Talk:Geoff Hoon

uncited

this is uncited since sept 2008, one year ago and I am looking to find cites for it or remove it. Also the whole article is a bit messy and in need of a tidy up.

Comment on Geoff Hoon's public persona has varied wildly from that of non-descript minister to a capable Defence Secretary and a "safe pair of hands" during and shortly after the 2003 Iraq War, to adjectives such as "slippery" and "dishonest" during the Dr. David Kelly Affair. The label "Geoff Who?" was applied by many national newspapers and he was given the joke nickname "Buff" (buffoon). He was widely expected to resign on the publication of the resulting Hutton Report. Whilst many were unsurprised at the absence of any claim of wrong-doing on Tony Blair's behalf there was widespread disbelief that both Hoon and his Permanent Secretary, Sir Kevin Tebbit, were also completely cleared of any impropriety.[citation needed] Hutton concluded that there was no "underhand" strategy in the naming of Kelly but that the Ministry of Defence failed to inform and advise him of the effects his name entering the public domain. Hoon was unpopular throughout the Armed Forces, who considered him to be an advocate of unnecessary change and accused him of weakening the Forces. In particular, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, publicly accused Hoon of neglecting morale and efficiency in his policies.[citation needed] The military's low opinion of him was long-standing and dated back to his handling of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre.

Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the uncited military negativity out, I suppose they are not bothered now he is gone. It looks a lot better now. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

cluster bombs

The independant link to this is broken and there are no wayback links,

Comments on cluster bombs

Shortly after the US/UK led invasion of Iraq began in 2003, Hoon stated that mothers of Iraqi children killed by cluster bombs would thank Britain for their use 'one day'. Following an admission by the Ministry of Defence that Britain had dropped 50 airborne cluster munitions in the south of Iraq and left behind up to 800 unexploded bomblets, it was put to Hoon in a Radio 4 interview that an Iraqi mother of a child killed by these cluster bombs would not thank the British army. He replied "One day they might."

any ideas? Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

this link is to do with cluster bombs but with different comments [[1]] Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

here is the dead link [[2]] Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

is this it? [[3]]

Its working now, I added an additional explanatory comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoon the buffoon

This derogatory not notable not well known not encyclopedic valuless partisan slur disguised as a nickname has been added, it has no value at all. Please provide here or move to the WP:BLPN the context and discussion to reveal reasons for its notability and to support it is a well known nickname. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the subject of an article in a respected British newspaper, The Independent. That is the reason for its notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a citation in a newspaper does not make it notable or worthwhile content. Its a not notable insulting nickname.Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it's insulting. That's not the point, we don't cut it out just because it's negative. As it is, I've added a citation in which Hoon himself discusses the name in a press interview, so that can clinch it. Don't revert again because the 3RR applies even if you are protecting a politician's honour. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what is going to be added. It has several citations, including one with the man himself discussing the name. If you don't provide a reason not to include it (other than "Hoon might not like it" then you are clearly acting inappropriately. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Expand to see.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==Nickname== Hoon has aquired the irreverent nickname Buff, (''Buffoon''). Although it was originally rumored to have been the invention of a member of the Conservative Party, fellow Labour Party collegue Peter Kilfoyle recently took responsibility. <ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-kilfoyle-i-gave-geoff-his-buff-hoon-nickname-1874219.html</ref><ref name="guardian">{{cite news|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/jan/24/euenlargement|title=Hoon's no buffoon in eyes of the EU|last=Tran|first=Mark|date=24 January 2007|publisher=''[[The Guardian]]''|language=[[English language|English]]|accessdate=8 June 2010|location=[[United Kingdom]]}}</ref> In at least one interview, Hoon has been questioned over his feelings towards the name.<ref name="buffoon">{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/geoff-hoon-you-ask-the-questions-966947.html|title=Geoff Hoon: You Ask The Questions|date=20 October 2008|work=[[The Independent]]|publisher=''[[The Independent]]''|language=[[English language|English]]|accessdate=8 June 2010|location=[[United Kingdom]]}}</ref>''

