, necrophilia is having sex with a dead human, not a dead animal Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, although I don't think I've suggested otherwise. Bromley86 (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was in response to Pfftallofthemaretaken Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• No It would be completely unjustified to label an unsubstantiated allegation of a student prank 'bestiality'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• No per WP:BLP. Categorisation of the alleged events in this manner is not supported by the sources. NB: I am also modifying the header for this section, again per WP:BLP - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• No. I was going to say 'yes' in some form given the abundance of sources, but then I looked through the piggate article in more detail and saw sentences such as 'Guinness called the story "purely malicious gossip"'. Purely malicious gossip should of course not be mentioned. Furthermore, even the authors of the book don't seem convinced that the allegations are true, by admitting a possible case of mistaken identity. The incident could be mentioned, but I would not support any more than one or two sentences about how Cameron has been subject to such personal attacks in the past. Banedon (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• U wot m8!? Your personal shock from this revealation is irrelevant when writing an encyclopedia article. The sources don't describe it as bestiality, so we don't either. Absolutely no sources have seriously argued that Cameron has a general penchant for pigs that would warrant moving this to the personal life section. Brustopher (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• No. Describing thing as 'bestiality' is not even beginning to be justified, even if the event actually happened, it's indicative of a bizarre student, drunken 'dare'. Does a 'private part of his anatomy' refer to his big toe? Probably not, but it's pure synth to ASSUME not, as are all the other assumptions implicit in the question. Everything about the story is hedged in with 'probably didn't happen but isn't the story fun', even from the authors. Even his worst enemies are appalled at the triviality of the coverage. I'm surprised any editor would even CONSIDER making this change, (and I wouldn't vote for him in a month of Sundays). Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo

Infobox photo is dated and over five years old now, can anyone find, or has anyone got a recent one? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Newer photo added from September 2014, five years more recent, if you know how to crop it and upload it I think it would be preferable Govindaharihari (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

7 Political commentary 7.21 Environment

On 19th October, Prof Jacquie McGlade, the UNs chief environment secretary, said the UK was shifting away from clean energy as the rest of the world rushed towards it. Renewabled energy criticism.

Whilst Al Gore Said: Fossil fuels have enjoyed subsidies at least 44 times as high as those for renewable energy, Gore said, in a pointed reference to David Cameron’s government’s decisions to effectively end the building of new onshore wind farms, and slashing of support for solar panels. Al Gore Puzzled by UK cuts to renewable energy support SelimAlbum (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This detail is worthy, but not here, David Cameron’s government’s decisions is the reason it doesn't belong here., check out that page and request it added there. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131118204730/http://www.sundaytimes.lk:80/top-story/40318.html to http://www.sundaytimes.lk/top-story/40318.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131202232935/http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2205628-torture-claims-cast-shadow-over-sri-lankas-commonwealth-summit/ to http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2205628-torture-claims-cast-shadow-over-sri-lankas-commonwealth-summit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080225193435/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/15/nbrown115.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/15/nbrown115.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pig intercourse

