Talk:David Cameron/Archive 5

Controversy
Shouldn't there be a sub-heading here "Controversy", mentioning - among other things  - the controversy about things he has said, such as his claim that Ed Balls behaves as if he has Tourette's Syndrome? All right, I know that he did apologise about this. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This section could also mention things he has said about whether Scotland should have a referendum on independence. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Education
The text states he left Oxford in 1984, when actually it was Eton he left that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.180.60 (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed - thank you for the report - You  really  can  19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replaced Oxford with Eton as suggested above as it is clear from the chronology that he took his gap year between leaving Eton and before going to Oxford. If anyone can confirm that he left Eton in 1984 as seems likely given his year of birth, I suggest that this date is added.  Robert Currey   talk  01:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8753662/David-Cameron-Eton-College-should-run-a-state-school.html - You  really  can  14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry categorisation / Category:British people of Jewish descent
It has been added today Jewish descent category (which I removed), imo it is only distant and over caricaturisation to put him in this group also the German descent is distant and unwarranted, we all walked out of Africa, shall we add that too? The comment in the article says this....Cameron has English, Scottish, and, more distantly, German[14] and Ashkenazi Jewish[15][16] ancestry.... more distant to me equals not worthy of being in the cat. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not state the proportions of each ancestry. The Scottish descent cat should stay as his father is Scottish. Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Category:British people of Jewish descent appears to be getting edit-warred over. What is the consensus for including it or not? --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan for some reason doesn't want facts presented in the article that Cameron's ancestry is English, Welsh, Jewish, German, etc..in addition to Scottish - which should not be the only thing mentioned. Anyone support this position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukunis (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

O-Levels
I was trying to find some details about DC's O-Levels wikipedia states he passed 12 O-levels. I could not find a break-down of the subjects - the only on-line source I found is the Guradian: mentioning 10 good O-levels: 4 As, 5 Bs and a C. Did he definitely sit 12 and pass the other 2. I assume he must have deferred application to Oxford until after his A-levels but it is surprising that he was entered for so many O-levels with those grades if looking for Oxbridge. I was wondering if there is a source that confirms his results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.169.5 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to be claimed to be from this book - ^ Francis Elliott and James Hanning, Cameron: The Rise of the New Conservative (4th Estate, 2007), pp. 45–6. - your source is a good accessible one for the ten o'levels and pass grades though - I wouldn't mind if you changes it as the grades are also additional detail - or you could be really keen and look for the book ... You  really  can  14:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Maiden Speech
In David Cameron’s maiden speech in the house of commonshe spoke in opposition to the programming of bills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.186.115 (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cameron and Lord Ashcroft -reversion of edit.
I've had a look at the reasons for Bastin's removal of this section. I'm fully familiar with WP:RS and have looked again at WP:NEWSORG. Peter Oborne is a very well known journalist, his work will be familiar to MPs and he has extremely good contacts inside the Tory party. The problems within the coalition are self evident after the Lords though I've added a BBC link. The key factual information is that Ashcroft's publications are attacking the coalition.

Re "WP:UNDUE on a tangential issue"
 * Ashcroft is the main Tory party donor. Finance is crucial in any election, particularly in the marginals where he concentrates his donations and there is no other reference to him in this article.
 * The main heading is titled Political commentary.
 * The subsection is very short.

Anyone doubting whether ConservativeHome is demonising their coalition partners should look at the cartoons on:- 1, 2 3 4 5 6 I'm reinstating it in accordance with WP:BRD. Any other comments welcome, as per usual please use the talk page. JRPG (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Monarch
Is the Monarch really relevant to British politicians? She's not a politician, does not influence policy, and does not actually appoint them, formalities aside. I have nothing whatsoever against her, but Britain is actually a democracy, not a monarchy. Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cameron has claimed someone from the palace helped him get a job in the Conservative research department. Descendents of monarchy do seem to have done disproportionately well in the Tory party, e.g.  Boris, Dave, Jeremy and probably many others. Historically Charles II and the Tory party were closly linked. It ought of course to be irrelevant.  Regards JRPG (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is certainly relevant to Prime Ministers. There is ample evidence that the Prime Minister's weekly audience and other discussions with the Sovereign are no mere form but active consultations, and that Prime Ministers frequently take the Sovereign's advice. The audience is entirely confidential and does not leak but it is known, for instance, that Clement Attlee altered his cabinet appointments on the advice of George VI, and that George V played a central role in persuading the three party leaders to form a National Government in 1931. This being so, it's entirely appropriate to note the Sovereign under whom a Prime Minister served. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sam, I had assumed this was a reference to the Cameron family connection to William IV rather than a question on the monarch's constitutional role.JRPG (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Britain is actually a democracy, not a monarchy." True, and not true. Is France a democracy or a republic? Monarchy is not the opposite of democracy; it's the opposite of republic, so to speak. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * || Democratic || Not Democratic
 * Republic || United States || North Korea
 * Monarchy || United Kingdom || Saudi Arabia
 * }
 * Monarchy || United Kingdom || Saudi Arabia
 * }
 * }


 * I'd argue that North Korea is actually a monarchy (3rd generation of son as absolute ruler) and the UK is not. As for Attlee, real monarchs command their subjects, not try to influence or advise them.  If the Queen is an advisor to the PM, list her as such.  I guess it really comes down to the modern vs. traditional definition of "monarch." Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some argue that the Queen is a shape-shifting lizard. It is, of course, just as clear that she is not a lizard as it is clear that she is a monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy is relevant and if this is about if the Queen should be mentioned in the infobox, then i strongly oppose any attempt to remove the monarch from there. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Children
The Wikipedia article is incorrect in relation to the number of offspring. The Cameron's have had FIVE children, their first, Jennifer Jane (2001), sadly died after only ten days of life, having been born prematurely. She nonetheless lived, and was loved by her parents and should not be omitted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.221.126 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Jennifer Jane was the daughter of Gordon Brown, not David Cameron. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Apocryphal hagiography?
At the moment, this appears in the first paragraph of the section titled 'Conservative Research Department': 'A feature on Cameron in The Mail on Sunday on 18 March 2007 reported that on the day he was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a phone call was received from Buckingham Palace. The male caller stated, "I understand you are to see David Cameron. I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed. I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man.'

