Talk:David Miliband/Archive 1

Archive 1

Exact Role in the Destruction of the European Economy?

Should there be a separate section on his pivotal role? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.93.167 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion/ Race

Milliband is Jewish but the article makes no reference to this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5693687.ece

Religion is also listed as Atheist, which doesn't make sense. Atheism is a lack of a religion, not a religion in itself. It should be 'None'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebrido (talk • contribs) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) It is apparent that when he's trying to 'get down with a Jewish group' , he says he's Jewish, but when he's trying to stay in with the Palestinians or Arabs, he says he's not - which is a bit whoreish innit?

What do you expect from a politician? Probity? Rodhullandemu 23:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Why was the photo deleted?

David Milliband complained it was unflattering and did not make him look serious enough.

Can't we have a better photo of David? I propose using the one from the bio page of the fco.gov.uk website...

You can't just use any photo it has to be availiable under a free license. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wentworth Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.227 (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a photo of Miliband of higher resolution, more recent and more flattering than the current. I am happy to release it under the appropriate license, but I am concerned that the current image has listed in its description "this image should be used for david milibands profile". Under what authority is this stated? Or is this just guidance? For those interested the image I refer to to act for replacement can be found at Flickr

The present photograph is admirable, showing David against the background of the Stars & Stripes. This puts his true sympathies to the fore. Reiner Torheit (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Length of the Article

I think some elements of this article need to be rearranged and reworded. Secondly I am sure there is lots more information that can be written.

Blog

There doesn't seem to be anything libellous about the blog report. Before it is removed again, can we pls have a discussion here about what exactly is libellous about it. Ta. Frelke 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think to cost a Blog by calculating how much time civil servants spend on related activities, then using a percentage of their wages to evaluate how much a blog costs to run is completely misleading. This is exactly what the Newspapers sourced have done over the few initial weeks of the Blog launch. To say that this blog costs £8000 a year to run is completely wrong an innacurate, and thus has no place on an encyclopedia. Sorry I didn't discuss it first, i'm quite new to this, but i hope you will now concur with me. thank you Jamesedwardsmith 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

James, you may well be right. But none of it is libellous. What the para says is that

• a blog said this
• a national daily agreed
• a blog said they were wrong

to me the national daily is a little more authoratative than either the blogs. Can we find a better source to reference that says that the cost is less. Perhaps another report in a national daily. Frelke 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's libelous because it's factually incorrect. Saying that some value has been "revealed" my some other Blog is completely wrong. How can it be revealed if the next sentence queries the very same statistic? This is supposed to be a high quality factual encyclopedia, after all, isn't it? Jamesedwardsmith 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not factually incorrect. Its factually correct.

"Journalist Ellee Seymour recently revealed on her blog the alleged £40,000 annual cost of David Miliband's blog. The Independent newspaper also reported the story. However, the figure is now thought to be £8,000, as another blogger reports."

1. Ellee Seymour did reveal this on her blog
2. The Independent reported it
3. Another blogger reported the figure to be wrong

3 facts, connected by some words. None of those facts are incorrect. Each of them has its own validating link. Now maybe the Ellee got it wrong. Maybe the indy did also. But both of them reported it. That is a fact, and that is all that is being reported here. Now has an authoratitive source confirmed what the second blogger says? Have you got a link to that? It is not libellous to report facts. Are you familiar with WP:3RR? Frelke 09:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect and would not be something that would be in an encylcopedia.

• The Blog does not "cost" that amount to run
• She did not "reveal" any costs it's merely an estimate
• Something in a Newspaper does not make it true or worthy of encylopedia
• A Blog is not a valid source of information

This persons blog may have made an opinion about costs, but the sentence in this article makes no sense, is not justified, cannot be proved and is mere speculation.Jamesedwardsmith 11:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence that you removed is saying nothing more than the three facts I have detailed above. It doesn't say, for instance, that

1. the Blog does "cost" that amount to run - instead it says that "Ellee Seymour said in her blog that ...
2. any of the 3 reports (2 blogs and one national) are correct and the other(s) wrong - instead it says that these three reports exist and you (the reader) can go and make up your own mind as to which is correct

You seem to be suggesting that the 2nd blog is correct but that a blog is not valid source of information. Some inconsistency there wouldn't you agree ?

Would you prefer the following version "The Independent newspaper alleged that the annual cost of David Miliband's blog was £40,000[2]. However, the figure is now thought to be £8,000."

You have also suggested that it can't be proved. In saying this you are factually incorrect. You seem to be getting confused about what is a fact and what is an opinion. It is a fact that Ellie Symour reported the cost as being £40K. Now that doesn't mean that it cost £40K. It just means that Ellie Symour (and the Indy) reported that it is. The latter is proven, is a fact and can be included according to WP rules. Have you read WP:V? WP is not saying anywhere what the cost of DM's blog is. It is just reporting what others say the cost is.Frelke 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody may have made an opinion on their blog but it is not verifiable and it is in no way stuitable for "trivia" in this section. The journalists blog DID NOT "reveal" the cost of the Blog because (a) her blog quotes somebody else (b) the figure was refuted by the minister in question and (c) she does not know the actual cost. I find this Trivia point completetely misleading, as I am sure anybody else reading it would. It does NOT cost £40000 or anywhere near that ridiculous figure - some Libdem MP has plucked the figure out of the air by taking a percentage of civil service wages - do you know any other peice of government 1operations that are calculated in that way??? How can it say that the cost is nearer £8000 with no citation? This point would not be in any other encylopedia because it is at most completely inaccurate and at least misleading Jamesedwardsmith 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

James, this is not about the calculation and what is correct and what is wrong. It is about reporting in a totally neutral voice what was said. If you are suggesting we should work out the correct cost, that would be Original Research and is totally banned on WP. Have a read of the policies I have linked. Frelke 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

James, I know your newish around here, but you are falling foul of one our favourite rules, the three revert rule. You have reverted other peoples edits 5 times now. I have placed a {{3RR}} warning on your talk page and you have just removed it. BTW, it is also considered a personal attack to suggest that an editor is engaged in vandalism, when they are actually engaged in legitimate edits. You may be blocked if you continue to revert legitimate edits. Frelke 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see it, blogs are not an acceptable source, and that this is a minor, minor story in the bigger picture of Miliband's career.

Can't there simply be a line like 'Miliband was the first British cabinet member to have a blog, although his alleged use of public resources to support the blog created a minor political controversy (source)', although even this gives a minor story too much importance. Martín (saying/doing) 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. I do however suggest that the Indy is an acceptable source. Frelke 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As you say Frelke, the question is to report things in a neutral way. Stating something was revealed is not neutral. Revelaing is implicative of facts. If the facts are disputed, then to maintain a NPOV, it should be someone "claimed", not "revealed." You seem to be missing James's point completely. "Revealed" is fine according to Verifiability, but not according to NPOV - Fairness of tone. I would therefore suggest the original edit that James objected to was incorrect regardless of source. The18thDoctor 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Modelling Past?

Have you ever found any clippings related to him working as a Life Model at an Art College in South UK, or is this untrue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.49.29 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have cleaned up a couple of places of bias against WP:NPOV From the article. "Tony Blair made a major and almost brutal" is a point of view. "To appease the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, whose department was officially in charge of these portfolios" is not sourced and pure speculation The18thDoctor 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Global & General Nominees LLC

Citation for the blog is no longer correct. I expect this will include at lot of tidying, across many pages. There is no mention of Global & General Nominees LLC on the Paul Staines gossip blog http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/.--62.136.238.65 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just done a search and can find only one ref which I shall fix. I believe that Global & General Nominees LLC was a hoax.--62.136.238.65 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Scholar

Is it fair to mention that the fact that he is a Kennedy Scholar probably means that he's connected with the CIA? Morningmusic 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it's a bit redundant to mention this connection. It already mentions that he's a New Labour MP. Morningmusic 10:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that anyone who got into Oxbridge with such ridiculously low re-sit grades had the way paved for him, may have been awarded a First on the subjective assessment of a Marxist 'friend' of his family, and deprived a harder working and more talented child of a place?80.225.209.197 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Dr.Lofthouse80.225.209.197 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair to say !!! ... The implication here - besides the questioning of how Miliband got into Oxbridge on such "low grades" - is that anyone who, in terms of their 'A' levels (at college), gets "such ridiculously low re-sit grades" would find it next to impossible to be "awarded a First" class degree at university. This is complete nonsense. How a student succeeds at university (in terms of the classification of their degree) has no real relationship with college grades. From my own experience, I studied 5 'A' levels at college - gaining 'D's' in Geography and History, a 'C' in Politics, a 'B' in Psychology and an 'A' in Sociology. You might say, therefore, that I didn't do too well in certain subjects. However, I then went on to gain a first-class BA (hons) degree in the social sciences (including geography and history). I became interested in such subjects while at university. With regard to Miliband, it's impossible to guess at what stage in his intellectual development he decided to apply himself. And the suggestion that Miliband was awarded a first-class degree on the basis of "the subjective assessment of a Marxist 'friend' of his family" is not only potentially libelous but quite simply absurd - and the idea that Miliband's attendance at university "deprived a harder working and more talented child of a place" is similarly ridiculous. Contributions should have some merit - and that offered above has none. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Re: above entry - fancy David adopting the guise of Simon P Blackburn to criticise Democratic debate on his own Wiki entry!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.107.55 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

David!