• Let's just slow down on this, bring sources to the talk page, and then reach a consensus. Please. --Ibn (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've brought sources. So far, the only argument against the name that anyone has raised is "It's not notable," (clearly untrue) and "It's a nasty name," (clearly irrelevant). ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  Ooh, Sky News use the name too. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  And The Mirror – ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  The Daily Mail explicitly notes, "The lecture from Mr Hoon, whose previous gaffes have earned him the nickname ‘Buff’ Hoon, was ridiculed by opposition politicians and transport experts..." ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  You're not seriously offering Sky, The Mirror and The Daily Mail as reliable sources? --Ibn (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I am, as the preponderance of a nickname. But fair enough: what about the two Independent references, the article in The Guardian, plus The Times (twice) and The Evening Standard (twice) – ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  The (Scottish) Daily Record note the nickname. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 20:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  The Transport Salaried Staffs Association use the nickname in a press release ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  This is Nottingham ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  The Scottish Sun ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to propagate derogatory not notable press nicknames that have no content value apart from to demean the living subject. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are, actually. This is an encyclopedia, not Hoon's autobiography. We don't only state the positive facts. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, young man, slow down for a moment. For the sake of argument, say this is perectly verifiable (as opposed to being notable, a concept that only extends to articles as a whole). Does that mean it is worth its own section, or merely a brief mention? Is it worth mentioning at all, per WP:UNDUE? --Ibn (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, now we're talking. It's perhaps not worth its own section, but given the preponderance of sources discussing the name, including Hoon himself, I think it's definitely worth a mention. Perhaps in the section "Member of Parliament"? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to go to bed wait for further input on this, given that it's been listed at the BLP noticeboard. G'night folks. --Ibn (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to propagate derogatory not notable press nicknames that have no content value apart from to demean the living subject. Also note I have opened a thread at the BLPN as I see this as nothing less than a simple insult and feel free to make your case for inclusion at the noticeboard and see if there is consensus for inclusion of this derogatory nickname there, thread at the BLPN is Hoon the buffoon.Off2riorob (talk) 9:08 pm, Today (UTC+1)

You keep repeating that we don't include derogotary names, but it's still bollocks. WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Daily Express ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• CNN think it worth mentioning. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  Respected political publication The Spectator ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 20:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  The European Foundation Intelligence Digest ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  Sri Lankan Sunday Times ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  The BBC mention him receiving the nickname. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add any of the worthwhile content you are citing here about this and that mistakes hoon has made, this is not under dispute and unlike the not notable valueless insulting nickname has a value.Please seek support and consensus on the BLP noticeboard to add the Hoon the buffoon slur.Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not engaging with you any more, because you either won't or can't understand that we do not omit notable facts simply because they negatively portray their subjects. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, your desired addition has no value apart from insulting the living subject, feel free to seek support for your desired addition on the thread at the BLP noticeboard, this man has done this and that negative notable things and I support the inclusion of those issues, actual they are already in the article, I object to your desired addition of what I see as a insulting slur of a nickname with no encyclopedic value. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As there is RS for it I see no reason not to include it, but in the body of the article. Verbal chat 20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree entirely. Since I have uncovered nineteen reliable sources covering the nickname, from some of the world's most respected political news organisations it would be absurd to say that it is non-notable. (I'm at the 3RR limit, so – unless there are any overwhelming arguments that the references listed above are all unacceptable because perhaps Mr Hoon might not like that sort of thing – I'll re-add the passage tomorrow afternoon, but not in its own section.) ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have looked through the sources and I have to agree with TreasuryTag that there is sufficient supporting evidence to mention that he was given the nickname. However the suggested edit above makes it into a dedicated section, which appears to give undue weight to the name; it is a fact that he was given the name, but I don't think we can say it is enough of a defining aspect to merit its own section of the article.