there is no mention of the allegations of bestiality against cameron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this within a couple of days. JAGUAR  21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "In 2013, Cameron promised an 'In/Out' referendum on the UK's membership of the EU before the end of 2017, after a period of renegotiation, if the Conservatives were to gain a majority in the 2015 general election; the referendum was legislated following their 2015 election victory" - this is outdated, needs to mention that the EU referendum is being held in June 2016
• The third paragraph of the Family section should be merged with the second paragraph, as it's uncomfortable having three paragraphs beginning with "Cameron"
• "at Heatherdown School in Winkfield (near Ascot) in Berkshire" - unnecessary to have this in brackets, I'd recommend removing it
• "which counts Prince Andrew and Prince Edward among its old boys" - what does this mean?
• "At the age of thirteen, he went on to Eton College in Berkshire" - delink Berkshire, already linked
• I recommend merging the fourth and fifth paragraphs in the education section together, to improve prose flow
• "Cameron was later told by one of his professors that it was 'definitely an attempt'" - should be double quotation marks (unless there's a reason why they're single?)
• "Cameron's period in the Bullingdon Club was examined in a Channel 4 docu-drama, When Boris Met Dave." - needs a citation
• "someone leaked to the Press that the Labour Party had called for a meeting" - no capital needed
• "Cameron left Carlton to run for Parliament in 1997, returning to his job after his defeat." - needs a citation
• The latter half of the Carlton, 1994–2001 section is unsourced
• "In his first address outside 10 Downing Street, he announced his intention to form a coalition government, the first since the Second World War, with the Liberal Democrats." - this too has no citation, but can easily be sourced
• "Earlier in his term he had managed to secure a huge majority for UK participation in UN-backed military action in Libya However, Cameron" - full stop needed
• "As promised in the election manifesto, he set a date for a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union, and announced that he would be campaigning for Britain to remain within a "reformed EU"" - this needs updating and merged into the previous paragraph
• "She resigned however in August 2014 over the government's handling of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict." - needs a citation
• "In light of this Cameron said" - comma needed
• "In late 2009, the Tory lead decreased and by January 2010 some polls were predicting a hung parliament, which was the eventual result" - replace with Conservative
• No dead links. Very impressive for an article this size!
• No dab links

This article isn't in bad shape. It's certainly comprehensive, well written and neglects no major facts. The GA criteria required every paragraph and claim to have at least one citation, so you'll notice a lot of things I've picked out that needs citations (which most can easily be found). The rest are minor nitpickings and shouldn't be too hard to address. Once all of the above are out of the way then this can pass! JAGUAR  21:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope this is an appropriate place to comment. With respect, as a recent fairly active contributor to the article and similar BLPs rather than someone involved in peer review processes, it's IMHO a long way from being comprehensive, has due weight issues and is poorly structured. Specific major issues I think need addressing in addition to the missing citations and corrections you've flagged (some of which I've now fixed -- thanks for highlighting) include:

• Structure: the "political commentary" section is a long, uneven and randomly-ordered mix of major and very minor political issues of his premiership (some of them covered elsewhere in the article), skeletons in his closet from the distant past and foreign policy positions. It probably needs a total rethink as well as a prune. Splitting into "Foreign policy", "Domestic policy" and "background" might be one way of doing it.
• Due weight/Completeness: major issues of his premiership including an EU referendum campaign he is personally closely identified with and "austerity" get less attention in the "Political Commentary" section than some long-forgotten comments he made about education in 2010, his willingness to meet the Indian premier and some unremarkable comments he made about the Falklands. There's a fair bit of existing content that should probably be farmed out to "Political positions of David Cameron" or "Premiership of David Cameron" articles, but at least as much that needs to be written from scratch.
• Structure/Due weight His shadow cabinet reshuffles prior to becoming PM get a paragraph. His more consequential actual Cabinet reshuffles are not. (I'd err on the side of removing the early Cabinet stuff, but others might see it differently)
• POV the "Reaction to Cameron as leader" subsection consists purely of negative reactions to his election which is not at all reflective of public opinion at the time
• Structure/POV "Shortlists for Parliamentary candidates" is a subsection of something completely unrelated, begins with "similarly" and is again pure undiluted criticism of an initiative it doesn't even explain
• Inappropriate sourcing. I've removed entirely superfluous attributions to Russia Today and freebie tabloid Metro, but suspect there are other sources as questionable

The article has changed a huge amount since it was given the originally given good article status in 2007 when Cameron didn't have any Prime Ministerial record to [inadequately] summarise (and so the excellent and in some cases even excessively-detailed sections on his early career constituted the bulk of the article). I think it still needs a lot of pruning and a lot of new content to adequately summarise his career as of nine years later. Dtellett (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've also pointed out some issues with the referencing here. There are probably more. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