This seems so hagiographical that it sounds apocryphal. Who in the Palace would have phoned? Could it have been an impersonator? How would the Mail on Sunday journalist know about this episode? The journalist does not seem to mention the source of this anecdote. Is it not dubious? – Kaihsu (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Mail is not regarded as a reliable source, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23, it certainly isn't in Suggested sources. I would dismiss it as uninformative trivia except that DC seems to regard it as important -and that tells me a little more about him. JRPG (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The basic truth of the story was accepted by Cameron biographers Francis Elliott and James Hanning; the original source for it is the recipient of the call, Alistair Cooke. Elliott and Hanning speculate on who the caller might have been and note that Cameron himself did not know but had his own suspicions. See pages 70-72 of the original edition ('Cameron: The Rise of the New Conservative'); I believe it is on the same page of the revised edition ('Cameron: Practically a Conservative'). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sam. Any chance of citing this reference as well as the Mail, i.e. say Alistair Cooke received it? JRPG (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The opening
Firstly, the opening section would be better if it only contained a ***brief*** outline of the subject's importance, preferably in the order of this importance. It should really start: "David Cameron is the current Prime minister of Britian, a post he has held since 2010." The bits: "First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Leader of the Conservative Party." clutter the opening paragraph, and furthermore it is not clear how these relate to his main role, i.e. being PM. Jamesthecat (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is way over-long and somewhat muddled!
This really could do with substantial pruning and rephrasing, as well as re-ordering to improve clarity. Jamesthecat (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, the "Family" section is more of a genealogy; once it started going beyond who his parents were into where they came from (which is most of the section), it started to feel stilted. Furthermore, there's a separate "Ancestry" section at the bottom, which restates some of the "Family" section. Perhaps it would be better to move everything about ancestors before his parents into the Ancestry section (at the bottom of the page, a much better place for this irrelevant twaddle in any case, rather than in the early part about his life). Restrict the "Family" section cover the people who were about him while he was growing up. 84.215.6.238 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Eddy.

Edit request on 29 November 2012
Add an interwiki link - ڈیوڈ کیمرن

Fmc47 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 2013/Feb/19
Under Turkey and Israel, there's mention of the Goldstone Report; this should surely be a link. (It also seems a bit odd to lump Turkey and Israel together as a section, although a "Middle East" section might make some sense.) 84.215.6.238 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Eddy.

"Ancestry" section cited as unreferenced?
If this article is a Good Article, then why is the Ancestry tagged as unreferenced? Is Cameron ancestry wrong or something? --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It will need a reference. I am not sure how relevant the sentence is. I am sure there are lots of relatives to kings out there. Either way I will remove it until a source is found. AIR corn (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No majority
Shouldn't the article mention that Cameron only failed to win a majority because of Scotland? People in England voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives, and his party also did very well in Wales. (92.7.6.216 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

Edit request on 9 February 2013
Under the PM's picture there is a hyperlink to the very derogatory word "twat" instead of listing Mr. Cameron's title: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Please fix!!

Wpgrocker (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the report. I have reverted the vandal edit. Keith D (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would further add that perhaps there should now be a change in picture, as this one was taken three years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:610:308:693:4099:8883:14C9:AEF6 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sources
Per WP:BLPCAT we cannot use tabloid sources on an article on a living person. However, I left a couple in here when I cleaned this article up; the Daily Mail is important in Cameron's story, and it is (only) a reliable source for its own opinion. If anybody feels strongly about this, they could remove them and I wouldn't object. They are being used as effectively a primary source here. Better sources would be preferable. --John (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Early Years - Federation of Conservative Students
There is no mention in the article of Cameron's engagement with South African issues, while as a member of the Federation of Conservative Students in 1985, or while on a "fact-finding" tour to South Africa in 1989 while working at the Tory Policy Unit at Central Office (the trip was allegedly funded by a loby firm working for Botha). Can anyone confirm/deny/or fill in the blanks regarding his anti-apartheid involvement in the 80's-90's? LookingGlass (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Youngest PM since Liverpool
Tony Blair, born 6 May 1953, became Prime Minister on 2 May 1997 aged 43 years 361 days. David Cameron, born 9 October 1966, became Prime Minister on 11 May 2010 aged 43 years 214 days. Therefore Cameron, by an admittedly slim margin of 147 days, does hold the honour of being the youngest Prime Minister since the Earl of Liverpool. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah I totally read the Tony Blair article wrong and bad math on my part. Wikieditor101 (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC) DAVID CAMERON IS 46 atm' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.220.120 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lanka visit
A big section on his just concluded visit to Lanka was given. That is undue for an aticle on him as it has nothing to do with him/his policy per se. I suggeste d adding it ot the page about his government (if its notable enough). This is also in accord with the Obama article. There are plenty of more important legacies of him which should supercede this (lost vote over Syria for one)(Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)).


 * There is one more editor User:Alarics who is there on Wikipedia since 2009 and edited the Cameron's page since 25 November 2012‎, re-edited on the content - "Historic visit to Jaffna". I will notify him as well for his thought. I couldn't understand why this content is nothing to do with him but with his Government's when Cameron took the risk by going out of the way beyond his Prime Ministerial criteria? I am reinserting the content since one more editor has given thought on this content and his opinion also is needed before the outright removal of the content.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I only cleaned it up a bit. At that moment I was concerned with the correct presentation more than with the content per se. I do think it was probably unduly detailed but I am not sure that it shouldn't be mentioned at all. However, having all that stuff in the article so quickly after the event is probably WP:RECENTISM. It is always difficult to judge the notability of an event in perspective until some time has elapsed. We don't know yet what effect his intervention might have. It might turn out to have been essentially a publicity stunt. But I am OK with a fairly brief mention of the event, either in this article or in the article about his government. -- Alarics (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also to add, its politics. Politicians do this especially on such a controversial occasion where his boycott was called for.
 * Fair enough, a sentence or 2 should do it...And please don't add content until consensus is formed per BRD (UmakanthJaffna)(Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)).


 * Thanks for Alarics and Lihaas for your valuable thoughts. Based on your suggestions, I have shorten the detail from the "Historical visit to Jaffna" but incorporated some facts from Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2013, which was added by Obi2canibe. After much thought, since there is a section, "Political commentary" and the following content is more eligible there, I am adding under the sub-section, "Sri Lanka".