I'm sure sometime in the future you'll be reading this so just wanted to say congratualtions on getting the post of foreign secretary. We'll be hoping you'll take an even-handed approach to global politics. Not bad at 41.....I need to get my skates on and catch up with you. Did you write this entry yourself Mr. Milliband? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.116.54 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Marion Kozak

Marion? - there is no such name in Poland, perhaps Marianna, Polish woman's names end with 'a'. Kozak is a Polish family name (means Cossack) although not a typical Jewish one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeronauticus (talk • contribs) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kozak"? sounds like from Eastern Europe, maybe Polish Jewish, maybe Polish... Have you got any source about his mother? Kowalmistrz 20:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is this which I found on the Guardian website: "Miliband is the son of Jewish child refugees from the Holocaust, who saw the effects of fascism at first hand and became passionately socialist. It is a credo that has led his mother, Polish-born Marion Kozak, to support a range of left-wing Jewish political groups. His Belgian-born father, the late Ralph Miliband, became one of the leading Marxist theoreticians of his generation." ( http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/comment/0,,2057617,00.html )

It would probably be easiest to assume from that she is just Polish. Mikebloke 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

THE ABOVE IS INCORRECT, ACCORDING TO RALPH MILBANDS OFFICIAL HISTORY [ ,http://www.lipman-miliband.org.uk/biographies.html>.... Ralph Miliband (1924-1994): a short biography

Adolphe (Ralph) Miliband was born in Brussels on 7th January, 1924 to Polish parents who had fled economic depression in Warsaw. Hitler’s invasion of Belgium in May 1940 as part of the Nazis’ Western Offensive split the Miliband family in half: Ralph and father Samuel fled to England, while Ralph’s mother Renée and baby sister Nan stayed behind.

If David Milliband is actually a Jew, then he has to have had a Jewish mother - odd then that she stayed behind in occupied Belgium, whilst Ralph fled to this country? His description of himself as a Jew doesn't therefore add up does it- ??? 80.225.209.197 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)DrLofthouse80.225.209.197 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so he is of Polish-Jewish descent... Kowalmistrz 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WHY DOES HE ATTEMPT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION ALL THE TIME THAT HIS FAMILY WERE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS? ACCORDING TO A HISTORY OF RALPH MILLIBAND AT <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISmiliband.htm>, WHICH DAVID APPEARS TO HAVE FOUND ACCURATE, HIS FATHERS' FAMILY LIVED IN THE AREA THAT ONLY BECAME THE WARSAW GHETTO YEARS AND YEARS AFTER THEY HAD ALREADY MOVED AWAY - SEEMS TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO GET GLORY BY A HARDLY EXISTANT ASSOCIATION - HIS FEIGNED DISGUST AT AN ALLUSION TO CHAMBERLAIN'S WORTHLESS DOCUMENT EARLIER TODAY WILL EXPOSE HIS DECEIT, FOR SURE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.199.255 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kozak

That's correct. Some of his relatives on his mother's side live in New York.

Do any live in Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.27.115 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Miliband or Milliband?

Is it Miliband or -ll-? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.152.53 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In some other voices, his (or his brother's) surname is written with two -l-s. So, which is the correct form?

Automatic peerreview

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

Lockerbie bombing

I have amended the Lockerbie bombing section to illustrate that it is in fact relevant to the Miliband biography.Phase4 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am re-restoring the section deleted by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel.Phase4 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not relevent- he gets many letters about many issues- why are you picking out this one in particular? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All it says is "On the same day that Miliband was appointed". Unless you can find some more relevent connection I am going to delete it again along with all the other nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The word is relevant. And the Lockerbie bombing issue is quickly becoming a foreign policy hot potato (see, for example, Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations#Notable activities).Phase4 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What specifically does that have to do with David Miliband? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with Britain's Foreign Secretary, who just happens to be David Miliband.Phase4 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are putting undue weight on one of the many issues that Miliband is dealing with so I am removing it again. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you both stop reverting. The Lockerbie section does have relevance given Miliband's current role, but it should be in context with the other issues he has encountered since becoming Foreign Secretary. (comments on Israel-Lebanon tiff last year, conflict with Malloch Brown, EU treaty etc.) Catchpole (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph merely says Miliband was sent a letter. Until Miliband actually says or does anything in relation that letter then it is not appropriate to have two wholes paragraph about it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, G v H! Apart from the Köchler letter, there is also a petition by a former British diplomat in this paragraph. Please explain what "two wholes" is or are!Phase4 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you're not going to win this through humour or spotting typos. David Miliband must get sent hundreds of petitions and letters a week. There is no reason why such a concentration should be made on Lockerbie, which I note, by the way, seems to be a particular obsession of yours. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, I try to improve articles by adding information. Catchpole above suggests that the Lockerbie section should be put into context with the other issues Miliband has encountered since becoming Foreign Secretary: eg "comments on Israel-Lebanon tiff last year, conflict with Malloch Brown, EU treaty etc." Is G v H prepared to improve the article along these lines?Phase4 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Has Miliband actually made any comment on this? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Miliband's grandfather

There is absolutely no reason to state who were the victims of the Red Army in the article. Are you going to go around adding information on who were the victims of the armies that people's grandfathers served in in every single biography on Wikipedia? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If he is a senior member of the British cabinet, then yes. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that his suitability for public office is somehow brought into question because his grandfather served in the Red Army? Ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, especially as his father Ralph Miliband was a top-level communist theoretician also. Would you have a similar objection if a British foreign secretary's father was Nazi theorist and his grandfather was in the SS killing Jews? I doubt it. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

People are not responsible for the actions or beliefs of their parents or grandparents and I will continue to revert you and get further assistance on this if necessary. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard him condemn his family's ideology? Of course not. The Labour Party is in the Socialist International after all. And don't threaten me, you will just reveal your true colours (most likely with a reddish tint). --Hereward77 (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked all the Austrian and German members of parliament/European MPs whose grandfathers were in the Nazi party (as surely some were) whether they have renounced their grandfathers beliefs? Utter nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are talking nonsense, sir. Miliband has not renounced his grandfather's beliefs because he is still a socialist, like you obviously. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic piece of original research that has no place on wikipedia, people are not considered responsible for the actions of their direct ancestors, as we all know well enough, and to then rant on about the alleged convictions of a fellow editor is unacceptable in this case. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To the "Hero of Belarus" (the user SqueakBox glorifies the monstrous communist dictatorship of Alexander Lukashenko), how can this be "original research" if it is referenced to a newspaper article? The section in question is about his family, so the political actions of his grandfather are extremely relevant. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stop behaving badly, please, hereward, I have no idea what you are talking about but nor have I ever glorified communism on wikipedia. Your attacking other editors indicates you know full well that you have no substance in your argument and will likely result in your eventually being blocked if you do not desist going down this path. Your edit is original research because it isn't about Milliband. If I were to add some sourced material about Hereward the Wake to this article it would also be removed as irrelevant. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

