Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive 4

Bot archiving
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why this talk page isn't set up to be archived by a bot? You wouldn't have to do it manually then.--Rockfang (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be my guest, after a week of no comment or two weeks..either or. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
 * How long should each archive be? 250K? 200K?--Rockfang (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 250, sounds attractive. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Ok. I'll wait a bit to set it up though to allow for additional input.  Can't hurt.--Rockfang (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to setting this up? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I've set it up.--Rockfang (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. What are the settings? As regards inactivity and time. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I found it, the mid point, 11 days of inactivity and automatic archive, Thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Deletion of Nuclear Power section
Off2riorob has seen fit to delete this entire section.

Could other editors weigh in on whether any of it is relevant, and if so in what manner it is to be presented. I agree that making too big a deal about the Yvette Cooper thing is going overboard, but given the nuclear issue, if we may call it that, is widely reported in the primary sources, it ought to be mentioned.

22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs)

Its crap. What is it about ,,, brown brother has links to the nuclear industry industry, rubbish. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

I'll flame thrower it and you rewrite it and put it wherever you like, I would appreciate it if you would let me finish, I am gonna leave as much negativity in for you and you can tastefully put whatever you want back in in a bit. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC))


 * sure...knock yourself out...cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've run out of napalm, agent orange is all gone, have a look tomorrow and we can see what if any problems you have with how it is now, my main oobjection is to address the issues brought up for GA reassesment. Let me know tomorrow.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I am totally out of napalm now. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

Please have a look at my edits, I have mostly just rewritten a little and moved things around, if you find something removed, please consider .. was it really of value to this biography, if you feel it is then put it back and we can talk about it tomorrow or the next day.. Thanks(Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

Check links
I am checking the links for GA reassesment.

I have removed this..

is an independent public relations and communications consultant. He was formerly Head of Public Relations in the Glasgow City Council, and a producer/journalist with Scottish Television.

I looked but couldn't find a replacement so for now I have taken it out. Feel free to look for one and put it back.(Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

also .. this....is a registration link and I can't find a good cite to support the figures so for now I have removed it. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

stated that the NHS was his "top priority", yet he had just cut the capital budget of the English NHS from £6.2bn to £4.2bn.

Memorandum of Understanding
Added a little note in the lead to include the FSA as one of the three big elements of Gordon's reform and a link to the key document. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Mandelson
I know I must sound trigger-happy on injecting a deputy into Brown's box, but now that Mandelson's First Secretary of State, would putting him be a step too far? If not outright, perhaps with "(De facto)" or "(First Secretary of State)" next to his name. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should do that, even if it is true. Mandy is a powerful figure but not really second in command but more of a spin doctor, well connected type, Mandelson seems to have indeed become a very powerful, highly thought of person. (in some quarters) (Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC))


 * He is only there to stiffen Brown's spine until the Lisbon treaty is brought into force. Unfortunately I cannot find a cite for that. I don't think it is appropriate to list him as Brown's deputy. Beganlocal (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it fairly well-known that "First Secretary of State" is just an alternative title to "Deputy Prime Minister"? Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but a key part is that it doesn't carry the "deputy" bit or automatically imply it. During the first premiership of Harold Wilson the claims of First Secretary of State George Brown to be Deputy PM were not taken seriously, plus there was a period when Brown was Foreign Secretary whilst Michael Stewart was First Secretary of State - I don't think anyone considered Stewart or his successor, Barbara Castle, to be Deputy PM. This is different from the cases of Rab Butler, Michael Heseltine and John Prescott who were all explicitly identified as Deputy PM during their tenures (and note that no deputy is listed on Wilson's page). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Order of precedence
The box on this page doesn't match Order of precedence in Scotland or Order of precedence in Northern Ireland.

The Scottish page puts Brown between David Lunan (Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland) and Commonwealth PMs when visiting, then John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons).

The Northern Irish page puts Brown between Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor) then Commonwealth PMs when visiting, then the Lord High Treasurer (in commission since 1714) then Peter Mandelson (Lord President of the Council).