 * Cameron reiterated calls for an independent investigation into the alleged war crimes. "There needs to be proper inquiries into what happened at the end of the war, there needs to be proper human rights, democracy for the Tamil minority in that country" Cameron stated.  He stated that if this investigation wasn't completed by March 2014 he would press for an independent international inquiry.   This followed a visit to Jaffna Peninsula, the first foreign leader to visit Jaffna, a war-ravaged town in the northern part of Sri Lanka, since the island once colonized by Britain became independent in 1948.    Cameron was mobbed by demonstrators, mostly women, seeking his assistance in tracing missing relatives.  "The stories I am hearing from the people here are often harrowing," Cameron wrote via Twitter from Jaffna.   "This is going to make a very lasting impression on me. That is something you don't forget," Cameron said at the Uthayan newspaper premises, where the portraits of slain staff line the walls.


 * Please feel free to discuss if you differ.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Sexist of the year" runner up two years in a row
The End Violence Against Women Coalition have once again voted David Cameron as the runner up in their sexist of the year award. This deserves some sort of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.246.181 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No mention of UK Internet cencorship
I'm a bit dissapointed that there is no mention of Cameron's new stance to auto censor the Internet for all Internet users in the UK unless they specifically say no to it. Where's all the info on that here? Nammi-namm (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 06/06/13
Says he was succeeded as leader of the opposition by Harriet Harman but no mention of her being leader of the opposition on her own page? Also says on Ed Miliband's page that he was preceded as leader of the labour party by Gordon Brown but as leader of the opposition by Harriet Harman, are these two not the same thing? 77.100.136.136 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Harriet Harman is deputy leader of the labour party and has been since Gordon Brown became leader. She was Leader of the opposition during the 2010 leadership election, when there was no leader of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.99.117 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lacking controversy section
This article lack a controversy section. This is unacceptable. Also, the article is protected. Why? Similarly important politicians' articles (Angela Merkel, Donald Tusk and François Hollande) are still possible to edit, so why people can't edit this one?--89.128.236.143 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't really do controversy sections. Is there a particular controversy you wish to see included? Post it, and your sources, and we can talk about it. --John (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section (now missing in the main page)
The European justice minister, Vivianne Reading, has criticised David Cameron for using populist slogans in order to gain votes, as well as lying about the role of the European Union, using made-up facts to target European migrants, she added that this behaviour will threaten Britain's future The Polish community in the UK and in Poland has accused David Cameron's speeches for the incidents of unprovoked violence in London The international media condemned xenophobic speeches of David Cameron --89.128.236.143 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice. Is the Telegraph source a reference for the quote as well? I don't know Polish, so I can't evaluate your second source, but I doubt if we could use it. Where would you see the material going in the article, if we could agree to use it? --John (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Come on! This is not a valid argument these days to say that. You don't need to speak Polish to read articles in this central European language, thanks to technology :) Just copy the link, then go to: http://translate.google.com/. When you are there, just paste the link. This is what you'll see: http://translate.google.com/#auto/en/http%3A%2F%2Fwyborcza.pl%2F1%2C75477%2C15295210%2CPobili_Polaka_w_Londynie___Kopali_i_krzyczeli__ze.html. Then you just need to select languages (from Polish to English) like that: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://wyborcza.pl/1,75477,15295210,Pobili_Polaka_w_Londynie___Kopali_i_krzyczeli__ze.html&usg=ALkJrhh1KvcNtk8VjQQ7qkL-T1E9Qm6Ghw. The translation will not be perfect but enough to understand virtually everything. And yes, the page needs to be free to edit, again.--89.128.236.143 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi 89.128.236.143. As a user of Google translate, I agree it gives you the gist of the meaning -but that is well below the standard required. Although WP:TRANSCRIPTION allows translated foreign sources these must be from a reliable source. However if you can make a short and wp:npov summary from any wp:Suggested sources then I'm certain people would be happy to include it.  Regards JRPG (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - 27/01/14
David Cameron's info box is inaccurate - Tim Collins was David Cameron's predecessor as Shadow Education Secretary, not Tim Yeo. Source: Shadow Cabinet of Michael Howard and Tim Collins (politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitblend (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. thanks for spotting that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Birth and death dates
Why are Ivan Cameron's dates shown as "(b. 2002 - d. 2009)" when (2002–2009) is standard? Torontonian1 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why any of the dates relating to Cameron's children are shown actually. They're not with Gordon Brown, whose daughter is just listed as Deceased, while his two sons are named, but without birth dates. It's probably worth changing this, so I'll do it now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lanka: Removal of Image - Uthayan newspaper visit
I haven't seen any reason of the removal of image which depicts the Cameron's inspection at burnt down Uthayan newspaper press. Again, Cameron has chosen to visit Uthayan newspaper amidst his tight time schedule(2 -3 hours) during his whole Jaffna visit. It is confusing the reason given that, ....however it isn't a brilliant photograph (esp. quality wise).....

If there is no valid reason provided, I will re-add the image back.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
I have re-modified and added content after the following discussion. I haven't seen any reason why this vital part of Cameron's visit to Jaffna which is talking about Uthayan newspaper should be omitted. Cameron has chosen to visit Uthayan newspaper amidst his tight time schedule(2 -3 hours) during his whole Jaffna visit.


 * The stories I am hearing from the people here are often harrowing," Cameron wrote via Twitter from Jaffna.[8][9][10]"This is going to make a very lasting impression on me. That is something you don't forget," Cameron said at the Uthayan newspaper premises, where the portraits of slain staff line the walls.[8][9][10]

If there is no valid reason provided, I will re-add the content back.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that discussion, but I think some very valid points were made by Alarics & Lihaas and so I will reiterate their objections. You've introduced an undue emphasis on this visit which, in the grand scheme of his time in office, is relatively unimportant. The previous discussion stalled and it appears that their lack of reply was taken as a justification to keep the content. I think the problem here is that your content is simply excessive; for example, there are way, way more references than are needed. Citations are obviously a good thing, but for some of those statements there were three or four links where there only needs to be one or two. The major content I removed was quotations from Twitter, because I feel (and I'm sure many editors would agree with me) that their inclusion is unencyclopedic and simply unnecessary. I don't think you can demonstrate that the inclusion of a bland Twitter post from Cameron is "vital" to understanding the significance of his visit to Sri Lanka! Why does the reader need to know that the visit had great emotional impact for Cameron!? Surely all that needs to be said is that David Cameron visited Sri Lanka; he was the first foreign leader to visit Jaffna since independence; he called for international investigation into war crimes. That is the only information that needs imparting, anything else (e.g. Twitter quotes about how "harrowing" the visit was) is more journalistic than encyclopedic.