From Squeakbox's user page, one of his comrades wrote: "I, anonymous, award you this Hero of Belarus for unending dedication in fighting wikivandalism." Says it all really. Wikipedia is infiltrated. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Have you ever heard him condemn his family's ideology? ". Hereward, you are thereby making an assumption (WP:NOR) that Miliband has communist beliefs. People don't have to apologize for their ancestor's beliefs or actions which they had no control over any more than the actions or beliefs of any other person in history. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Miliband is in the Socialist International, along with communists Daniel Ortega and Thabo Mbeki. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ortega is a neighbour and as it happens I don't support either him or Chavez, your comments re me are truly clueless so please just stop, we are here to write an encyclopedia not to listen to you ranting. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a "clueless rant", I am stating facts here. You proudly have the Hero of Belarus on your user page, yet deny being a communist. You also state that you are a "citizen of the world", a leftist cliche if ever there was one. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that seems to be a barnstar from another editor to Squeakbox for correcting vandalism. Secondly, the whole British Labour Party is a member of Socialist International not Miliband personally. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't have an argument here. Miliband is a leading figure in the Labour Party, and is therefore in the Socialist International. No supporter of democracy would have such a "barnstar" on their page, he might as well have the Iron Cross on there. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you persist in calling me a communist on this page or labelling me non-democratic or making any silly and opffensive comments re what you happen to believe my political beliefs are you will clearly be trolling this page and I will seek some kind of action to force you to stop as well as reverting said comments. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your stubborn determination to censor this clearly sourced and relevant material, it appears to be the only possible explanation. It is a puzzle as to why any person would want to whitewash these facts about his grandfather's controversial (to put it mildly) political activities, unless they were activists for the Labour Party. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if he is notable you write an article about his grandfather but you'll need a better source than one Daily Mail article. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

He is not particularly notable, but he is Miliband's grandfather and his political activities should be mentioned in the family section. --Hereward77 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that makes no odds. If he hhas an article you can link to him. And your reference didn't correspond to what you wrote anyway. I also suggest you stop making assumptions about my alleged communist sympathies because it will make everyone think you are incredibly stupid, as well as being intolerably rude. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write it, it was written by User:Sassf over a month ago, [3] and it does correspond to the reference. I am not making assumptions, you have demonstrated your political allegiances by your biased censorship actions here. I will be "rude" to practitioners of political censorship. --Hereward77 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship? I don't have any political allegiances nor am I censoring anything. Whoever wrote it, it was entirely off topic original research. And hey, go and take your rudeness elsewhere, it is not wanted here, see how to be civil. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that the information in the Daily Mail article actually came from an attack piece on Mr Miliband in the Russian nationalist newspaper Tvoi Den so should in no way be taken as reliable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hereward appears to be here solely to promote a political agenda. We are none of us empowered to do such a thing. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it is you that has the political agenda here. I am just posting facts that you seem determined to hide from the public. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no political agenda whatsoever whereas from your various comments you clearly do. If you want to get involved in politics go to a forum or whatever but if you want to be here please edit ina neutral way and stop making silly, childish comments about censorship when you clearly do not know whatt you are talking about. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You have just censored an entire paragraph that has been part of this article for over a year without explanation, you are insulting our intelligence here. You clearly do have an agenda to cover-up Mr. Miliband's family background. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not insulting anyone, though I am still waiting for you to display more intelligence than to call me a communist censor. Thisa is na article about Milliband not what his ancestors did before he was born. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You do seem very keen on censorship, something that my own libertarian political philosophy abhors. The section is about Miliband's family, certainly his grandfather's political activites are relevant, given that Miliband is also a politician. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by censorship? Removing off topic material is not censorship nor is upholding our living people policy from what looks like an attempted smear. The section on Milliband's family is quite adequate mentioning his parents and brother, that is masses of inof, we do not need this as well. If his grandfather were a well known British politician you would be probably right but that is not the case. Nor is this info in Ed's article, or in this level of detail in their father's article, and it would obvioulsy be far more appropriate there because a grandchild is far less of a connection than a child, and we hardly ever talk about someone's grandfather unless it were someone well known in British circles. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Our" policy? Since when were you Wikipedia? You are not even an administrator here. [refactor trolling]. You don't have an argument here. The section is about Miliband's family. If anyone's grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky it would be entirely appropriate to mention it here, particularly if they are a politician. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop being a complete dick. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your resorting to crude invective proves your lack of argument. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Er not at all, it merely results from your behaving like one time and time again. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "dick" for posting the facts, what a wonderful encyclopedia you have here. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it is for making knowinlgy false accusations against others, that they are communist, unpatriotic and other idiocies. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why else would you wish to hide these facts, unless you had an interest in hiding them? --Hereward77 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As I point out below - in the talk section 'Politically inspired errors?' - David Miliband's grandfather was NOT in the Red Army. As such, this entire discussion is pointless. I've changed the article - citing evidence that clarifies the matter. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside input

Having seen this appear on the Admins noticeboard, I thought I would add my 2p: There seems no reason to include the paragraph. Miliband is not his grandfather, and he is in no way compelled to publicly denounce his ideology.

A couple of comments to Hereward77: Just because a paragraph has been in place for a year, does not mean it is ok; plenty of mistakes, POV pushing etc have been left in articles for long periods of time before being corrected; it is certainly not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be very much against the Labour Party, so I suggest you try to control your obvious antipathy towards them, or desist from editing related articles. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no mistakes or "POV pushing" in this paragraph, it merely states the fact that his grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky. If certain editors see that as a smear, then they are merely projecting their own guilt. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is room for mentioning the background of Miliband, including what his grandparents did, without the hysteria above. The article on Nick Clegg is an example of how this can be accomplished. Catchpole (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Its very different in the Clegg article, it just says who some notable ancestors were, the Miliband article is just like giving his family history and then Hereward uses it in a way to try to discredit Miliband, if what was here were similar to what is at Clegg my guess is nobody would be complaining. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not "using" the article for any purpose. Again, you demonstrate your non-neutrality by that statement. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well this edit sure looks like like you are trying to discredit Miliband, as various editors have pointed out to you, while your calling fellow editors communist censors et al is the classic stance of the POV warrior. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That factual statement was posted by User:Sassf [4] over a month ago, not me. It is a fact that the Red Army was engaged in these activities. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you revert to soemeone else's version you are taking personal responsibility for that. Nobody is denying the factual accuracy, I could add that his long distant ancestors came from Africa as that is equally factual and equally relevant, though the other issue we have is that this info is being to discredit Miliband here, so off topic info being used to discredit Miliband, well IMO it should simply be removed. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to discredit Miliband, the section is about his family. His grandfather's membership of the Red Army is relevant. There is no good reason to hide this information. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But this article is not about his family, it is about him, and as his father has an article it would certainly be more relevant and less problematical there than here (because his father is dead and not serving a high ranking Cabinet minister). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed my name mentioned here, so just for any future reference, I didn't write the info about Miliband's grandparents, I just juggled it around for readability (as I stated in my edit summary). All the info, with refs, was in the article before I touched it. It was added by the ip 80.225.209.197 several times in Oct 07 and has nothing to do with me. Sassf (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

I have just been looking at the history of this dispute after it popped up on my watchlist, and it seems to me that that there are two issues here: a) whether to include short para on his grandparents, and b) whether to include in that that para details of his grandparents alleged a participation in atrocities.

A family background in the turbulent environment of Eastern europe in the 1920s surely has some relevance to the political outlook of a foreign secretary, and like Nick Clegg it describes a family background radically different to that of most British people. It seems to me that a paragraph on this subject is both appropriate and relevant. The text as edited by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel in this revision looks fine: it's concise and neutral summary.

However, the allegation that his grandfather had been involved in "eliminating" people originates from what even the Daily Mail describes as "Russian nationalist newspaper Tvoi Den", and which a bit of googling reveals as a tabloid. That's potentially a very serious issue, and the fact that the Daily Mail didn't run it as a frontpage lead under heading "Foreign Secretary's grandfather in Soviet death squad" suggests that the Mail took the story with a slight pinch of salt (and maybe they remember that there was a bit of a ruckus last time they placed too much trust in an obscure Russian source). If there is some foundation to this, it will be covered by more reliable sources than a Daily Mail report sourced solely from a Russian nationalist tabloid. Furthermore, they are unclear: is his grandpa alleged to have been engaged in those units which actually carried out atrocities, or is the claim just that he was in the same army? (it's a crucial difference) Was his grandpa fighting during the Russian civil war, or in thr Polish-Ukrainian war, or afterwards? The Mail's vagueness on those crucial points makes it dangerous to use this material.

So the additions by Hereward in this revision go further than is appropriate without more robust sources. Not only that, but they introduce claims not actually in the Daily Mail report. Herward writes "Samuel, then Shimon, fought under the command of Trotsky, 'eliminating' (murdering) white Russians, Ukranians and Poles opposed to Communism" whereas the Mail says that he "fought under the command of Trotsky 'eliminating' white Russians opposed to Communism", with no mention of the Poles or Ukranians. (That's naughty, slipping into a referenced sentence something clearly not supported by the reference).