Cause for concern

I'm sorry to be a party pooper but I'm afraid that I do feel the need to express some strong concerns about the state of this article, and would recommend that it not be awarded GA status at this time. A brief comparison between the David Cameron article and pre-existing GA-rated political biographies (whether those of British politicians like Ken Livingstone or those of big international figures like Nelson Mandela) reflects a very evident gulf in quality. This article has not made use of the fully-researched, published biographies of Cameron nor of any academic studies of his administration but rather has been assembled through the ad hoc use of any freely available source that comes to hand; little or no attempt has therefore been made to utilise the most important and useful sources currently available. Moreover, the structure of the article isn't up-to-scratch; to cite just one example, we have many sections that contain merely a sentence rather than a full paragraph. Again, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but GA rating is a form of quality control and I do believe that it should be upheld across the board. This article is nowhere near the quality that we should expect from a Good Article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Patient Zero, are you still up for addressing the concerns listed? I know it's a lot to take in, so I'll be happy to leave it on hold or close it if you need more time. A subject like this requires a list of comprehensive sources as well as things like biographies and academic studies. JAGUAR  18:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jaguar - just received your message. I'm currently very busy, and midway through my GCSEs, so I will be unavailable to address these concerns. I apologise for the inconvenience and give you permission to fail the review if nobody else wishes to act on my behalf. Regards --PatientZero ^talk 12:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's OK, I'm sorry to do this as an inconvenient time. Good luck with your GCSEs, I remember them like they were yesterday! If you plan on renominating I'll be more than happy to do this again. JAGUAR  13:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jaguar for the good luck wishes. 5 down so far! --PatientZero ^talk 15:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

Copypaste of article removed 139.216.235.151 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request ... another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Statutory instruments and democracy.

Hi Collect. I agree that with the statement on your page that “sometimes even editors who lock horns can show respect for each other” and please note, I always seek resolution not confrontation. Could I ask you to have a look at your edit of 19 January as you may have overlooked its significance or thought it breachedWP:NPOV? The Independent article is important because it describes HMG’s implementation or attempted implementation of very significant cuts which were neither spelt out before the election nor debated in parliament. The words in the original title appear in the article –though I accept I should have put them in quotes. Your title refers simply refers to the innocuous sounding “statutory instrument” which the article itself describes as “a little-known device” The title does need explanation as Wikipedia’s primary purpose is to educate people less well informed than ourselves. I’ll update in the next few days taking into account comments from anyone -the current version is too short and meaningless to be of use. This link highlights the same concerns about democracy.
Regards JRPG (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I rather think I need to looks ta is closely - I do know that it is not usual for Wikipedia to "explain" what an article says, as a rule. Collect (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem & wp:NORUSH -you do far more edits than I do but I perhaps study papers & news in more detail. The sums involved & the strong views of cross party backbench MPs suggest a change is happening and this makes it important that we get it right. Sam Blacketer and Absolutelypuremilk may also find it interesting. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would be ok with changing the explanation to "to allow the government to modify existing laws without necessarily debating them in Parliament, although MPs can debate them if they wish" which is what I understood from the Statutory Instrument (UK) article (which also needs work), rather than the previous explanation which seemed slightly misleading, as both the electoral changes and tax credits have been debated in Parliament. The electoral changes point seems pushing a point of view, and the Osborne point probably applies to him rather than Cameron, but I'm not opposed in principle to including an example of where it has been used, provided it uses a secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for suggestions Absolutelypuremilk and Collect. I should explain that as a believer in democracy, I found this a very disturbing article albeit one which needs reading a couple of times. I was one of 160,000 people who lost a pension following a change to the 1995 Pensions act & hence was already familiar with the egregious possibilities. In 1995 the main debates took place in the Lords, it certainly wasn't discussed in the press and most MPs knew nothing about it. Statutory Instruments are used for aspects which don't go through a select committee.

Three quotes

The problem is that statutory instruments are not well scrutinised in the Commons ..

The policy was not included in the Conservatives’ election manifesto and was nodded through by an obscure Commons committee without the substance of the change being debated.

In short, it is way of way of forcing through key law changes without debate

I think we are at risk of ignoring a very significant change. I’d like to get consensus on reinstalling my original quite short offering though I don’t object if it goes on Osbourne's page. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right JRPG - the greater use of statutory instruments is widely recognised as a very concerning trend. --ℕ ℱ 19:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You need reliable (non-political, ideally) sources making claims about the "attempt" being unusual in some manner and, frankly, I think the issue of being a "statutory instrument" is moot here. AFAICT, the use of that procedure is akin to listing regulations on the US Federal Register ... which is very frequent. And it is not our task to make sure readers hold "correct opinions" - we only use what the reliable sources specifically state as fact, and do not act as though we, as editors, know more than the sources state outright. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Collect. I had assumed, probably wrongly, that you are UK based. There are quite fundamental difference between the UK & US not least because the ministers have always been appointed by the Queen AKA the crown & not by parliament. MPs remain concerned about being ignored by ministers.