 * As for that photograph you want to be included in the "Prime Minister" section: I do think it's a poor-quality photograph that isn't fitting for the article. But more important is that it's not representative of that (short) section as a whole. There is just one short sentence in the last paragraph referring to his visit to Sri Lanka and that short sentence does not justify an image at the very top of the section. It appears that all of your edits to this article have been pushing this visit to Sri Lanka. I'm not assuming bad faith - clearly it's very important to you that Cameron's visit to Sri Lanka is given top priority. But you have to understand that the amount of coverage you would have given to it in this article is just excessive and not nearly as noteworthy as many other events in his ministry. It doesn't appear that you acknowledged that in the previous discussion... --Hazhk Talk to me 11:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with Hazhk. -- Alarics (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * After much thought I too inclined to agree with Hazhk. But I have done some minor changes. I have added an image which has some news-worthiness to Premiership of David Cameron since the page is out dated and the image will give some value to the page.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Readability
I think this article needs a bit of work for readability. For example, how about:

"He is the Member of Parliament for Witney" rather than "He represents Witney as its Member of Parliament (MP)."

Thanks

JamestheCat

Jamesthecat (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Stafford candidacy
Just to explain the part revert - first, set against his years as Prime Minister, Cameron's Stafford candidacy is not particularly important in his life and does not merit extensive treatment in the lede. The text in the article explains the circumstances well for any reader interested in it. It's misleading to say that Bill Cash had moved constituency as his old seat had been divided and the new Stone constituency was also based on the old Stafford seat. The swing in Stafford was indeed 10.7% to Labour, but the national swing across Great Britain (the usual comparison) was 10.2% so it was actually slightly higher. The difference isn't great and we should avoid even implicitly ascribing a perfectly ordinary constituency variation in swing to the choice of Conservative candidate, without a good reason to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings Sam. I accept my change was too long for the lede, my objective was to compare the swing with the Election average in an npov way -which it now does. As you know first elections are usually a test of a candidate’s merit in fighting a lost cause & I strongly believe we should use this comparison more often. It avoids POV problems with inexperienced editors and is useful extra info for short articles.  It's rare for a new candidate to be offered a winnable seat. 1997 was unusual, length permitting, I’d like to have said Stafford would have been winnable at most elections.  Any thoughts?  JRPG (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hung parliament
Shouldn't the article mention that it was impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority in the 2010 General Election? The boundaries are rigged in Labour's favour and the demographics have changed too much in the cities and elsewhere for the Conservatives to be able to win. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC))
 * True. (DanDaileyson (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure impossible is the correct term. It was certainly more difficult for them to win, but had Cameron maintained the lead he had in the polls a few months before the election then the result may have been different. He was also given a good run for his money by Clegg during the televised debates. On a slightly different note, I'm concerned that two newly-created accounts with few or no other edits have chosen to comment on this thread and expressed similar views. I'll be keeping an eye on this discussion. This is Paul (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thatcher could not have won a majority on today's demographics/boundaries. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
 * You have sources for this? Anything in the mainstream press, for example? Or is it a personal theory? This is Paul (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's all fact. Why do you think Labour allowed uncontrolled mass immigration after 1997? Even Major's win in 1992 would be impossible now. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
 * In which case it should be possible for you to list some articles giving details of this. But I don't think it's relevant to this particular article. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's very relevant when stating the result was a hung parliament, as the rigged boundaries give Labour a massive advantage. Labour can form a majority government on 35% of the vote, but the Conservatives need 42% of the vote to win a majority. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Per WP:BLP, assertions or statements about Mr. Cameron would have to be supported by sourcing from reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Scotland
The introduction should mention that the only reason Cameron does not have a majority is because of Scotland. This is very important, since there is so much controversy over Scotland being represented in the House of Commons after devolution. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC))
 * The introduction should not say this, as it is a biography of Cameron, not an article theorizing about what might have happened if Scotland was not part of the union. It also smacks of original research, which is discouraged here. This is Paul (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact is that without Scotland the Conservatives would have won a majority. This is a major point, as so many people don't think Scotland should be sending any MPs to Westminster after devolution. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
 * The fact is that whatever the case, it's not an issue for this article. This is Paul (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If EVEL had existed at the last election Cameron would have won outright, and there would be no coalition with the Liberal Democrats. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
 * But we didn't have EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) in 2010, and we won't have it at the next election, and we seem to be wondering into the territory of what if and alternate history here. What you might consider doing is creating an article on the subject of EVEL. We have one about a Devolved English parliament, but an article about EVEL, discussing its pros and cons, those who advocate it, etc, would be of use to anyone wanting to know more about the subject. Such an article could even mention some of the stuff we've discussed above in the form of analysis. I'd be happy to help if you wanted to do something like that. This is Paul (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know we won't have EVEL at the next election? If Labour oppose it they will commit suicide in England. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Because I suspect the issue is more complex than some would have it and will run out of parliamentary time, and Cameron doesn't have the majority needed to get it through. Again, if you want to start an article about this topic, then I'm more than willing to help. The discussion here though is in danger of going wildly off topic. This page is for discussion about improvements to Cameron's article, not to analyse his government or policies. This is Paul (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the possibility of this discussion, thread "going wildly off-topic". Shearonink (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * EVEL is inevitable, particularly when more powers are transferred to Scotland and Wales. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Whatever the case, if you plan to post further on this page you need to bear in mind Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, and in particular the bit that says, "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor". This is Paul (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

operation Bluesstar
Are you responsible for bluestar. then its to bad .david cameron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.20.105 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Good article?!
How can this be a good article if it doesn't mention internet censorship imposed by David Cameron? 85.246.171.122 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this information can be included all depends on if there are reliable sources to support your claim. This is Paul (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree that this article does not really deserve Good Article status in its current state, and a GAR might be considered. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No third term
We need to mention somewhere yesterday's BBC interview in which he said that he would not be seeking a third term if the Conservatives are re-elected this time. Much has already been written on this, but here's the original story. This is Paul (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)