So I think that SqueakBox was wrong to remove all the material from the Daily Mail article, and Hereward was wrong to try to use it as an attack piece. I suggest that the article be restored to the last version by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe inclusion is necessary I think it would be a fair compromise to restore the version you propose. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I would dispute the charge that I was using it as an attack piece (I merely added a wikilink in the statement already present in the article [5] , and was then falsely accused of being the author), I too would support BrownHairedGirl's compromise. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both for your agreement. I'll post an {{editprotected}} request below, and I'll also suggest that the article be unprotected now that the dispute is resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed edit please

In the discussion above (see compromise proposal), the two editors whose dispute led to this page being protected have very constructively agreed to a compromise, which is to revert to the version of the text as edited by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk · contribs) at 21:11, 15 December 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Miliband&oldid=178159679

Please can the page now be restored to this version?

Also, since the dispute has been resolved, I see no reason to expect a resumption of the minor edit war, so I suggest that the protection should now be lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work all. I have reverted to the compromise version and lifted the protection. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek

The US magazine Newsweek published its year-end issue this week. In it Mr. Millband was profiled as a person to watch in 2008, calling him "a Prime Minister In Waiting". The article is here. Does anyone know how this could be made to fit in the article? - Thanks, Hoshie 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

The date of birth in the infobox differs by 4 years from the date of birth displayed at the start of the article! Which one is correct? I have looked through the external links and I cannot find any d.o.b.! - Erebus555 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think somebody's screwing around with the policy advisor section, e.g. "As a child, his first career ambition was to be a cauliflower." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.215.17 (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

haha, just undo or remove it without bothering to file a report here. EchetusXe (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Miliband as Jewish

I realise there has been contention over whether Miliband is Jewish or Athiest under the section on his religion. There are sources to show that he is Jewish but also that he does not belive in god. I want to say that being Jewish and not believing in god is not contradiction. Many Jews are Athiest, look at Karl Marx for example. Please comment to this discussion as to how to fill in the line under religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.223.101 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He is an ethnic Jew with no religious beliefs and no belief in God i.e. atheist. Anyone unsure see this: Jewish atheist. EchetusXe (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

British usage

I hope that a registered user will at some point see to the editing of this article for inappropriate Americanisms - I notice "advisor" (the usual UK spelling is still "adviser", believe it or not) and "Great Britain" (error for "the United Kingdom"), but there may be others. *Not* to be anti-American, just that I understand Wikipedia policy is to use British conventions in articles on British topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Also, I was hoping that someone could add a reference to Miliband's anecdote about being mistaken for Tim Henman by an autograph hunter in his own constituency - I've mislaid my source for it, but it made me laugh and it (arguably) tells us something interesting about Miliband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bus conducting

What the hell is this? EchetusXe (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah seriously... what's with the bus metaphor running through the entire article. This guy might be the next Prime Minister of the UK and his page is quite frankly embarrassing in its current state. 88.98.16.178 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the section entitled Ticket to ride, David Miliband's "first career ambition was to be a bus conductor". The resultant bus metaphor then proceeds to the "Political journey" section via the Double-decker bus section and ends at the "Terminus at Number 10?". I can't see anything embarrassing about the metaphor (and very much doubt that "the next Prime Minister of the UK" would object to it). - PJHaseldine (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A Polish busconductor writes...........why did he give up on his dreams??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.49.29 (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1.2 Education

David Miliband had a father, Ralph Miliband, who was a university professor and his mother was also an academic. He grew up in a Georgian house in Edis Street, Primrose Hill, London [6]. Visitors and guests at the house included a pantheon of politicians and political activists such as Tony Benn, Tariq Ali and Joe Slovo.

Given such an upbringing, how was he able to secure a university place at Corpus Christi College, Oxford on an Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) scheme intended to assist students from a "deprived" background?
Dean Armond 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Its called cheating Dean - one minute they state they want to shut this place down as it breeds members of the establishment, and only educates the wealthy, but as soon as they fiddle their way in themselves,... 4 legs good, two legs bad etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.49.29 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Employment/Education conflict

There seems to be a conflict between the education and employment sections:

The education section states that Miliband "took an S.M. degree in Political Science in 1990 at MIT".

The employment section claims that:

"From 1989 to 1994, David Miliband worked as a Research Fellow and policy analyst at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)".

Since Mr. Miliband could not have been in two continents at once, does this need correcting?

Lannly (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

He has never had a job - was on t'dole for years, just like most of the NL hierarchy

Politically inspired errors?

I am, and have been for a long time, a great admirer of the published work of David’s father - Ralph Miliband. Having read a great deal both by and on Ralph Miliband, I find that - indirectly - the subject of his son(s) occasionally presents itself. On this basis, I believe that certain claims presented in this article can be readily disputed.

Here are the main two, both dealing with matters under the ‘Family‘ section of the article:

(1) David’s father - Ralph - is described as a ‘Marxist theoretician’. While it is certainly true that he was a Marxist (who significantly influenced an entire generation of left-wing thinking), and it is also correct that at times he wrote on / advanced Marxist theory, I think it somewhat inappropriate to refer - in this brief way - to Ralph Miliband as a Marxist theoretician as if theory was his main concern or contribution. In terms of his work, was a prolific writer on socialist themes, as well as a university teacher. He may be more accurately described as a ‘political sociologist’ or a ‘state analyst’ - but not primarily a theorist. Indeed, the most significant challenge he received toward his work concerned its lack of engagement with Marxist theory (see, for example, the critiques offered by Poulantzas). Ralph Miliband was more concerned with empirical (and strategic) questions than with theoretical ones. This description needs changing. David Miliband’s father, Ralph, was a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the Graduate School, City University of New York.

(2) We are told that David Miliband’s paternal grandfather - Samuel Miliband - was a member of the Red Army, taking part in the Polish-Soviet War (1919-21). Much is made of this in the talk section ‘Miliband’s Grandfather’ - where it is said that because David is in the British Cabinet so it is relevant that his grandfather was in the Red Army. Any rational person should ask: Why? On what basis are these matters related? Because, we are told: (a) David’s father was a “communist theoretician” (sic), and (b) “if a British foreign secretary's father was Nazi theorist and his grandfather was in the SS killing Jews” so the public would want to know. Notwithstanding the limitations of the former supposition, the latter is truly absurd. David Miliband’s father was NOT a soviet theoretician (in fact, he shouldn’t really be considered a theoretician at all - see above), which is vaguely comparable to the parallel of a Nazi theoretician; rather he was a socialist writer and university teacher; and the actions of the Red Army during the 1919-21 conflict with Poland can in no way be compared to the treatment of the Jews by the SS. As such, the emphasis placed on this grandson-grandfather relationship is highly dubious to say the least. Most importantly, that David Miliband’s grandfather was a member of the Red Army is pure conjecture (original research) and as such should NOT have been included in the article. It was a great uncle of David’s (that is, a brother of his grandfather) who for a period joined the Red Army. His grandfather, Sam, moved from Warsaw immediately after World War One, settling in Brussels by 1920 (at the age of 25). This FACT can be verified by way of reference to Michael Newman’s biography of Ralph Miliband (published 2002, see page 5). As such, the article needs fixing - as it is presenting incorrect data (and original research), rather than the truth, which can be verified. David Miliband’s paternal grandfather was, in all actuality, a trained leather worker.

It seems to me that certain contributors are tending to view this article as a means to advance political opinion. When one fails to distinguish any difference between ‘communist’ and ‘Marxist’, something is surely amiss. David’s father, Ralph, cannot accurately be described as a communist. He was never a member of a Communist party, or a supporter of the USSR, nor an advocate of insurrection. To apply this label is wrong - but, moreover, it is further amiss to somehow assess or judge David Miliband in terms of his father's (inaccurately) supposed communist leanings. To compound this by falsely claiming David Miliband’s grandfather was a member of the Red Army, and comparing this very early (pre-Stalin) soviet army with the Nazi SS, constitutes nothing less than advancing a right-wing agenda.

People should study the subject first, before presenting mere conjecture or political opinion. Wikipedia deserves better. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, because Marxist is so much better than being a Commie. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"very early (pre-Stalin) soviet army with the Nazi SS, constitutes nothing less than advancing a right-wing agenda".