Re reliable sources, WP:Suggested sources#Current news clearly shows the Independent which has an excellent reputation. I'm not sure if you get the Independent but I believe my contribution is a succinct summary of an article which should be read by everyone. JRPG (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source - where its article is actually specific to the article for which it is being used as a source. Thus, many of the "thought pieces" in many sources which are not specific to a living person are good sources for stating the opinions therein, cited as opinions., in broad articles not dealing with a specific person. The link at politics.co given above is, for example, labeled as "comment", and does not deal with Cameron, and so is not a good source for claims of fact in the Cameron BLP. In the case of my edit on 19 Jan, note that I did not remove the Independent as a source, but only removed the claims:

"highlighted an over 50% increase to allow ministers to change the law without a debate in Parliament. In particular it mentioned electoral register changes believed likely to deny over a million people their rights and George Osborn's unsuccessful attempt to cut £4Billion from tax credits

Which has several claims of fact: 1. That the purpose of the rise since 2010 was specifically "to allow ministers" etc. Second that the changes would, as a matter of fact, "deny over a million persons their rights." Third that it was related, as fact, to a claim that Osborn sought to cut an amount from tax credits. The Independent in its commentary states:

"Since the election the Conservative Government has used a parliamentary procedure called a statutory instrument to try to introduce swathes of significant new laws covering everything from fracking to fox hunting and benefit cuts without debate on the floor of the House of Commons."

Which does not say that there was a specific percentage rise in use (derived only by the graph from 1996 to date), or that the use of such instruments was not used in the past, nor that the use was to allow ministers to somehow do something illicit or illegal. Sorry - the fact is the "statutory instruments" were introduced by Labour in the late 1940s. The purpose of such instruments has naught to do with trying to deny anyone their voting rights, and that the relationship of Cameron as a living person to denial of voting rights etc. is improper insertion of opinion into a BLP here. Parliament itself is a good source on what they are, and are not, if we wish to simply address the use of such instruments: "Statutory Instruments, also known as SIs, are a form of legislation which allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act. They are also referred to as secondary, delegated or subordinate legislation." That is, they are precisely the same as issuing rules and regulations as found in every parliamentary democracy across the globe. The relevance to the Cameron BLP is de minimis at most. The adding of "side issues" (seeking to deny a million persons the right to vote, etc.) not related to Cameron is improper here. Thus the edit I made which sticks to matters of fact cited as fact, and removes material not related to Cameron as a living person. Is this clear? I removed zero sources there, and simply removed material not properly germane to this article, including claims which were claims of opinion. Collect (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Collect, I'm short of time at the moment but please don't take my comments as a personal challenge or a desire to go to Ukip style edit wars as these damage everyone & life is too short. I'd appreciate constructive comments from you and others on whether or where there is an alternate position/article for this summary & proceed relatively peacefully from there :) Regards JRPG (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Look at the edit I made:

In January 2016, [[The Independent]] said there was an over 50% increase of the use of [[Statutory Instrument (UK)|statutory instruments]] since 2010. [[Michael Jopling, Baron Jopling| Lord Jopling]] deplored the behaviour which he called an abuse whilst [[Baroness Smith of Basildon]] asked whether it was the start of "constitutional gerrymandering."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-waging-war-on-parliament-by-forcing-through-key-legal-changes-without-debate-a6820176.html|title=Government accused of 'waging war' on Parliament by forcing through key law changes without debate|author=Oliver Wright, Nigel Morris|work=The Independent|date=18 January 2016|accessdate=18 January 2016}}</ref>''

Note I specifically used the Independent source - so please do not assert that I removed it. And the edit gives a reasonable summary of the Independent article. It includes the quoted opinions of two persons who are upset at SI, and cites their opinions as being opinions. What more can you ask for? Collect (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A couple of points on the text as is: first with statutory instruments being to most readers a rather arcane point, I'd rather see it referenced in passing in a paragraph on his actions and views on Westminster democracy rather than as a standalone item, e.g.