Adding Reverend Muniguruyogi said to vote Camerone therefore we will do the same! Chattopadyaya Virnakrshna Majali 192.44.63.161 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.63.161 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
Can I take the chance to remind folks that on an article about a living person we cannot use material that is sourced to tabloid journalism? This means, no Sun, Mirror, Star, Express or Mail. If material is worth including it will have appeared in better sources. Thanks, --John (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Page hacked
This page was hacked from 17:04 till 17:15 by a string of edits by this anonymous user. Beware of those templates. I reverted it this time but it keeps coming back.--Wester (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemical weapons claim
I removed this because it's an unjustified assertion: the exports in question, as far as I can tell, were five licenses for a total of four tons of sodium fluoride, which can be used as a precusor for making sarin, but also has a huge number of legitimate uses. Describing it as a deliberate arms export is extremely misleading, especially when Cameron's government did later suspend additional licenses for exporting potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride to the Assad regime for the precise reason that they might be used to make chemical weapons. Reports suggest that the chemicals used to make Syria's sarin stockpiles were phosphates exported in the 80s. (ref) Herr Gruber (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015
David Cameron's brother is listed as "Alexander Allen" which makes the article a little confusing. I started to dig deeper into why his last name is not the same as David Cameron's (thinking he might be a half brother or changed his name). It turns out that his last name is indeed Cameron. I just wanted to add the Cameron to his name. Maybe that will avoid any confusions for the next reader and save them a few minutes.

72.12.219.162 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agree - it was confusing. I've changed it to Alexander Cameron as that appears to be the name he is most commonly known as. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 02:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are neither elected nor re-elected
Please, can someone with editing privileges repair this most egregious error? Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom take office when they accept the Sovereign's invitation to form a Government. They then continue in office until they either die or resign. The latter is expected of them when a hostile majority against them is formed in the House of Commons. This is absolutely elementary. They are neither elected nor re-elected. Voters at General Elections in the United Kingdom vote for their local Members of Parliament, that is, members of the national legislature. They do *not* vote for the executive. This is the fundamental characteristic of what is called the Westminster system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5000:12BC:5196:2C6A:FED3:5694 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically that's true, but when discussing the subject people generally refer to prime ministers as having been elected. Wouldn't it just make for awkward prose? How do you suggest we word the article? This is Paul (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He was elected due to his party being elected. What you're doing is rather like saying you can't shoot someone with a gun because it's the bullet they get shot with. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is Paul (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from that's not the definition of the word elected. There seems to be some confusion here as to what an indirect election is: an indirect election is when which voters in an election do not choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. That is now what happens with the Prime Minister, Parliament does not vote on who is to be Prime Minister and the Queen is not elected. Therefore it is not a direct or an indirect election it is an appointment. Although not a case in the United Kingdom, in Australia the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis demonstrates that the leader of the opposition can be made Prime Minister without any election. Ebonelm (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that MPs don't vote on who becomes Prime Minister doesn't matter, the party chooses their candidate and the people choose the party. It is theoretically possible for the sovereign to appoint a candidate who is not from the party that won the election, but since that didn't happen in this case (and as you point out yourself, has never happened) it is also irrelevant. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing the Australian case was merely an attempt to try to provide the best example. As I have noted to you elsewhere the appointment of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister in 2007 involved no election, direct or indirect. You have also completely misrepresented my choice of example. Ebonelm (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gordon Brown was appointed by a party that had been elected, last I checked. Are you saying Labour was not elected? (I mean nevermind Brown being "not elected" was constantly used against him by the press...) Herr Gruber (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cameron remained as Prime Minister because he was re-elected as MP for Witney; had he failed to do so he would have ceased to remain Prime Minister. An increased majority was also elected, and the Conservative-voting electorate were under no doubt that a vote for their local MP was a vote towards the likelihood of Cameron remaining PM. I could see the point of belabouring the constitutional details in this article if Cameron was hanging on to the position despite looking unable to form a workable government, but given what has actually happened, its far more accurate to say he remained PM because of the electoral outcome than at the discretion of the monarch, who de facto does not exercise the power that John Kerr did in Australia.  Dtellett (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Herr Gruber. Once again you are trying to misrepresent what I am saying. Gordon Brown was elected by the Labour Party to be leader of the Labour Party, not to be Prime Minister. Tony Blair resigned as leader of Labour on 24 June 2007, but did not resign as Prime Minister until 27 June 2007. If becoming leader of Labour automatically meant becoming Prime Minister they would have happened on the same day. There are no votes to determine who is Prime Minister. An indirect election is when the people elect representatives to directly elect a leader. That is not what happens in the United Kingdom. Ebonelm (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it is, the appointment by the monarch is just a matter of ceremony. There has never been any hint that the monarch exercising the kind of powers Kerr did would be considered acceptable, even if they technically exist on paper. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dtellett. But doesn't that prove my point? Your argument is that I am being accurate when I don't have to be. As contributors trying to improve wikipedia we should all want to be as accurate as we can. If you don't think it makes a difference either way how we phrase this point then why not choose the way that can't be faulted? Ebonelm (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, no, because it suggests that the British monarchy's involvement in the electoral process is something other than purely ceremonial rubberstamping of the decisions of elected officials. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Under the proposed analysis, American presidents aren't "elected" either because the populace votes for electors in each state. And or rare occasions, the winner of the popular vote isn't the winner of the election.GaiaHugger (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are supposed to follow reliable secondary sources and not come up with their own private interpretations. So when we have A question of language like this, we look to see what the experts say. 1) BBC: "newly re-elected British Prime Minister David Cameron" 2) Sydney Morning Herald: "David Cameron re-elected "; 3) Telegraph: "Despite only being re-elected on Friday morning, Mr Cameron..."; 4) The Guardian: "the newly re-elected David Cameron"; 5) Reuters: "Newly re-elected British Prime Minister David Cameron"; 6) Financial Times: " the newly re-elected prime minister". 7) The Times: " a Conservative prime minister has been re-elected" Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Deputy
Why is David Cameron's Former deputy Nick Clegg still listed? Wetter88 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

William IV, Levita, Moses
Not that this matters much, but this stuff clutters up the article, and it is completely irrelevant. Especially as there is a separate Family of David Cameron page where it might even be remotely relevant.

It is irrelevant to discuss how the Levita family was descendend from Moses, and how one of their number was a notable Renaissance scholar, etc. because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the article topic.