How does pre-Stalin make it more palatable? Lenin set up the Cheka, Trotsky crushed the Kronstadt rebellion. The system of terror actually began before Stalin. Also, "When one fails to distinguish any difference between ‘communist’ and ‘Marxist’, something is surely amiss". The same might be said for someone who falls into the trap of thinking that things somehow only got bad in the Soviet Union after Lenin's death. Jprw (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Politically inspired Ommission? - Banana Incident

Banana incident - why is this not included? Why does the clearly politically motivated Off2RioRob (who seems to mainly edit the profiles of the Labour Cabinet) get to veto my addition?

Please assume good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In Septemeber 2008 Milliband was pictured comicly holding a Banana during the Labour party conference. The resulting public mockery damaged Miliband's public profile and was held partly accountable for his failure to follow through with the long-speculated leadership challenge. Miliband later stated that he was holding the banana because it was his lunch.

Your source is a blog in The Spectator, hardly a reliable and neutral source where Labour politicians are concerned! A quick look through Google shows that most of the metions of this incident are also blogs. The first source I found acceptable was this, which only mentions the banana incident in passing before giving it appropriate weight in relation to other issues surrounding Miliband. I don't remember "public mockery", I remember him being lampooned for it by the Conservatives, but that's about their level, isn't it? I don't remember the incident being held (by reliable commentators) responsible for a non-leadership challenge, and in fact, Miliband has repeatedly said (before and since) that he has no intention of challenging Brown. I'd suggest this banana incident was a minor event in the hurly-burly of party politics, nothing else, and should not be blown up into something it isn't. Rodhullandemu 13:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This comment is in reply to User_talk:83.244.212.11 Its a worthless comedy slur, and adds nothing of value to the article at all, it came to nothing, as you say yourself, it was nothing more than a bit of press mockery, it wasn't widely reportable and isn't a notable enough event to add to the article. Also please do not attack my motives as regards editing, I also edit conservative articles in the same neutral style. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

majoring

this is contextually wrong when used in a sentence about UK universities and should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.141 (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and amended. --Rodhullandemu 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

David milliband is Sayan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.5.230 (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

Previous photo

Current photo

The infobox image was changed by someone today. Both are free images, so both can (and probably should) be included. I don't have much of an opinion which one should go in the infobox, but if anyone has a preference they can do it. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lockerbie Bomber release

I've added wording, to say that the released person was serving life. Hopefully, this helps to illustrate that Milliband wanted the lifer to _avoid_ serving life in prison, which seems like an odd stance. This is a very controversial issue, so I have refrained from making any inferences about possible other reasons for wishing to release him from his life sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the wording added, and with the paragraph as a whole.. although i do have concerns about the statement "and that this may have been instrumental in facilitating Megrahi's release", that may be WP:SYNTHESIS, original research, or violate some other policy, if others have problems with the sentence, we should remove it to avoid any disputes. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it, it has not been widely commented that milliband has any responsibility for the release of this guy. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede

Is this really worthy of inclusion in the lede, and is it actually sourced or is it speculative .... it even says,,milliband is generally believd that is a bit fluffy isn't it? Also in the body of the article it says that Milliband has said that he is not a blairite as suc and looks beyond that to the future. I tried googling milliband is a social democrat and there is little solid to support this that milliband is a social democrat also the conjecture that because he is pro europe and advocates action on the enviroment and public spending that he is a blairite seems a step to far to me especially in the lede, I would like to take it out. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Miliband is a social democrat and seen as 'Blairite' in terms of advocating choice in public services. He is generally believed to be on the left of the New Labour project, advocating more action on the environment, higher public spending and a more Pro-European foreign policy.

the god question

Miliband was asked a q .. do you believe in god? he said no.

that is the whole story, that does not make him anything apart from someone who said he does not believe in god, asserting that he has declared that he is atheist is a step too far. Off2riorob (talk)

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. Removing this from the article and mentions of him in lists of atheists is insulting and smacks of censorship. Off2riorob probably has a bias in this being a Christian himself (assumed from his own page), I would also have a bias being an Atheist. If someone else could resolve this it would be great.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism 82.30.175.15 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be wrong to assume that as I have a picture on my userpage that I am affiliated to that group of people. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail source that was removed seemed to be fairly certain that Miliband was an atheist. Off2riorob, is there some reason to doubt its credibility in this matter?

There are alternative sources available such as The Guardian which describes Miliband as one of two Ministers who are "the least equivocal about their atheism". That is a fairly clear cut statement. Other sources include The Times and the New Statesman.

Is it just an issue of the source that troubles you, or is there some other reason to avoid mentioning his atheism? Road Wizard (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Miliband's statement was a simple answer to a simple question, he affiliated himself no more than that, he didn't say he was an atheist. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My bias in this could be described as, I don't like to put words into other peoples mouths and I don't like to see people stuffed into little boxes that perhaps they themselves would not like to be in. Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It may well be the literal dictionary definition but I would say it is original research, they did not ask him if he was an atheist did they, there are a lot of people who would say they didn't believe in God but would object to being called an atheist. Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on the issue so I am looking at the case from a pure policy viewpoint. While saying that someone is an atheist solely from an answer of "No" to the question "Do you believe in God?" is probably pushing on the boundaries of original research, we do have some sources that make a clear statement that Miliband is an atheist.

Do you have anything substantial to disagree with the sources? We can counter one source with another that disagrees. We can provide evidence that a source is acting unreliably. We cannot decide sources are invalid solely on the basis that we feel what they are saying is incorrect.

I can be convinced either way on this, but you will need to provide a more solid argument. Road Wizard (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been watching for a few days, but, yes we have a couple, of sources claiming that miliband is an atheist, but this is a blp and to pigeon hole someone in that way without a clear statement from the subject is a step to far, I have added milibands actual quoted comment to the article, imo that is accurate and plenty. If there is a citation where he himself states that he is an atheist and affiliated with that group then I would be happy to see it added. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no atheist group. In my opinion removing him from lists of atheists is a step too far, I find it insulting to treat it as a minority that people would not want to be associated with. It seems well documented that he is an atheist, it fits the definition perfectly well even if it makes you uncomfortable and you think there is some indefinable difference between an atheist and one who does not believe in a god. 82.30.175.15 (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well. we don't have a citation where he says he is an athiest do we, so the comment is enough already. It is not insulting to athiestism, it is general religious blp policy. The subject should self declare and as I said, there are plenty of people who would say they do not believe in God and who would not want to be label as this or that because they said they don't believe in god, I can only suggest a sub group, cat..people that said they didn't believe in god. Off2riorob (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Declaring no belief in a god is declaring being atheist. Just because you feel it isn't doesn't make it so. Who are these 'plenty of people', I think you may have made them up to support your own religious bias.82.30.175.15 (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, you are the one with a conflict in this, you have ten edits only, all of them about this, if you have a citation where milliband says that he is an atheist we can add it, otherwise the comment the he doesn't believe in god is enough. Off2riorob (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you say so? Because you have more edits and therefore right?82.30.175.15 (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not nice to accuse me of religious bias, I have added the comment made by Miliband about god to the body of the article, you say that saying you don't believe in god makes all the people that say that atheists, I disagree, I think the people that say they don't believe in god are people who said they don't believe in god, I would then say to them, so are you an athiest and see if they affiliated with that group, but no one asked him so we don't know what he would say to that question. Off2riorob (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the definition of atheist, just because you disagree doesn't make it so. This affiliation problem you talk about only exists in your head.82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your comments on the content and not on other editors. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The last comment was on topic, if you are talking about the bias issue then it is too relevant to ignore.82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds are you accusing me of bias? Off2riorob (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your overtly christian userpage and your editing out of the atheism of a self declared atheist that no one else has had issue with.82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You see your assumptions about me are as full of assumptions as your attempted edit. Please don't put words into my mouth or milliband's mouth.Off2riorob (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See I didn't. Declaring no belief in god is declaring atheism, read my first post, I haven't put words in Miliband's mouth. Your homepage is overtly religious, whether or not you are.82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I didn't edit, I reverted from your edit.82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I tire of defending myself from your assumptions, it is important to you this atheism, it is clearly not important to milliband or he would have come right out and said he was an atheist wouldn't he, you don't go around telling people you don't believe in god if you are an atheist, you come right out and say, I'm an atheist. Off2riorob (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the same thing. Atheist means not believing in a god. He therefore did come right out and say he is an atheist.82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely, your time in relation to this would be better spend looking for a citation were milliband is clearly quoted as saying that he is an atheist. I'll show you that kind of thing..Off2riorob (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You completely disagree with the dictionary.82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of strong affiliation here Ian Mckellen..."other issues I most care about - nuclear weapons (against), religion (atheist), capital punishment (anti), AIDS (fund-raiser)" . You can see there his clear affiliation with the group. Off2riorob (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this is what would be required to make you happy, but is it required to say the word atheist when not believing in god is the same thing according to the dictionary?82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is in a biography of a living person, I care less about him and god, but I dislike stuffing people cats without a strong citation where they themselves have declared their affiliation especially in regards to gender, religion or sexuality. Off2riorob (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just you personally, or is the dictionary definition not good enough as a whole?82.30.175.15 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are working in the direction that supports your position, the definition in a dictionary of an atheist is someone who does not believe in god, and as there is a quote from milliband that says he doesn't believe in god you are deducing that therefore he is an atheist, as he is a living person it is better to allow his statements to talk and not for us to deduce what he meant. His comments about god are clearly quoted in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is deducing that against the rules? The dictionary says that it is the same thing, that seems like the kind of deduction that one should allow, but if it is the rule of wikipedia then I will obviously concede. The dictionary definition was good enough for both the daily mail and the guardian though.82.30.175.15 (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your right, those newspapers did deduce that themselves, newspapers do that a lot, we don't have to do that. Off2riorob (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Deduction is a useful tool. Are we not allowed to deduce things?82.30.175.15 (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, especially as atheism is still considered by some to be a religious affiliation I would like a citation of self affiliation similar to the Mckellin one, if you like I will seek a second opinion from a neutral BLP expert. Off2riorob (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That'd be good thanks.82.30.175.15 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, give it 24 hours for a reply and lets see what they say, thanks for the debate. Off2riorob (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your side of the debate too. I hope it can be resolved.82.30.175.15 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I"m an atheist & I've never seen Miliband at the meetings. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, me neither, I asked another editor who was in agreement with me that just this answer to a question about god is not evidence that Miliband is an atheist, so in the absence of a stronger citation we should leave him out of the cat for now. Off2riorob (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Still remaining impartial here, but I would just like to clarify your statement, "[You] asked another editor who was in agreement with [you]". It may be the way you phrased yourself, but the way that is written it sounds like you knew in advance that the other editor would agree with you. I noticed above that you were going to ask for an impartial opinion from an independent BLP expert which is why I haven't commented further till now.