Cameron argued in favour of retaining the FPTP Parliamentary system when it was put to referendum, (quote from Cameron). He has ruled out reforms of the House of Lords, although he called for a review into limiting the Lords' powers to block legislation following their rejection of planned tax credit cuts in late 2015. Cameron's government has used statutory instruments, which allow legislation to be amended without members of both houses voting on a new Act, significantly more than previous administrations

(note this Telegraph article [6] covers both statutory instruments and the Strathclyde review as related concepts, so I don't think this runs the risk of being a WP:synthy way of presenting the issue) Secondly, there's a Premiership of David Cameron article intended to cover all aspects of how the country has been governed in the last six years rather than focusing specifically on Cameron's actions, so this might be a better home for any detailed commentary on how the administration have used statutory instruments Dtellett (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dtellett. This looks a better idea. Collect I haven't, as far as I can see, asserted at any time that you removed the source ..probably because you didn't!! You removed some of the description and leaving what UK residents would regard as an arcane term. Perhaps people in the US are familiar with it. I am particularly interested in constitutional change and will move the item in a few days as suggested.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111118033918/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/First-PMQs-Of-Coalition-Government-David-Cameron-Takes-His-First-Prime-Ministers-Questions/Article/201006115642233?f=rss to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/First-PMQs-Of-Coalition-Government-David-Cameron-Takes-His-First-Prime-Ministers-Questions/Article/201006115642233?f=rss
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118093856/http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-trackers-leaders-140611.pdf to http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-trackers-leaders-140611.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Urgent clarification needed

In view of the 'Panama Papers' the sentence "In 1982, Cameron created the Panamanian Blairmore Holdings Inc....." could be read as that it was the father of David Cameron who created that entity, or David Cameron. It needs to be crystal clear, when it has been written in this early stage of examining the Panama Parers that David Cameron's father did not pay taxes for 30 years. Whoever has inherited the assets sits pretty on tax-free yields. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Styles

Is this section "space-wasting guff" (that doesn't appear at the articles for "German or American politicians")? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Please change "is a British politician who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, " in the first sentence to

"is a British politician who WAS Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ".

SOURCE: http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

Basedwriter (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: He is still PM. Stop with this nonsense. st170e^talk 04:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Change from is prime minister to was prime minister! VctorKip (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: See above. But official yet EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

"A controversial figure in British politics, Cameron has been praised for modernising the Conservative Party and for reigning in the United Kingdom's national debt."

Please change "reigning in" to "reining in". This is a typo.

 Done Indeed; it jumped out at me before I‘d even noticed this request.—Odysseus1479 22:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material regarding genealogical connections to royalty

The following referenced material has just been unilaterally deleted:

Cameron is descended from King William IV and his mistress Dorothea Jordan, through their daughter Lady Elizabeth FitzClarence. He is also, therefore, a seventh cousin of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.

While the passage subsequent to it was left:

Cameron has said, "On my mother's side of the family, her mother was a Llewellyn, so Welsh. I'm a real mixture of Scottish, Welsh, and English." He has also referenced the German-Jewish ancestry of his maternal great-grandfather.

The stated reason for the deletion: "this is already covered in the separate Family of David Cameron article". To which I simply point out: if some of his ancestry is suitable for the David Cameron article, then why not other lines of descent? Especially the fact that Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV. The fact that this makes Cameron a ninth cousin of Prince William is arguably even more interesting.

And if a fact is of great interest – as shown, in this instance, by the fact that it's mentioned in many different online sources – it belongs in both articles. There are two strong reasons for this, reflected in Wikipedia official policy and the house style guide:

• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; we do not have a space problem.
• Wikipedia:Content forking. Quote: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article" and "Wikipedia does not view ... forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors...".