It would only be relevant to discuss how Cameron is a 5th cousin twice removed of the Queen if this was put into some kind of quantitative perspective, e.g. an estimate if this is closer or more remote than the average British subject's relation to the Queen. It seems pretty likely to me that every person with British ancestry is at least the fifth cousin twice removed of every other person of British ancestry. If the idea is to somehow suggest Cameron is more closely related to the Queen than the average Briton, you should cite some kind of explicit estimate instead of just vaguely implying it. --User_talk:Dbachmann 08:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs clean up.62.128.211.234 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not "Re-elected" as Prime Minister
Look, I'm sorry to be a bore but Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are neither elected nor re-elected. They take office on accepting the Sovereign's invitation to form a Government and continue in office until they either die or resign. They are expected to do the latter when a hostile majority forms against them in the House of Commons. Mr. Cameron was *not* "re-elected" in 2015. He merely continued in office as a result of the General Election of that year, in which his Conservative party won an absolute majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4602:FD3:9951:15E0:E3F6:454D (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The way Wikipedia works is that we follow the reliable sources, and they typically say that Cameron was re-elected: 1) Daily Mail: "British Prime Minister David Cameron reelected"; 2) Associated Press: "Prime Minister David Cameron reelected"; 3) Reuters: "Cameron, re-elected last month"; 4) Guardian: " Cameron Re-elected"; 5) Telegraph: "Cameron, re-elected on a promise to hold a referendum on EU" etc etc. These are the people who are the leading experts on British politics and elections.  Rjensen (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They may be regarded as being reasonable experts on politics, but they are not really experts on elections, or indeed on the constitution. It is true, as stated above that Cameron was not re-elected (nor was he ever elected as PM in the first place). However, it is common parlance to talk about a PM being "elected" or "re-elected" following a general election, and these terms are generally understood by people, not just in the UK, but in other countries as well. While technically incorrect, it has been widely used and I don't see that using a phrase like "continued in office after the 2015 election" really adds anything. Anyone interested in the machinations of the British constitution will find plenty of detail elsewhere in wikipedia, without articles such as this one needing to get bogged down in the minutiae. Frinton100 (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kinship issues
Hi Rjensen

David Cameron's kinship with the present Clan Chief is not influential on British policy (as you suggest) but it is a fact. There is a Wiki section about his ancestry - so by the same token how relevant is it that he is descends from William IV?

Facts! Meantime I shall restore this additional genealogical info & await further considerable comment no doubt! But on a serious note, surely it is important to know how he descends from the Scottish family (qv. Burke's Peerage)?

Best M Mabelina (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 99.99% of the facts are discarded by editors. those that remain have to have a good encyclopedic reason for being.  I suppose someone is now hunting down his 9th and 10th cousins for inclusion. Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you regard this info as being irrelevant. M Mabelina (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's your job to show why it's useful and relevant... He agreed has something to do with policy. Perhaps it shaped his world view? Maybe he spends his leisure time with his eighth cousins?? Maybe he consults with them because they are his cousins?? Please tell us what your reasons are. And whatever happened to the sixth-cousins anyway? why are they not mentioned?? Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just answering your point above when you introduced some sort of clash - so in brief he descends from the 18th Lochiel via John Cameron of Fassiefern as described in Burke's - this has nothing to do with policy, simply to do with his patrilineal genealogy. M Mabelina (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are reaching out eight cousins, there must be hundreds or maybe thousands of people in his kinship network. The question is which of these are important in shaping his outlook has policy-- just copying Burke will not answer that question-- you need a reliable secondary source that says XXX is important to The Prime Minister. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , can you please quote page 655 of Burke's Peerage where it covers David Cameron's ancestry?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's been over a week and despite being pinged Mabelina has failed to respond here. No worries, another editor has taken the trouble to double-check the entry in Burke's Peerage cited by Mabelina that covers the Cameron chiefs, and has found that it makes no mention of David Cameron, his family, or any relationship between his family and the that of the chiefs.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes worries! Please check Burke's Peerage & Baronetage again properly, but I have learned not to make an issue out of offline sources - for the sake of all doubt, the reference made is correct & it states: 2a John, of Fassiefern (see BLG 1952 SECKER formerly of Callast). However, logging on to www.burkespeerage.com might be easier for some. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone else would like to read the section that Mabelina cited see: Burke's Peerage & Baronetage, 107th edn, volume 1, page 655.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While Cameron's upper class background as well as the national origins of his ancestry are important to mention, the article goes into too much detail already.  There is a difference too between relatives whom one knows and those one finds out about through genealogical research.TFD (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur unreservedly with TFD's observation above & it is important therefore to note that David Cameron & the Chief of Clan Cameron (aka Donald Cameron) were more aware of the relationship between their respective branches of the Cameron family long before he became Prime Minister (than about other matrilineal kinships). So how to achieve a more balanced account about his patrilineal/matrilineal ancestry on Wiki? M Mabelina (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * qv. also: LOTHIAN, M (Burke's Peerage & Baronetage)
 * You would need a secondary source to establish the significance. Out of interest, do any sources connect his Cameron ancestry with his position on Scottish independence?  TFD (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mabelina, it's up to you to convince the rest of us that your claims are verifiable, credible, and relevant. Deceiving us with the Burke's ref wasn't a good start. The fact is you haven't come up with a single source to support any of your claims about ancestry. Quoting vague subheadings of random peerage publications won't cut it considering the stunt you just pulled.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Brian - I am so sorry that you take this attitude - there is/was/never has been any deception on my part. In fact it could be said that the original text was lopsided and veered more than necessary/excessively towards his (illegitimate) "royal" ancestry, albeit that this was not something David Cameron's family crowed publicly about, whereas the Cameron family connection was and continues to be well-known (except apparently to some?) but since you don't seem to like referring to Burke's publications for whatever reason (possibly a bit hard work to follow the relevant links perhaps?) how could I, now that you have taken such exception to what is patently obvious, well-known and documented, furnish any better evidence? Please take time to reconsider your view on this matter, as well as take a moment to reflect as to whether David Cameron and the brother-in-law of his Clan Chief might just have had inkling of their relationship given that they were so closely associated within the Conservative Party... Please permit me to restate the well-known fact of their 8th cousinry (but of course should you deem this to be untrue then I leave it in your capable hands to state why?). Many thanks M 23:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a source that specifically states that David Cameron is a relation of Cameron of Lochiel, then you can't put it into the article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mabelina, please don't insert unreferenced ancestral claims into the article "Cameron's paternal forebears, descended from the [[John Cameron of Lochiel|18th Lochiel]" ]. How many times do you have to be asked?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of properly cited New statesman article on Child poverty
I'm about to restore this edit as it doesn't appear to me to be 'trivia.' I suspect it was removed by mistake as the later Daily Mirror citation should not be there. Feel free to argue as per WP:BRD. JRPG (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It would appear to me that one editor is stuffing the article with negative material about DC in pursuit of a political agenda. Viewfinder (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that editor is going too far, but some of the material is appropriate Snowded  TALK 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that some of the material is inappropriate, but some of it is excessive and it is all one sided. Viewfinder (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a fairly new editor using a wp:rs. Child poverty is always an issue. Pruning and helpful advice via edit summaries is appropriate c.f. wp:BRD