Can you please confirm if this is an impartial view from a BLP expert? Road Wizard (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading the exchange, the other editor doesn't seem to have had the same opinion as you at all, he specifically recommended another route to resolve this.82.30.175.15 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I chose an experienced editor, and attempted to frame the question and the discussion in a neutral way here is all the discussion, I had a small discussion with the editor last week but am not an associate of theirs. The outcome was imo that the editor, like me, was of the opinion that the comments that we have from Miliband are a bit weak to include him in the cat.

A question regarding cats.

Hi Wildhartlivie. I am looking for a neutral opinion fron an experienced editor, and you came to mind. The issue is about Athiesm. Basically a subject of a blp was asked the question a few years ago ..do you believe in god, he replied, no I don't believe in god. Do you think that this is enough to add the subject into the cat Atheists? Off2riorob (talk) 5:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

It depends on whether this is sourced, how reliable the source is and the context within which the statement was given. If all of those points are covered, I'd have to say it was sourced and able to be included. Then again, if it's a wishy-washy statement, the context is still important. Who is it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 5:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

There has been some discussion here regarding this issue that if you have the time could be of value, no worries, no pressure. Off2riorob (talk) 5:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0) It's David Miliband this is the actual citable comment... In answer to the question, "do you believe in God" raised in a 2007 Mail on Sunday survey, Miliband said that he did not believe in God. here This comment is all that we have from Miliband, a few years old and not a topic where we have multiple comments from him, just this one. Off2riorob (talk) 5:59 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

That's a tough call. The article says he answered that he did not believe in God, but the paper itself called him as atheist, and even points out that his father was a celebrated Marxist sociologist. I think I'd be asking for a source that clarifies it better, but I would certainly ask for a request for comments to settle the question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 6:07 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Well, that is just it, 3rd opinion... you are the one, go on .. make a choice...in the cat or out the cat? Off2riorob (talk) 6:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Just an add, the fact that his father was a Marxist should not add weight to Miliband's position. I would dispute the , his dad was a Marxist so he must be a Marxist too position... Off2riorob (talk) 6:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

I wasn't saying that because his father was a Marxist, he must be, just pointing out that the article elaborated on it. The WP:RfC opens the question up for input from the community at large, rather than just one other opinion, which I think is the best avenue for the question. I'm mixed on what it should say. Just basing "atheist" on a response to a question doesn't equal a conclusive answer, but the source takes it further by stating he is atheist, so that muddies the water. I think an WP:RfC would be a more definitive approach. Wildhartlivie (talk) 6:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

I have found request for comment one of the weaker processes that we have here at wikipedia, your comments are appreciated even if not conclusive they are valuable, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 6:31 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Daniel Radcliffe is another in the category, the citation comes from this link where he states this....Radcliffe has been reticent on the subject of religion in the past, but in an interview to promote the latest installment in the film franchise, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 15, he said: "I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism... I have been looking through some of the other subjects in the category and in order to add Miliband I feel we should have a clear declaration similar to this one and the previous one I gave here as an example from Ian Mckellen . Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd still prefer if this was resolved by an independent BLP expert, rather than someone you picked out. How would one go about requesting a third opinion more formally? This is something I feel has been brushed off.82.30.175.15 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the lengthy discussion from myself and a comment from another independant editor can in any way be described as brushed off, you can ask for a Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment through talk pages . Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was inconclusive and specifically recommended a different resolution, and the user was chosen by you which could hardily be seen as independent (not that you chose one specifically to agree with you, but the fact that you 'could' have makes it sketchy). I asked for a third option before you changed the link unfortunately.82.30.175.15 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi! I have come here off of the Third Opinion page. Firstly, as there have been many people contributing to this discussion, it can't properly be considered a third opinion, but I am providing this anyway. I have no history with this article, and, as far as I am aware, no history with any of the editors on this page.

My understanding of this dispute is that it is over whether or not David Miliband should be added to Category:Atheist. It is not disputed that Miliband answered "No" when asked if he believes in god. It is further my understanding that nobody has offered any other evidence of him being an athiest. If any of this is not correct, please let me know.

The most important policy in relation to this dispute is WP:BLP. This policy cautions extreme caution with regards to information added to the articles on living people. This is especially true when the information could be seen as negative. Because of this, we need to be sure that Miliband is an atheist before we add it to the article. The Category:Atheist states in the beginning

This category contains Atheists,

• who have expressed being an atheist,
• and of whom it is known how they define their atheism.

It seems to me that there is no evidence to indicate that we know how Miliband defines his atheism. The article atheist makes the distinction between atheists and nontheists, as an example of how there are different definitions of atheism. We do not know which category Miliband places himself in.

Because of the need to use extreme caution adding material to WP:BLP, and the lack of evidence to how he defines atheism, I think that it is inappropriate to add the category to this article, unless more evidence is provided. Please let me know if you have any questions on this opinion. meamemg (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is an absence of belief in God. I object to the idea that it is like a religion or that being an atheist means you subscribe to anything other than the fact that you do not believe in God. Yaris678 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have misclassified it, if someone could request comment instead that would probably be better.82.30.175.15 (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP this issue, this is a case for a third opinion as it is actually a dispute between two editors. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see 3 before the request and a further dispute afterwards.82.30.175.15 (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a discussion between two editors and so clearly qualifies the conditions for a third opinion, an editor joined in in a neutral way in an attempt to help us, and I requested another uninvolved editor to comment, I see a single propose editor that has not got the answer they want, as I said please don't disrupt further with this, your advice has clearly been to go searching for a stronger citation from Miliband supporting your position. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? The other editor isn't showing up for you? That is odd. The dispute afterwards doesn't matter either? There are far more articles from reputable newspapers describing him as a staunch atheist than there are for other people, Nick Clegg for example. But if the Times, Telegraph, Guardian and most importantly the Oxford dictionary aren't enough then I will concede.82.30.175.15 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Can one of you quickly summarise the references that have been used here? So far all I've seen is the interview question where he's asked if he believes in God and answers "no". That alone isn't quite enough because an agnostic might well give a similar answer. It is not necessary, though, though that we find Miliband saying, "I am an atheist." A reliable source (or two) is enough. I know Off2riorob likes to have anything even remotely controversial come from the horse's mouth, but that is a misinterpretation of BLP. If there are sources that meet WP:RS, that's enough. -Rrius (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources identified so far are The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Times and the New Statesman. Road Wizard (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Telegraph 82.30.175.15 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the cat, you need a self declaration that he associates himself with Atheist and in what way he associates himself with it, I imagine all these citations are simply reporting the single comment that milliband said in 2007 that he did not believe in God, this comment I have added to the personal life section, that is plenty, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