Grant | Talk 07:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the first source (Daily Mail) is a tabloid and should not be used as per WP:BLP. The second source (famouskin.com) is not a reliable source (see WP:RS). Secondly, Cameron has not mentioned his ancestry and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be considered trivia rather than encyclopaedic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping for some better reasons. And so I see no reason why we should not reinstate (or re-reinstate) this adequately referenced material, which cites sources that are already used in many Wikipedia articles, including the spinoff article regarding Cameron's family. Not to mention many other articles covered by WP:BLP.

If Cameron's paternal ancestry is, as you say, "trivia", including his direct descent from a monarch(!), then his mother's ancestry is at least equally trivial and so should also be removed , especially because it too is "covered in the article on Cameron's family"

WP:BLP approves of "mainstream" newspapers; it doesn't mention "tabloids", with good reason – the format is and has always been used by many newspapers that meet the criteria for both WP:RS and WP:BLP. Including the Daily Mail.

I notice that you don't question the factuality of the material. And no one in their right mind would. That, considered in conjunction with the rest of the above discussion, tends to create an impression not only of illegitimate content forking, but also of censorship, and the system being gamed. Grant | Talk 19:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cameron has directly referred to his mothers ancestry, which makes it more notable. However if you want to remove it then I wouldn't disagree.

If you use CTRL+F to search for "tabloid" in WP:BLP, then you will see "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." I am not questioning the factuality of the material, I am saying that it already appears in the spin-off article and for the two reasons that it is not properly sourced and is fairly trivial means that it should not be included in what is already a fairly long article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I am also surprised that David Cameron's royal ancestry has been deleted. As noted before, if other lines are mentioned, why not this one? Given that Samantha Cameron is also descended from royalty, I would have thought the mention of royal ancestry is entirely pertinent.Ds1994 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

References

He is no longer incumbent

He is said to be incumbent, but he is no longer PM.--Johnny 42 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

He technically is still PM, he has not yet gone to the Queen to resign, but is likely to do so at around 5pm today. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's officially over now. Get this changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.106.170 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

First sentence

Change the first sentence. It should read 'David Cameron is a British politician who served as Prime MInister and Leader of the Conservative Party'. No need for statesman. Also, the use of PC after his name is unnecessary.--31.50.88.212 (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Work history

From 1990-97 he worked in corporate communications for the TV company Carlton, but left the company to return to politics. Where's this information? He worked for billionaire Sir Phillip Green and was shoehorned in by his mother's connections. Fairly relevant given that Green who seems to have 'disappeared' the BHS pension fund was appointed by Cameron to review government spending. Angels wept. Why wouldn't this be in Wikipedia? 92.24.151.238 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It is in the article, under the subsection "Carlton". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Reception, Legacy and Influence Issue: Reining in of National Debt?

I thought for purposes of being fully accurate in this section I would query something. The introduction to this wiki page refers to David Cameron as having been praised for "reining in the national debt" Of the many media companies supporting David Cameron I do not believe that any of praised him for the reining in of the DEBT but rather the DEFICIT. The lack of articles supporting that observation is probably largely due to the fact it is surely factually inaccurate. Whilst working on reducing the large budget deficit, the national debt has naturally increased significantly due to continued borrowing whilst awaiting a surplus, interest rates etc. Is it not more accurate to say, in line with many pro-Cameron publications, that what he has actually reined in was the budget deficit? A National Debt cannot really be said to be reined in when a government is still borrowing and bringing down a deficit. Of course if there was a large number of publications praising him for reining in the debt I wouldn't have questioned it from an objective viewpoint. But very few praise the reining in of the debt; rather the deficit.

--Sphereix96 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

By-election

Cameron has said that he has resigned as MP for Witney with immediate effect. I will therefore create the Witney by-election, 2015 unless there are any objections. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You might want to make it for 2016 --Uncleleech (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha yes that might be helpful! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the Saudi award a diplomatic bauble?

While Order of Abdulaziz al Saud is a notable award, it is not necessarily awarded for notable reasons, imo. It is, indeed, sometimes little more than a diplomatic bauble that is handed out as part of the process of, for what of a better phrase, greasing the wheels of trade etc. Has this award to Cameron even received much attention in the UK media, aside from perhaps the ever sceptical Private Eye?