 * Regards JRPG (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that child poverty is always an issue and probably always will be, however much money governments throw at it. That the left have a monopoly of its solutions is hotly disputed, and even some leftists dispute that tax credits credits have been good. We can always find "reliable sources" in support of left-wing agenda or even right-wing agenda. We have to be vigiliant and keep the article neutral with due weight on all sides. Viewfinder (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

His title says MP?
Surely it should say PM? The first thing you see, above his picture, "The Right Honorable David Cameron MP"? Ghipag (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to be how other prime ministers are treated in articles. For examples see: John Key (NZ) and Tony Abbott (AU).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't get post-nominal letters as Prime Minister of the UK. He is an MP, like all other MPs his post-nominal letters are displayed in his infobox. Frinton100 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Camoron
Shouldn't Camoron redirect to this article? Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is a nickname, so I'd go for List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by nickname. I recently had Call me Dave put up for deletion because it wasn't mentioned in the article (even though the nickname is used quite frequently by certain commentators), and the consensus seemed to be to redirect it to the nicknames page. You'll need a good source for it though. This is Paul (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's Pravda for a start... Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Family's wealth and link to slavery
I think there should be a section about his family's link to slavery and benefiting from the Atlantic Slave Trade. See "Britain's colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition" in The Independent and [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21601374 "How many Britons are descended from slave-owners?" in BBC]. 217.44.125.196 (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if the purpose of this Wikipedia article was purely to find facts that might be embarrassing for David Cameron you'd find more relevant material than a cousin of one of his ancestors owning slaves 180 years ago. Nevertheless, if you care to read the article, it is actually mentioned in the family history section Dtellett (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit crash. I think there should be a section about his family's involvement in the trade. I read the article and it only provided one line followed by a block of text about his family's other finances etc., which may be viewed as bias or trying to bury his family's involvement in the trade in this block of irrelevant text. Are you telling me you don't believe this to be material to his biography? Is this a Wiki policy or your own? 217.44.125.196 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is dealt with in as much depth as I feel it needs to be. The sins of Cameron's ancestors are not really relevant to his life or career. Yes, of course we should mention his ancestry, but dwelling on one unpleasant aspect is not helpful (and would quite possibly contravene WP:NPOV). To be fair to Cameron, a large number of wealthy families (and organisations, such as big companies or even the CofE) have been involved in slavery, and I suspect a very large proportion of the current UK population would find at least one of their ancestors had some involvement with slavery. Frinton100 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I get your point. But David Cameron inherited a lot of money from his family. Indeed his wealth/inheritance is regularly discussed by certain quarters of the media and the public especially the masses who regard him as out of touch because of being an Etonian and a member of the elite thanks to his family's wealth which helped him became what he is today. As such I think this is very important and should be addressed in its relevant section. 217.44.125.196 (talk)
 * There is no reason to believe that one of Cameron's ancestors' *cousins* transferred any money to Cameron's patrilineal line, rather than their own. Inheritance is not normally transferred to cousins or nephews/nieces. Not only is the insinuation about the origins of his inheritance not in the sources and undue weight, it's also most likely factually inaccurate. Dtellett (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mezigue (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But everyone is a product of their family's history, doesn't mean we dwell on this aspect of their lives in a biographical article predominantly devoted to their career. Ed Miliband was the son of a Marxist - it gets a mention and rightly so, but the article does not devote large amounts of space to this aspect of the Miliband family history (which is of course more recent and arguably a bigger influence on Miliband than slavery was on Cameron). I would suggest the best way forward would be to post here the edit you wish to see made and we can see if we can reach a consensus over its inclusion, or find a different form of words. Frinton100 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems
There's a problem with several articles concerning David Cameron, his ancestor Ewen Cameron (banker), and his family (Family of David Cameron). The problem is Mabelina has continually added unsupported claims into these articles. He's currently skewing various articles to state or imply that David Cameron is a patrilineal descendant of John Cameron of Lochiel (a clan chief). It is important to note that no reliable source states as much.

Either Mabelina's claims are totally unreferenced or slyly hidden behind misleading references (such as books that make no mention of the people/family in question) or irrelevant webpages, or single pictures from websites like Twitter.

I'm hoping to gain a clear consensus right here that the edits outlined below are totally unsupported. Please review these edits and my observations, and please comment. I can't stand-up against these and similar edits all by myself because Mabelina just reverts.


 * Ewen Cameron (banker)
 * 1. Example 19 July Description of edit: The edits adds a claim that Ewen Cameron (banker) was the grandson of "James Cameron (born 1776), younger son of Alex Cameron (born 1743), whose brother was Sir Ewen Cameron (cr. a baronet in 1815)". The cited source for the claim about James is contact page for a museum (see here: ). The cited source for the claim about Sir Ewen Cameron (baronet) is page 655 of Burke's Peerage (for a scan of the page see here: ). Observation: The first cited source does not verify any claim whatsoever (all it shows is a the contact information of a museum). The second cited source is to a page that details the family of the chief of Clan Cameron: it does not support the claim of kinship between any of the men, and does not even mention any of them. In the past Mabelina has claimed in various articles, and insisted on several talkpages that this specific reference documents David Cameron's ancestry, and that the reference states that David and the current clan chief are 8th-cousins (see here for example: ), but fact is that David Cameron and his family are not mentioned at all in the reference.