With religious cats and Atheism included in a BLP you are looking for a self declaration, we are not to put words in his mouth, yes the newspaper refereed to him as an atheist because ho said he didn't believe in God but we don't need to do as they do. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The guardian cite is referring to the comment that I have included in the article, it is from 2008 and comments on questions asked last year 2007. Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The statesman, which is a poor cite, just says Milliband who is an atheist, with no link to any comments milliband said regarding it, they quote his as regards his Jewishness but they don't quote him in regards to Atheism. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The times on-line again is quoting the comment that I have include in the article... Nick Clegg, David Miliband and George Osborne have all said recently that they do not believe in God Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And the mail, is the original..the comment that I have included in the article personal life section...Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Health Secretary Alan Johnson said categorically that they did not believe in God.. All of it from the one comment in 2007. The whole comment from which I have included in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing and summarising the refs; the arguments got repetitive fairly quickly, which made reading everything unappealing. You could interpret the DM article to fulfill the "self-declaration" prong because his answer is said to be "unequivocal". Doubtless Off2riorob (is it okay to call you "Rob"?) would not think that enough, but it is irrelevant. That article is the closest we get to a declaration, and none of the pieces come close to the "and of whom it is known how they define their atheism" prong. Until we have more or the criteria change, this article does not belong in the category. -Rrius (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You can call me Rob, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to be presumptuous is all. -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

David's mother was adopted by the Strauss family - immigrants from Fulda, Germany who had fled their native country and had settled in Lordship Park in North London before the outbreak of the Second World War. She spent the War years in their home. Mr Bertel Strauss her adoptive father was a metal merchant and a devout practising Jew and was famous for his immense personal library of Judaica books catalogued as Ohel Baruch. (The library was sold at his death to Yeshiva University in New York City). David's mother rejected the Ultra-Orthodox mode of life of her adoptive parents and had little or no connection with the Strauss family after the War ended.

Better pic

The current pic is horrendous.

Please feel free to provide a better one; I'm sure if you hang around Whitehall for long enough, you'll catch him, and you'll be able to upload it to Commons with a free licence. In the meantime, we are stuck with what we have. Rodhullandemu 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have provided another picture. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

List of positions held

This list has been added, IMO it is not of any added value as the infoboxs are there telling us exactly the same thing, any comments, the editor in Q seems to be moving around similarly on other political articles. Comments? Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC) :I've reverted it. Most of it is redundant to the infobox, and what isn't is discussed immediately below in the prose. In addition to being excess verbiage, it breaks up the natural flow of the section in which it was put. -Rrius (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks, yes I agree with you completely, I'll have a chat to the user about it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Last brothers to be in cabinet together

I know little of this subject but if you look at the article at the top of the page it says it was the Chamberlains but in the section titled 'Foreign Secretary' it says that the last brothers to be simultaneously in cabinet were Edward and Oliver Stanley in the 1930s. I can't glean any definitive information on this subject from either Edward or Oliver Stanleys' pages. This may be because the chamberlains are half brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.38.111 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Grandpa Samuel revisited

On this page http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/i.htm in the 'Encyclopaedia of Marxism' it says David's grandfather Samuel Miliband did serve in the Red Army in the 'Wars of Intervention' - shorthand for the Polish-Soviet War. Sam's Red Army stint is also mentioned elsewhere and also in several newspaper articles, online. I want to add that detail very briefly in the sentence about Samuel. We shouldn't go into any detail about the Polish-Soviet war at all, for relevancy's sake. But I think this mention of Sam in the Red Army is fascinating encyclopaedic family background. It is relevant because David's profile is much to do with his family background, the Holocaust survivors and the Marxists, so just a little more detail to add to the family story is entirely merited. No political bias here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is very relevant to this subject at all and we have had this discussion previously and there are two versions of the story one says he was and one says he wasn't so we left it out as it adds little relevance to the thinking of this subject and the validity and verifiability of content was disputed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply. Please could you point me to the source that says Samuel was not a Red Army soldier in the Polish-Soviet War? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW i just took a look at David Cameron#Family for comparison. It seems much more thorough than the section we have here, goes back further in the generations, and is perhaps a precedent for how we can improve this article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a big supporter of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . The Cameron family history is incomparable to Miliband's family history, for the time being I am heavily occupied elsewhere, but please feel free to search the archives also you could present here on the talkpage the specific addition and the citation that you wish to support it with and other editors can comment on it, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I haven't seen the version of the story that says Samuel wasn't in the Red Army, and I would like to see it. All I have seen is several sources giving the version that Samuel was in the Red Army. It seems uncontroversial, and far more relevant than the fact that he was a 'trained leather worker'. I propose changing "His paternal grandfather, Samuel, a trained leather worker, left Poland immediately after World War One, settling in Brussels by 1920" to "His Polish Jewish paternal grandfather, Samuel, fought for the Soviets in the Polish-Soviet War and then settled in Brussels by 1920." This is verifiable. -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO it has got little relevance here but you are welcome to your position, the citation you have brought so far is a bit primary, the marxist org, and I would not personally like to see this content cited to this source alone, but we can wait for more opinions and take the source to the rs noticeboard, perhaps you would like to start an article about this person? Is it his involvement in the red army that you see as worthy of addition? Sorry if I appear to not be interested in this but imo it adds nothing to this article, did David actually meet him or was he dead before David was born? Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your perfectly reasonable point. I agree the marxist website is a bit primary, and there are several mainstream newspaper articles that can also be added. IMO this is totally relevant primarily because David is one of the highest profile politicians in the UK and politicians' family background is always of interest because it is part of their persona. Moreover, David Miliband refers to his family background very conspicuously, he proactively utilizes it in building his persona. He reminds us that his father was a respected Marxist thinker, and that his mother is a Holocaust survivor. He reminds us that he was moulded by the family talks around the kitchen table about politics and history and socialism. So even though he chooses not to talk about it as much, it is equally interesting that his Polish grandfather fought against Poland in the Red Army (and also quit it), and there are plenty of sources stating this, with none to my mind suggesting anyone (including David) has ever challenged this version of events. Some POV editors may try to use the fact for political reasons, but that is not my goal. Actually any editor who starts to do POV smearing of David's family background should be reminded that Samuel quit the Red Army and the Soviet Union. At the same time, POV editors trying to gag mention of Samuel's past for fear of a smear should also not be allowed to block information. In a neutral manner, I want to include a verifiable fact - no value judgements. I will carefully watch this page and I will not allow it to get used for political or propaganda purposes. In particular, I will not accept any POV editors making Anti-Semitic hints about this fact, nor will I accept any POV editors suggesting the inclusion of this fact is Anti-Semitic. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)h

• Please do not come here throwing your unfounded anti semic slurs around or I will report you for serious unfounded accusations. Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is an allegation of Anti-Semitism, it should be reported to Wikipedia moderators immediately. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The page for the report is WP:Wikiquette alerts. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For your information, a heads up that I've reported our disagreement at WP:3O#Activedisagreements and have requested a third editor take a look at this Anti-Semitism issue. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

• Just to clear the air, Off2riorob's accusation of antisemitism is completely off the wall and unfounded as far as I can see. Off2riorob, remember to assume good faith.
• Was the grandfather's involvement in the Red Army an important influence on David in some way? If a connection can't be made relevant to the subject at hand, then we don't really need to include this. The connection should be made explicit. Leaving something like this open ended with an implied assumption about the connection could be POV.
• We don't need to take sides in controversies of fact, we can just include both versions and say who said what and leave it at that.
• Marxism.org probably shouldn't be used to back up anything too controversial. Find higher quality secondary sources.

Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, perhaps you need to read the comment a bit more, the comments about anto sematism are from chum chum, I dispute his assertions about it, I have not said he is being anti sematic but that he is the person entering here and throwing comments around that other people are anti sematic, bacically its rubbish and you appear to have not understood the issue, feel free to discuss yourcomments as you seem to have misunderstood the issue completely. thanks Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gigs for your speedy and constructive response. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than existing newspaper quotes from David that his family's Jewish and Marxist background did help him to form his politics, I very much doubt we'll find anything that specifically says Sam's Red Army career per se was an important influence. But we don't have anything saying Sam's training as a leather worker is an important influence either. My judgement is that the Red Army experience is more relevant than the leather working, though both can be mentioned. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly cite two versions of the facts, but I can only see one version. I've looked with great interest and I can't find a single source saying Sam wasn't in the Red Army. It would be great to see it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Marxism.org -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Grandparents

Do we really need to add to this .... David Miliband is the elder son of Jewish immigrants Marion Kozak and the late Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband, who fled Belgium during World War II.[2] Both his paternal grandparents lived in the Jewish quarter of Warsaw. His paternal grandfather, Samuel, a trained leather worker, left Poland immediately after World War One, settling in Brussels by 1920.[3] His paternal grandmother, Renia (later known as Renée), also moved to Brussels, .......to clarify all of his grandparents were Jewish? It seems a bit pointy to me. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO its simply interesting that David Miliband is exclusively of Polish Jewish descent, as interesting as Barack Obama's Kenyan and Indonesian roots - nothing more than that. IMO it is verifiable and neutral fact. That's fine if you don't like the sentence, leave it out. I don't believe the fact that Samuel was a trained leather worker is more relevant than the fact that he was a soldier in the Red Army in the Polish-Soviet War. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor additions

This has recently been added, can people please pay as much attention to the quality of the article as they care about adding their favorite addition...please don't add poorly formatted citations and citation farms..this addition is very poor and detrimental to the article as in..the article is of a lower quality after the addition..

fought against Poland in the Polish–Soviet War before moving to Belgium.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] ....a citation farm and none of them formatted at all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've moved the criticism sections into the main body of the article - mostly to foreign secretary section. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Can someone add that his sons' names are Isaac and Jacob.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redseasunderredskies (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We have had a lot of vandalism relating to his children's names in recent weeks. Do you have a reliable source that can confirm those names? Road Wizard (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. It was not hard to find a reliable source for this. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but we should always encourage new users to find sources to support the information they wish to add. Road Wizard (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Schooling

The Wikipedia entry for Haverstock Comprehensive School claims both Miliband brothers as alumni. Can anyone confirm the dates each brother attended this school ? RGCorris (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

This is sourced here as "atheism", or "none", whichever you prefer. To my mind the "Religion" field in the infobox is shorthand for "Religious position", as are most infobox fields anywhere. However, to have this removed without discussion on the basis of a consensus established on another article, without a discussion on the infobox template itself, seems to be more than marginally incorrect, because it's an open invitation to apply standards between articles without general discussion, and on that basis, I reject it here as a slippery slope. Whatever next? Rodhullandemu 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm terribly sorry to encroach on a prior consensus. I did check the talk page first but missed the archive where discussion on this is contained. However... I have read Talk:David Miliband/Archive 1#the god question and Talk:David Miliband/Archive 1#Third Opinion, but can't find where it was a consensus to include his non-religion in the infobox under the heading of religion. Is it possible we can revisit this? Donama (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli relations

Well known ex-patriate Israeli academic and musician Gilad Atzmon has recently (14.September 2010) held a talk where he claimed and pointed at documents that were public until recently that Milliband was on a israeli list as a friend of israel and could be trusted to push israeli propaganda. source: http://vimeo.com/14884763 Nunamiut (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Is any of this relevant? We don't need an "Israel" section, anymore than we need a "Ugandan" section. Quite a stupid thing to include -- and I'm not just talking about the above, but the section in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.39.203 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A-levels

It's utterly absurd to include his A-level grades in this article! Even David Cameron's A-level grades are not mentioned in Wikipedia!!! Would someone please remove it?!!!

Why is it absurd? What is absurd is complaining about something and then asking someone else to remove it. Vexorg (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Banana thing

I appreciate that the banana thing is trivial, and boring. However, as this is supposed to be a source of info, we can't really choose what people go on about. In fact I came this article to find out why the press links him with bananas. And it continues to this day: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-daily-cartoon-760940.html. Should we really omit information so referred to, and well known, that you can't understand a normal newspaper cartoon without it? PS. That cartoon isn't alone, I've seen a few like it recently. 144.32.126.11 (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol well it was a notable incident which you rightly say has continued to be exploited. I would not oppose a sentence on it in the background section of the leadership section if the whole section was expanded. At present it cant really be justified because the section is so short. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Still Shadow Foreign Secretary

David Miliband remains the Shadow Foreign Secretary. He merely is not running for the upcoming Shadow Cabinet elections. The page, as it stands saying his term has ended today, is inaccurate. I would update this myself but would prefer someone more astute to handle it. Kelestar (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ref train

His paternal grandfather, Samuel, a trained leather worker, fought for the Red Army in the Polish–Soviet War of 1919-1921 before moving to Belgium.

Is that so controversial that we need more than one or two refs, let alone seven? -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For many Poles, fighting for the Red Army was similar to fighting for the Nazis. - BorisG (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need them, why not trim them to the clearest and most independent. -  Done - Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks exposé

This content is nothing more than the private opining of a not notable foreign office aide and as such are worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely if it's been picked up by multiple, reliable news sources, we can quote it in context? --McGeddon (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, it worthless, having a citation doesn't make it of any value at all.

A foreigh office aide Tim Waite said in a private cable that he thought the attention was an attempt to win the votes of the English Tamils. In December 2010 the Foreign office replied that The Foreign Office said tonight there was nothing wrong or unusual in explaining to a foreign diplomat the political context for UK foreign policy, and a former prime ministerial envoy on Sri Lanka said that the British involvement was motivated firstly by the scale of the humanitarian crisis http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-david-miliband-sri-lanka Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just some valueless opinion from some not notable foreign office aid. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Political positions of David Miliband

I've just discovered the above article; it seems obvious to me that it should be merged into this one. Most of the content in it is already duplicated anyway; as Miliband isn't a party leader, I don't see the need for a separate 'political positions' page. (Note that the only other British politician with one is David Cameron, but I'd say that's much more justified.) Robofish (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a stale discussion. - the article is mostly duplicated. I am going to boldly redirect it, and remove the templates. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

uncited

Hi I have moved this uncited here for citing and replacing - it was in the lede, its not so big a point to include in the lede anyways - where I don't know - but not in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It was announced in January 2011 that Miliband will take up the position of Vice-Chairman at Premier League club Sunderland A.F.C., with his role specifying in his charity work and ambassadorial work.

Internal link

Why would an internal link be removed to the term and the article Jewish?

Step 1.) This editor added the internal link.

Step 2.) This editor removed it.

Step 3.) This editor (me, Bus stop) added it back again.

Step 4.) This editor removed it again.

Step 5.) This editor added it back again.

Step 6.) This editor removed it again.

I believe it is very well sourced that, "…Miliband is the elder son of Jewish immigrants…"

Why then wouldn't the term and the article Jewish be linked to internally?

I find the following:

"But the upbringing of both Marion and Ralph could not have been more different from the stable, loving home they gave their children. Both of them Jewish, they separately fled the Nazis, avoiding almost certain death in the concentration camps that claimed the lives of millions of Jews."

Note the wording: "Both of them Jewish…" Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK. Or do you really think that Wikipedia readers need to read the article to understand what 'Jewish' means? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—WP:OVERLINK would not be applicable here. The link is simply there for the convenience of the reader. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK applies here. We don't link everything that 'might' be convenient. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except that this is not an instance of overlinking. You have to look at the specifics. This is the sentence:

"Born in London, Miliband is the elder son of Jewish immigrants, Belgian-born Marxist Ralph Miliband and Marion Kozak from Poland."

This is the first sentence of the Early life paragraph. As a sentence establishing the background of David Miliband, the ability of the reader to look into the family's culture is of considerable importance. It is arguably more important than the father being a Marxist—which is linked to. Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'd strongly advise you to stop creating arguments over trivial issues, where policy is clear. Most Wikipedia readers know (at least approximately) what 'Jewish' means. Please don't insult their intelligence (and ours) by suggesting otherwise. You are severely trying the patience of a number of regular Wikipedia contributors with such facile arguments, and only a reluctance to get involved in what is likely to be a messy process has prevented you being reported for your behaviour. Why don't you find something more sensible to do instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• note - I have reverted a couple of other dubious edits from this user, please see the contribution history.Jimmyson1991 contribution history - Also please not that on Davids fathers Ralph Miliband article the Jew article is not even linked there, never mind here. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I think user Jimmyson1991 has done enough disruption. I suggest we need to take action, but I do not have experience. Any advice? - BorisG (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)