While I acknowledge that it is inactive, I note that WP:NAWARD says There may be a conflict of interest if the award is presented in a small field where most of the eligible candidates personally know each other. That's the diplomacy thing in this instance, eg: the UK's sales of arms and other trade deals with Saudi. I am not sure that it really deserves a mention - it seems basically to be similar to the award of an honorary degree.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am having a similar discussion to what I say here at Talk:Narendra Modi#Baubles. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

personal wealth

I know it is cited in the 2009 article that Cameron's wealth is estimated at £3.2 million. Since he inherited £300,000 from his father, shouldn't his wealth be updated to £3.5 million? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

David Cameron is not prime minister anymore. 92.40.249.230 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The articles does not appear to say he still is the PM. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630013226/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/03/30/origins-of-the-cameron-balls-feud/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/03/30/origins-of-the-cameron-balls-feud/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-results-live-brexit-wins-as-britain-votes-to-leave/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.focus.de/kultur/vermischtes/angela-merkel-angela-merkel-im-fussballfieber_aid_940637.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.handelsblatt.com/fussball-nationalmannschaft-kanzlerin-merkel-kommt-erst-wieder-zum-finale/6790336.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

not an active politician

Cameron is not an active politician - I have changed the status from yes to no Govindaharihari (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/programme/ANCC839F_E
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://blogs/telegraph.co.uk/author/geraldwarner
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118093856/http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-trackers-leaders-140611.pdf to http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-trackers-leaders-140611.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627125955/http://www.handelsblatt.com/fussball-nationalmannschaft-kanzlerin-merkel-kommt-erst-wieder-zum-finale/6790336.html to http://www.handelsblatt.com/fussball-nationalmannschaft-kanzlerin-merkel-kommt-erst-wieder-zum-finale/6790336.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160409010953/https://www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/David_Cameron to https://www.conservatives.com/ourteam/david_cameron

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Featured article comments

This article was recently listed as a featured article nominee, but failed due to procedural reasons. I also had some comments about why it shouldn't be a featured article until some changes are made.

"The "Styles" section is unsourced and unnecessary. The "Ancestry" section is unsourced. The political commentary section seems like a list of all the content people can find on Cameron, rather than just what is really notable. The "Comments on other parties and politicians" section is a strange one - why are these comments collected in one place rather than being in chronological order? Finally, I think the opinion polling section should feature just Cameron's personal opinion polling rather than his party's as well."

Thoughts on these points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs)

All good points but the article is not even a current good article never mind a featured quality article and it would need a lot of work to raise it to featured standards, are you up for it? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, what would you say the biggest obstacles to this article getting good/featured article status are? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say, raise it back up to good article status first. You seem able editor and I agree with your points here, if you have a request to help I will if I am able. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have begun making changes, especially to the section headers so if you could make any comments then that would be helpful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

ok, cool. I will watch and comment, assist whenever I can. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

life peerage

Did Cameron turn down a life peerage from the Queen? Retiring PMs are traditionally offered a life barony. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

mention the incident during his university years with the pig I disagree (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. It's already mentioned in the section headed "Cameron and Lord Ashcroft". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Premiership of David Cameron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was keep articles separate. --Nevé–selbert 18:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---

This article is frankly nothing more than a WP:FORK of David Cameron#Prime Minister, and essentially duplicates various material from other Cameron-related articles such as First Cameron ministry and Political positions of David Cameron. Interestingly enough, that very section at David Cameron documenting his tenure as Prime Minister is just as long (marginally longer) as this article, so redirecting this article to David Cameron tagged with {{R with possibilities}} is I believe, the most sensible way forward here. Infested with maintenance tags, sections galore with remarkably brief detail, I struggle to see a good reason why it is worth having a separate article for this premiership.--Nevé–selbert 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Premiership of David Cameron duplicates a lot of material from David Cameron, but I think David Cameron should be trimmed down - it is currently too long to be readable. The details can be kept in Premiership of David Cameron. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Much of the foreign policy section for instance could be cut from David Cameron, but would fit right in on the Premiership page. As an example, does anyone seriously think that the Falklands are important enough to Cameron's legacy/associated with him that they need to be mentioned to be on this page?Ministre d'État (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would oppose the merger. It is fairly common practice to have two separate articles in situations such as this (Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama; Fidel Castro and Cuba under Fidel Castro etc). That neither Cameron article is in particularly good shape at present does not invalidate this basic system. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for essentially the same reasons: the biographical article should give a full background on who Cameron is, what he stood for and what the key achievements and controversies of his political career were; the "premiership" article should give a chronology of most of the events of his premiership, a summary of policy changes including those delegated to his ministers and minor details like appointments/reshuffles. Dtellett (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: are you still keen to merge these articles or can we close the discussion? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting off section