 * 2. Example 19 July Description of edit: The edit adds a an image of a coat of arms of a Clan Cameron chief, but contains the description (blazon) of a completely different coat of arms, apparently that of Ewen Cameron (banker). The edit also contains the statement that Ewen Cameron (banker) "received a grant of arms from the College of Arms in lieu of his ancient Cameron arms", and the statement "By matriculation with Lord Lyon King of Arms suitably cadenced". The cited source is a picture posted on Twitter, see here: . Observation: The cited source does not support the claims that Ewen Cameron (banker) matriculated arms at Lyon Court (the heraldic authority in Scotland), or that he received a grant of arms from the College of Arms (the heraldic authority in England). All the Twitter pic appears to show is that Ewen Cameron (banker) indeed had a coat of arms -- nothing more. The edit also added an image of a tartan - unsupported by the cited source. The edit is also misleading since it shows an of the arms of a Clan Cameron chief - not the supposed arms of Ewen Cameron (banker).


 * Family of David Cameron
 * 3. Example 19 July Description of edit: The edit adds an image of the coat of arms of the chief of Clan Cameron, and claims that it is somehow relevant to "The arms of David Cameron, 44th Prime Minister (as granted by the College of Arms to his paternal great-great-grandfather, Sir Ewen Cameron)". The edit adds the claim that "Sir Ewen Cameron received this modern grant of arms from Garter King of Arms in 1905 after being appointed KCMG (1902) in lieu of matriculating his ancient family arms at the Court of Lord Lyon in Edinburgh, to which the Camerons remain entitled subject to rematriculation)". The cited source for these claims is a single picture posted on Twitter (see again: . Observation: Same as above. The cited source fails to support the claim that David Cameron even has a coat of arms; it fails to support the claims that Ewen Cameron (banker) was granted arms from "Garter King of Arms ... in lieu of matriculating his ancient family arms at the Court of Lord Lyon in Edinburgh, to which the Camerons remain entitled subject to rematriculation". The edit is also misleading since it shows an image of the arms of a Clan Cameron chief. Who knows where the tartan comes from.


 * David Cameron
 * 4. Example 19 July Description of edit: The edit adds the unsupported claim that David Cameron is "descended from the 18th Lochiel". Observation: No source supports such a claim. Obviously unacceptable. Especially considering the consensus reached on this talkpage weeks ago that unsourced ancestral claims should not be added, and that such a connection, if well sourced, may be too distant and irrelevant to warrant inclusion.


 * 5. This article has a section concerning a coat of arms: David_Cameron. It's completely unsupported by any reference. I suspect that if I remove it Mabelina will likely revert and add the same Twitter image as above.

Please leave a comment.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely this is a case of disruptive editing, and as the user has been blocked on several occasions in recent times (the last being on 7 July) there's an argument for taking this to WP:ANI or one of the other noticeboards. This is Paul (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that might be a good idea. I'm not sure how to describe this situation simply though. I've asked an admin, User:Doug Weller, to take a look at this.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sensible plan. This is Paul (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've posted to their talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well its been three days without any objections. I'm removing the five bits I outlined above.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please view my edits & supporting evidence. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't add any supporting evidence. You basing everything off a single Twitter image.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Twitter is not an encyclopedic source. I've reverted this, so don't add it again. This is Paul (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is disruptive editing by Maybelina. There is no actual source that says David Cameron has had a grant of arms (I believe he hasn't). A coat of arms granted to an ancestor of his, is not the same as his coat of arms. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the thing, Mabelina's sources don't actually concern David Cameron at all. I've left a left a note for Doug and one at WP:ANEW about his edit-warring.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2015
Update honours/awards to include being made Companion of De Montfort University for introducing the Marriage (Same Sex Couples Act) 2014. Thought to be the first ever university graduation at 10 Downing Street.

De Montfort University (2015) "Prime Minister awarded DMU's highest honour in recognition of his fight for equal marriage", 04 August, available from http://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2015/august/prime-minister-awarded-dmus-highest-honour-for-his-fight-for-equal-marriage.aspx.

Leicester Mercury (2015) "Concerns raised over De Montfort University gay marriage honour for David Cameron", 07 August, available from http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/COncerns-raised-Montfort-University-gay-marriage/story-27564709-detail/story.html#ixzz3iGDPg3QA.

Ad bauer24 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The "Honours" section currently lists just one honor: the Order of Abdulaziz al Saud. Do you mean to add "Companion of De Montfort University" to that list? I would think the section is reserved for notable awards, i.e. those that have enough attention to deserve standalone articles. I did a quick search on Wikipedia for "Companion of De Montfort University", and I couldn't find sufficient evidence that the award is notable enough for inclusion in that list. Maybe we could mention it elsewhere in the body, but I'm hesitant to add it to the "Honours" section for these reasons. In any case, I would feel more comfortable if there was a consensus established prior to using edit semi-protected for this request. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015
There is no possible reason for including all the material here and on other MP pages like Corbyn. The entry is about the person NOT the monarch or any of the other immaterial and at time inaccurate guff. 86.175.6.135 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

86.175.6.135 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: - this is not an edit request, just a gripe about the article. If you have specific ideas for improving the article, please discuss here and develop a consensus before making another edit request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015
David Cameron put a private part of his anatomy inside a dead pig http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3242494/Revenge-PM-s-snub-billionaire-funded-Tories-years-sparked-explosive-political-book-decade.html

Adamski241990 (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * He is alleged to have done this. Per the section above, we're waiting on much better sources before even covering the story - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's according to what seems a pretty tabloid'esq book that cites one anon source. WP:GRAPEVINE applies here. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since when did Wikipedia "cover" "stories". Are we a newspaper now?
 * "Seems a pretty tabloidesque book" isn't very precise. I think it can be added, but you can frame it in terms that make clear its status and provenance. Ultimately, The Daily Mail would not have run a story like this without some back-up. That backup is Lord Ashcroft. 77.99.233.141 (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good article status
I am seeing massive changes to this wp:ga is it requiring a review after major changes? [recent edit history]Govindaharihari (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Govindaharihari As in the Article Length section above, I felt that the article was far too long and after not getting any feedback on my suggestions, I removed the "Media Commentary" section (as a Wikipedia BLP should not be a compendium of opinion pieces), shortened the "Family" section to include his immediate family rather than distant relatives, as there is already a full article on his family, and removed the "reaction to Leadership" for the same reasons as removing the Media Commentary section. @nononsenseferret disagreed and reverted my edits, and we are waiting for a consensus on the talk page before proceeding further, so any opinions would be helpful Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2015
Pig sexual thing

195.88.100.27 (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - see Claims section above - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)