One thing to consider when referring to a nickname is not just the number of sources that use it, but the time periods as well. The CNN source is about the May 2006 reshuffle, the Independent asks him about the name in October 2008, the Mail is from February 2009, the Express is from April 2009, while the Times, Mirror, Sky and Daily Record all date to January 2010. That means we have evidence of repeat use for at least 5 years; it is not just a slur used for a single election campaign, but something that appears to have stuck with him. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As you'll see, the latest version makes it part of another section, which I agree is better. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was actually about to do the same thing. This would be an excellent solution. I propose we go back to that version. Verbal chat 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a simple valueless insult, we are here to report what he has done not such insults, people rush to agree that we should add such rubbish but the real valuable to the reader content is ignored. Hoon the coon, I have removed that also previously, Hoon the buffoon, it is not a notable nickname at all, its a simple insult. If you want to add an insult then enjoy but it is imo a shame on wikipedia that this sort of valueless insult is added to any article.Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We are here to report what he has done not such insults. The more you say that, the more annoying it is. It doesn't get any more true. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 20:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, when you say, "it is not a notable nickname at all" – could you please enlighten me as to why nineteen reliable sources (twenty if you include Hoon himself) discuss it, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear it is notable. WP:Notability applies to article subjects, not bits of content. It is abundantly clear that the nickname is verified by reliable sources. But that is really beside the point. No, we don't exclude negative material, but we don't include it without a point. Right now, the nickname is gratuitous. If it can be included in a way that helps tell the story of Geoff Hoon, by all means include it. As it stands, we are saying, "Some people called him idiot. It was thought Conservatives started it, but it was apparently Peter Kilfoyle. Hoon has been asked about how the nickname makes him feel." That's just silly. How about something more like, "After a series of gaffes, he acquired the nickname "Buff" Hoon, which fellow Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle later admitted to coining." The bit about the interview frankly misrepresents the question and answer, so it should be cut altogether. He was asked if he know it was his nickname and why he though he got it; his initial response was to make a joke about it (presumably taking "buff" to mean muscular), then brushed it off saying "buffoon" is not the worst thing he's ever been called. -Rrius (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include it Treasury Tag's citations are more than adequate, but several people have the premise of UNDUE upside down: If even one reliable source includes a bit of negative information, excluding it "per NPOV" (or "per UNDUE", which is part of NPOV) is entirely backwards. UNDUE cannot be construed logically to force zero representation of any reliably sourced content, because we cannot have coverage "in proportion to" its appearance with null representation. This is not a scientific topic where "tiny minority" views can appropriately be excluded; it's a politician's article. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That doesn't really address my point. The passage, as currently written, does not say anything meaningful. Essentially, we are saying that people called him an idiot, that Kilfoyle (not the Tories as originally thought) started it, and that he has been questioned about how he feels about his nickname. The last part is not only meaningless, but is also inaccurate. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I just bulleted my response for emphasis--I was responding to the general discussion, rather than to your (immediately prior) post. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Only two people mentioned WP:UNDUE prior to this. One of us was asking a question, not making a statement. Admittedly, it would've been clearer to use a disjunction instead of separating the clauses with punctuation, but it's still a question. --Ibn (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No, that's not correct, as you know from a previous issue :) Tiny minority views, especially if derogatory, should and indeed must be excluded from any article on a person whether living or dead. That's not even a BLP issue, it's merely WP:UNDUE. However this one does appear to have multiple actually reliable sources. It's got to be worth a sentence - but nothing more than that, I suggest. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Agreed. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoon is a Buffoon: section-break