@Neve-selbert:, you put a tag saying that parts of the "Prime Minister" section should be split off into Premiership of David Cameron. Which parts do you think should be split off? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind really, as long as the "Prime Minister" section is shorter than the Premiership article.--Nevé–selbert 18:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Villagate

I removed the part in personal life about when Cameron forgot he supported Aston Villa, because its notability is minuscule. It was soft news/trending topic of the day, not at all notable Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Record Deficit and Debt

We need to add a section showing that he actually lied about the deficit and then went on to create the highest deficit in UK history and record levels of debt. Record deficit Record Levels of Debt David Cameron lied about the deficit.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.159.164 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Pig Rumors

So i came here to read about the pig rumors and its not mentioned here. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeytheboy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

see Piggate Govindaharihari (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact it is mentioned in this article, under the heading "Cameron and Lord Ashcroft". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's even included in the "Series about David Cameron" infobox, as a featured part in his Second Ministry, which might be a surprise to some. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2017

Please change 'politician' to 'former politician' per his resigning as an MP after Brexit. 2.28.253.182 (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's not clear that one ceases being a politician by virtue of having resigned from a political office. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Although the article does say that he now has another job? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(shrugs) And if a famous musician hung up her instrument and went to work in a sausage factory, would that make her a former musician? (I don't know the answer.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would make her a "former musician and sausage factory worker." Personally I can't see Cameron trying anything related to pork, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC) [7]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022150220/http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/288/about-brasenose-31/news-152/brasenose-alumnus-becomes-prime-minister-815.html to http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/288/about-brasenose-31/news-152/brasenose-alumnus-becomes-prime-minister-815.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Censorship of US ambassadorial opinion of David Cameron

Was there not an amusing (Wiki or Snowden &co) leaked ambassadorial report on Cameron which described him as being "...no intellectual" ? I can find no reference to it in any of the articles. BWs Alan Lewis apeuk@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.219.53 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2018

i think that i need to address the fact that David Cameron is not the prime minister of the uk and has pretty much scuppered the uk by leaving the eu and then just leaving as if he had nothing to do with it. James.gave (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you do need to address that. Does this actually impact on the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No specific request was made. If you would like another editor to perform an edit to this article, please make a specific request in the form "Change X to Y". You will have access to edit this article four days after account registration. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not upper middle class

As DC is related to the Queen and has several titled relatives I feel it's probably more accurate to describe him as aristocratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.85.52 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

Remove the 'First Secretary' link and reference to George Osborne and William Hague, this implies that the role of FS is intrinsically linked to that of PM - which is not the case an is an incidental and honorific title awarded at discretion of the PM. Shanelirwin (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Other Prime Ministers who have had a First Secretary also have this listed in their infobox; cf. Theresa May, Gordon Brown. NiciVampireHeart 20:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Aston Villa

It says that he's a Villa fan (yes I'm happy about that), but someone's just brought this[8] to me that I've been wondering about. GOLDIEM J (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversy: incurring the Queen's displeasure

"He didn't break the law but he did break the rule" that says that a PM never discusses his relationship with the monarch. This needs to be included, as does Cameron's criticism of Johnson and Gove. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

david camerons daughters education

the Camerons home is no way near st mary abbots church of England school, and after that she went to greycoats.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.47.105.44 (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 

New song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.25.91 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

School

He went to Etone College Will.shields72 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)