Does anyone know which is right? I find it curious that the Archbishop of York is so high in the Scottish & Northern Irish precedence. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brown's Socialism
Added a little note on Brown's motivation. Hope is OK (Msrasnw (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Cabinet Rebellion
Why is there not a section on the cabinet rebellion around the time of the MPs expenses scandal and the election results? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.173.95 (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Half-blind people
According to a pretty in depth profile from the Guardian which specifically states that "By the end of the second term of his second year Brown was blind in his left eye" (just over half-way down) and the BBC profile says "He eventually lost the sight in one eye" (under the heading "Detached retina"), Gordon Brown is half blind. User:Off2riorob still seems to dispute this (even after talk page discussion) and objects to the addition of Category:Half-blind people. Some more opinions please? ninety:one  18:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As this is being discussed here, I have nominated the category for deletion. Please see . Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your CfD doesn't preclude its use here. The verified text supports it, so there is no reason to remove it. -Rrius (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its under discussion and has only recently been created, I would appreciate it if you would not replace it until discussion is complete. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There has also been a small degree of discussion here [] on ninetyones talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. It's CfD is irrelevant to whether it should be here in the interim. If it is deleted, it will be removed. Your attempting to remove it before the CfD is essentially prejudging the result of the CfD. -Rrius (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, I have basically removed it as a protection of a living person and it is no big deal. the template is only two days old and there is discussion going on. It is not like it has been in the article for a long time or that there is any previous consensus to keep it in, lets see how the discussion goes first. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rob, you're not exactly helping your case by breaking the 3RR rule. Please stop. ninety:one  19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good lord. First, I am calm. Second, there is no BLP issue: it is fair to call someone with no vision in one eye "half blind", and the vision issue is cited. Third, the age of the template is immaterial. Fourth, just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean it shouldn't be in an article. My prior dealings with you show that you will disregard policy if you don't want something in an article just because. Please just wait for your CfD to end. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Brown a practicing religious person?
First he was a presbyterian and now he is a member of the church of scotland? Is he actually religious at all? Is there a citation from him where he states that he is a member of the church of scotland? Does he regulary go to a church? If so which one is it? I thought that unless we have strong cites that he is religious that we don't mention that he is. Without any strong citations I am for removing the claim to affiliation with any religion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a cite there and I've quite frequently heard Church of Scotland associated with him. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That cite is not very strong at all. It says nothing really, I have been looking around and there is nothing from him saying that he is religious, that I have found, frequently hearing that he is associated with the church of scotland is a bit weak. His father was a priest so there are associations but brown's religiousness is unsupported by any reliable statements afaics. If he is religious where does he go to church? Does anybody have a strong citation preferably from brown himself stating that he is a practicing religious person affiliated to any branch of the church? It is a bit weak in a BLP, so far, to claim that brown is a member of any church. Are there any strong statements from the subject stating his religiousness or his affiliation with any branch of the church? Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to brown's speech to the church of scotland in which he does not mention his own religiousness at all, or that he is specifically associated with or a member of the church of scotland, he more talks about his belief in social justice and the power of opportunity and so on, but nothing about his own faith in god and prayer. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a stronger citation? If not, does anyone object if I remove it? Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I mind: the link is plenty strong. To back our claim that he is affiliated with the Church of Scotland, the cite says, "Brown, a member of the Church of Scotland..." The quote is from the Guardian, a reputable newspaper. We are saying his religious affiliation is Church of Scotland, not that he is a member of the church. That is what the Guardian. Linking to that does not make it Wikipedia's claim. The question of how intensely he is religious is irrelevant. He is Church of Scotland. -Rrius (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is one calling the Church of Scotland "his spiritual home". Here is one where Brown's aid calls the Church of Scotland his "home church". -Rrius (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those citations is supporting brown's religiousness. The first one is comments before brown spoke (the link I provided) to the Scotish church, were he himself in the actual speech said nothing about his religious beliefs.The second one says this .."Asked if the Church of Scotland had any influence over Britain's Scottish-born prime minister, Gordon Brown, Mylne said: "Christians shouldn't automatically expect to be heard by politicians but the Church of Scotland is Gordon Brown's home church. But I'm not saying we have any kind of special relationship with him, though he is a 'son of the manse' [a pastor's residence]." Brown's father was an ordained minister." Again says nothing about brown actual religiousness or his practice of it, in fact they just say it is him home church, they say nothing to support that brown is a practicing member of the church, he was the cristened son of a minister of the church of scotland but in a blp this is not a strong enough claim of affiliation or belief in this religion,. I was born into a coe family and christened into that religion but I don't go to church and don't accociate with that church and I would be upset if people wrote that I was a church of england follower. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying he is part of the Church of Scotland isn't a stretch at all, but saying he may no longer be a member is a bit speculative. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read brown's speech to the church of scotland and please show me where he says he is affiliated or that he is religious. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Therequiembellishere what does membership imply? and what do you have to do to be a member of the church of scotland? Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, but isn't it just as speculative to say he isn't Church of Scotland? All we know is that he has identified as Church of Scotland and have no solid reason to say he no longer is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In a BLP is that limited association without any supporting citations, like of him himself saying he is religious, enough to tag him as a member of the church, personally I find very little to support his religiousness. Where is that citation where he has expressed or as you say identified as church of scotland? Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Although anyone baptised is considered a member of the church universal, "membership" of the Church of Scotland usually means those who have been admitted to the communion list of a parish - there are clear lists of members because of the governance structure whereby ministers are elected by members of the congregation, though this doesn't stop non-members from worshipping in the Kirk. It's a more formal definition than for many other churches, though there are presumably many still on the lists who do not currently worship there (including ex pats). Timrollpickering (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation regarding being a member of the church of scotland. I suggest as there is only very weak (or rather none at all) that brown is religious or following the church of scotland I suggest removing the tag from the infobox where it is unexplained and expanding and adding the claims of his support for the religion to the body of the article. His participation in the church and his comment regarding his association with the church of scotland could be expanded on better there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? There is simply no basis to your argument. We started with a source saying, unequivocally, that he is "a member of the Church of Scotland". While attributing the wrong religion to someone is probably not the sort of thing that truly implicates BLP (the point of which is to avoid legal liability), having the information verified by a reliable source takes us outside that realm. Despite the frivolous claim that a Guardian piece saying directly that he is a member of the Church of Scotland is too "weak" to support listing his religion in the infobox, I have found two additional sources: one calls the Church of Scotland his spiritual home, and the other quotes his aide (on his behalf) saying that the Church of Scotland may be his "home church", but it won't get preferential treatment. Your continued insistence that someone prove to you that Brown is particularly religious is frankly silly. One can identify as being of one denomination or another without being heavily involved. Under your requirements (which have nothing to do with BLP, by the way), If we had an interview wherein Brown was asked his religion and answered "Church of Scotland", and asked how often he attended kirk and answered "it's been years", you would say that is not enough to support saying he is Church of Scotland. That is completely out of step with common understanding of religious affiliation. In other words, when most people see "Catholic" or "Methodist" listed as someone's religion, that encompasses the very devout and the merely casual adherents. Finally, your insistence that the PM's failure to mention his being a church member when he spoke before the Church of Scotland General Assembly is somehow a reason to doubt that membership shows you misunderstand the political realities of such a speech. When a PM or any minister addresses a religious body, he or she represents the Government. As such, a remark that he or she belongs to their religion is awkward. It opens the minister, and the government, up to questions like the one that prompted Brown's aide to say that the Church of Scotland would not receive preferential treatment. The demands you have here are simply unreasonable. You are rejecting sources saying he is Church of Scotland because he didn't say he was in a forum where he was never likely to and because no one can prove he's a regular churchgoer, as though that were somehow the meaning of religious affiliation. -Rrius (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source in which Brown publicly self-identifies his religion as being Church of Scotland so that it precisely supports what is being said in the infobox ? If not then the infobox statement (which is currently based on a conjectural interpretation of sources) needs to be removed per WP:BLP. This is a no brainer for me and arguments from first principals, appeals to common understanding etc etc have no place here. Wikipedia does not categorise and label a living person's religious belief and place it in an infobox based on conjecture and the synthesis of material. This has everything to do with BLP.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But where is there conjecture? We have sources, reliable sources, that have bluntly stated "a member of the Church of Scotland". The only conjecturing being done is by interpreting his speeches to the congregation as not affirming his standing among them. I just don't see a reason to have it removed. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how it is conjecture? The Guardian, a reliable news source, says straight out, "Brown, a member of the Church of Scotland..." That is a statement of fact, not conjecture. That direct statement of fact is enough to satisfy WP:BLP as it is a reliable source verifying the claim. In fact, the source goes further. We say his religion is Church of Scotland, rather than claiming he actually holds membership. Perhaps you should read the policy rather than merely linking to it. This is not about "arguments from first principles, appeals to common understanding, etc etc..." This is about the fact that verified material is being challenged on irrational grounds. That you join Off2riorob in his demand that we find a direct quote from Brown saying, "I am a devoutly religious and a full member of the Church of Scotland" does not make the demand reasonable. We do not need any information about his degree of religiousity to claim he is affliated with the Church of Scotland. We need what we have: verification from a reliable source. What's more, we come damn close to meeting at least half the irrational demand. We have a source in which Brown's aide, who obviously speaks for him, said that while the Church of Scotland is (not was) his home church, they will not receive special treatment. Instead of setting up straw men, can you or Off2riorob actually address a point that was made? -Rrius (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The conjecture is that Brown would describe his religion as Church of Scotland. Is it a fact that Brown would describe his religion as Church of Scotland ? If he has not made this statement then it is not a fact, it is conjecture. Perhaps he is a member of the church but agnostic. Perhaps he is a member of the church and devoutly religious. Perhaps he is an atheist but enjoys the cultural aspects of being a member of the church. I have no idea and no sources have been provided to distinguish between these possibilities. A person's religion is not necessarily a simple attribute like their nationality or shoe size. I would suggest that you remove the information from the infobox and place the information in the article. The information should be precisely supported by the sources. It should say no more than the source used i.e. that he is a member of the Church of Scotland or something similar.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to The Guardian, Brown would describe his religion as Church of Scotland. Your point about possible agnosticism is bizarre. As a member, he is claiming adherence to the faith. It is just silly to say we shouldn't say his religion is Church of Scotland because he might be lying. I feel sorry for you for trying to argue from such a poor position, but the fact is that the fist source is enough to justify the claim made, and the other two support it further. I would suggest that you find a better argument. He is not, in fact, a closet agnostic who attends the church so he can attend the jumble. I hate to feed this idiocy by giving you the citations you two could so easily have gotten yourself, but there you are. Hopefully, as a side matter, those will satisfy you, but the current citation is more than enough to justify the claim made in the article. -Rrius (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Rruis's statement that ''according to the Guardian.. and then you change the contents of the citation to accompany your position... it actually says.. Brown is a member of the church of scotland... It doesn't say that brown would describe anything at all, It is a simple statement from the guardian which states no plce of origin for their claim.