So why do they insult him with this buffoon nickname? The reason should be included. The comment as added is not correct, it says in at least one interview... how many interviews is it? one? in the cited independent it is not an interview it is a question from a member of the public and hoons reply also needs to be included to give context..when asked by a member of the public if Hoon know he was sometimes nicknamed Buffoon hoon replied that if that was the worst thing he was called that he would be doing well. I suggest this be added and the reason that he is called this also be added, why is he nicknamed buffoon?in the other citation it says of the nickname and referring to Hoon...For years it has tormented him and delighted opponents....perhaps we should add that the nickname has tormented Hoon for years and that the person that claims he coined the nickname said of his humour "Liverpool wit is spontaneous – and cruelly insulting." Some context needs to be added to give note to the nickname. The BBC said.. Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is in hot water with the Sunday tabloids who've given him a new name - Buff-Hoon for taking a holiday as the country prepares for war. Looking at the cites provided its just an insulting name, nothing special about it at all, a way to insult him, not worthy of including at all unless you want to insult him as well. ..I can't see it in the encyclopedia brittania can you? HO ho ho, they called him hoon the buffoon, how hilarious and noteworthy. In another cite it says.. The ex-Defence Secretary - known as "Buff" Hoon by Labour enemies , we could add that to give the name some context? That it is a deliberately insulting nickname designed to ridicule Hoon and was given to him by his enemies.Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I make a couple of requests, please? Could you make your future contributions to this page repetitive, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR, tedious, dull and extremely boring? (Oops, sorry, you're already doing that.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am only trying to discuss the content, censor is not the keeping out of valueless insulting content and NPOV what is the issue there, the citations you have presented refer to the nicknme as insulting and created to insult him by his enemies, as I said the content that we have now is without context and if it is to stay we should imo give it context and correct the weasely in at least one comment. If it is used to insult him we should say that, in anouther citation it says.. "He is the worst Transport Secretary I have ever come across and that is saying something," said the angry union general secretary. "I can see why everyone calls him Buff Hoon. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't know how to make this any clearer, so I'll say it one last time and then ignore you. Yes the nickname is insulting. Yes the nickname was created by Hoon's "enemies" (as you put it). However, neither of these are reasons to exclude it from the article, as per WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. The article List of Presidents of the United States by nickname includes many insulting nicknames. Our page on Tony Blair includes reference to his (insulting) nickname of "poodle" – OK, now I've said it. Don't expect any further replies to comments you leave here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As for you ignoring me, I would like that, why you assume I am talking to you I have no idea, I am simply commenting on the talkpage, whether you like it or not is meaningless to me. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you have any policy reasons why we should discount multiple RSs? If not, please stop repeating the same argument. I noticed you missed the actual BLP problem with this article. Verbal chat 13:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The name is a simple insult, no notable reason for it apart from a way to insult the man, childish really and not noteworthy in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think that we should change as per the cites I have quoted the acquired the irreverent nickname..to .. been given the insulting nickname....something like... As a way to ridicule and insult Hoon his political enemies coined the demeaning nickname Hoon the buffoon. With other nicknames like blairs bush's poodle at least that has context, I imagine everyone would know the story behind it, with this there appears to be no context, it just appears to be a non specific way to ridicule him. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's not noteworthy, why is there so much RS coverage? Neither you nor I can be the arbiter of whether things given extensive coverage are noteworthy. Also, I think your proposed text makes it read worse - highlighting the derogatory nature of the nickname. Basically, you have no policy to back your position, which goes against both existing, core, policies, and against current practice as TT has shown. Verbal chat 14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My desired edit to the content simply reveals what the nickname actually is, just a way of insulting Hoon, wich nothing behind it at all and the fact that it can be found in a citation does not make is worthy of inclusion. Its of no value to the article in any way, ask yourself it it valuable content that adds anything to the article, on its not, would it merit inclusion in anyother encyclopedic boigraphy, no it would not, the reason is that it is just a way to deride and insult a living person, there is no story to it apart from ..we coined an insulting nickname to deride our enemy, value-less. There is also little discussion of the nickname in the citations as there is nothing to say about it, Hoon the baffoon a name given to him because some people think he is rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to choose one pithy quote from the above to highlight as being especially wrong/misguided, but I really can't choose...! ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "Bollocks" Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you didn't say that, it would be excessively foolish, not to say deceptive, of me to "quote" it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So as you have no argument, rob, I assume you wont be removing the well sourced addition again? If so, we can ask for the page to be unblocked so actual issues can be addressed. Verbal chat 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have every intention of adding to and tweaking the content as I have said in my comments here, the present text is misleading. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose you proposed changes as they make the article worse. Verbal chat 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You will not do anything of the sort, Rob, since there is no consensus whatsoever for your proposed changes, and you have provided no justification for any alteration except that you don't like the current version. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a consensus from you pair to add content or tweak content. I will add cited content relevant to the article and I will correct the points I have mentioned, such as the weasely in at least one how many is that then? Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is no consensus (and, yes, you do need it, you are subject to Wikipedia's policies just like every other editor) for your proposed actions or for your arguments, any continual threats to edit the article against the general agreement are likely to result in the protection being extended. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can edit the article and I don't need any consensus to do it, it is not a threat at all. As I said I have every intention of adding cited content to it when it is unlocked. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see where the misunderstanding is now. You say I can edit the article and I don't need any consensus to do it. The problem is that that is not actually true.
As you said to me yesterday, Your [re]insertion without discussion was the starting point of an edit war, you are experienced enough in edit wars to know that. I am available to discuss it, feel free to open a discussion about it. As you pointed out, it is necessary to discuss changes which you know are controversial before making them. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about adding cited content or removing weasly expressions and such like. You will be of course able to remove it if you don't like it and as I said to you, move to discussion. Do you assert that this Hoon the buffoon is more than a simple insulting name for him? Do you really think it is noteworthy encyclopedic content? I don't and fail to see how anyone really could. Your reason for wanting to include it appears to be that it is in a reliable citation, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion, editors make those choices and that is what creates the level of commentry, do editors see it as informative encyclopedic type content.Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question(s)—yes I agree that it is insulting, and yes I do feel that it is noteworthy, notable and encyclopedic. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You think it is insulting and encyclopedic? The real valuable content is there in the article, the things he has done right and the things he has done wrong, the lobbying the iraq war and so on, that is what is valuable content to the readers, not some silly insulting nickname on little note and with no story behind it. If is it clearly insulting and the alleged creator said his humour was cruelly insulting the text should reflect those points. Also I want to include hoons reply to the question from the member of the public in the independent interview where hoon responded that if buffoon was all he was being called then he considered that he was doing well Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You think it is insulting and encyclopedic? I believe that's what I said. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see those two things can go together, something that is simply insulting can not by its very nature be encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also there is the BLP issue, you know it is insulting and yet you insist it is included. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Which part of WP:BLP states that insulting material must be excluded? (Hint: none.) ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, content is without context and clearly disparages the subject. Noteworthy criticism is fine but imo insulting content without context is not. As in He has been nicknamed hoon the buffoon..why is that then? Well no reason..just to insult him really. Off2riorob (talk)15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TT, please remain calm (always best in these cases). Rob, if you make such an undiscussed change I may ask for you to be banned from editing the article (but not the talk page). This is not a battle Rob, and you're not going to convince anyone with the same argument that has already failed. You have not gained any support for your position, which goes against consensus here and policy consensus. Verbal chat 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to win over Rob on this one. He has this notion that nothing insulting should be included, and it is not clear why he thinks that. However, he is right that what is there is not encyclopedic. It's only purpose at present is to highlight that some people have taken advantage of his name to hurl a childish insult. As I've proposed above, and about which not one editor has commented, we should actually tie the nickname to its cause, i.e., the gaffes. This should be pretty easy and would address the concern that we are taking a cheap shot at Hoon. Also, we should get rid of the idiot statement that he has been asked how he feels about the nickname. If he has, it wasn't in the source we link to. -Rrius (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, we should get rid of the idiot statement that he has been asked how he feels about the nickname. If he has, it wasn't in the source we link to. It wasn't in the source we link to? Really? Because when I click on that link, and scroll down to the bottom, Philippa Shirley poses Hoon the question, "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" So I'm confused about how there is an "idiot" statement involved. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is really quite simple: "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" does not equal "How do you feel about your nickname?". It is idiotic to suggest it does. As I have already explained, the two questions actually asked are "Were you aware of your nickname and where does it come from?" How can anyone argue that those questions equate to "how do you feel about it?" Please, tell me how. Oh, and I am so sorry for accidentally leaving off "-ic" from "idiotic". It seems to have been very annoying to you, so I prostrate myself in begging for your forgiveness. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you are clearly not interested in engaging in polite and constructive discussion, there is no need for me to respond. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. You just can't answer the question. Your pointing out my typo twice was rude, but it didn't stop me from responding to your question. The fact is, you know that you cannot turn what is actually in that source into what you are trying to say it is and are trying to deflect on bogus grounds. Please just admit whether he knew of the nickname and why he thought he earned does not somehow equate to asking how he feels about the nickname. -Rrius (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. You just can't answer the question. Well, if false assumptions like that make you feel better about yourself, then who am I to stop you? You're surely not claiming that your message above was polite? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no false assumption. You have had several opportunities to respond to this criticism, but have failed to do so. Since manifestly ("where the name comes from" + "whether he is aware of the name") ≠ "how he feels about the name", it is not surprising that you cannot support the opposite conclusion and instead have resorted to pretending to storm off because you were so offended. Second, I'm not trying to feel better about myself; I want this article to improve. The question of this nickname was raised here, and frankly it is currently handled quite poorly. The question of completely misrepresenting a source is just one problem, as I have pointed out at least twice above. If you care to actually respond to the points made instead of taking offense at the misrepresentation being called "idiotic" (typo or not), you might actually contribute to improving the article. It is up to you to do that or to continue to take offense well out of proportion to that intended. Third and finally, since I didn't say it was polite there is no reason for you to take it as such. What I said was that you were rude about my typo, yet I managed to actually answer your question. I may have done so with some heat (because of your rudeness), but that doesn't change the fact that I answered. Your decision to then act as though I wasn't trying to have a constructive conversation was just petulance. So, you can defend the misrepresentation or not, you can answer the other points or not, but if you don't, it is because you chose not to and has nothing to do with me. -Rrius (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected

To prevent an edit-war; if there's consensus at BLPN that the material can be included that's probably the way to go. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BlackKite. FYI the noticeboard recommends people discuss things here, so it's here where the consensus is likely to be formed. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Real BLP issue

{{editprotected}} "His daughter goes on bare crewdates with MC Dollers at Jamals." I don't know what this means, but it is unsourced and should probably be removed. Also, colleague is spelt incorrectly. I tried to fix the spelling but the page got protected. Verbal chat  Done

Template:Brown Cabinet

Could an admin please place {{Brown Cabinet}} in the external links section, thank you.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoff Hoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217015435/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon%2C_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon,_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203160946/http://www.taylorhoon.co.uk:80/ to http://www.taylorhoon.co.uk

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Dates clash

This entry seems to say he was an MEP and simultaneously an MP, between 1992 and 1994. I don't think that's possible. Bigmund (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you show a British politician in front of the Pentagon sign in the US?

That smells like left-wing, anti-military bias insisting he is a tool of America.

46.93.242.77 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)