I make no claims as to brown agnostic or any other religions at all as Rrius claims, I am simply saying that Brown has not stated that he is religious at all and that even when making a speech to the synod of the church of scotland, brown does not in any way affiliate with the church of scotland, neither does he declare any religiousness in any way. I agree with the User:Sean.Boyland, thanks for commenting Sean. Religion is not a simle atribute like a shoe size. I will look at and comment on User Rrius's new citations. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation 12 is speculation mostly about brown's father and stretches to this opinionated statement form the writer of the article at the end.. "Brown's bias towards faith as a positive force will almost certainly stop him secularising our schools." again..nothing at all from Brown.
 * Citation 13..says this about it..

" Religion

Despite being a committed Christian, Brown rarely speaks of his faith.

The chancellor appears keen to keep his religion a private matter - one which only spills out at weddings and funerals.

However his religious beliefs have given Brown a strong moral code. Major speeches, most notably those on Africa and child poverty, have been peppered with references to injustice.

Speaking at the Labour conference in Brighton, he said his parents were his "inspiration", and had provided him with a moral compass which taught him that everyone has a duty to make use of their talents."

Brown rarely speaks of his faith! that says it all....and but according to their sources brown is a commited christian..Brown has not said that at all though.

Also and this is important to BLP, Brown appears keen to keep his religion a private matter... and they quote... his parents were his inspiration and that he has a moral compass...nothing about the church of scotland or his religious beliefs.


 * Citation 14..again brown draws on religions to comment in his speech but says nothing of his own religiousness or his affiliation to any Church of scotland.I fail to see the problem with removing it from the infobox, Brown has not in any of these citations said that he is religious or that he is a member of the church of scotland, I am sure with these citations comments can be extracted reflecting this or that but in this case we should not claim anything that is speculative. The simple fact is that brown does not go to church, has not stated that he is affiliated to any church and he has not said he is a believer in god, he has said that his religious upbringing has given him a moral compass..so we could easier call him a moralist at least he has said that himself. I also suggest like talk that the verifyable position regarding his religiousness in this case is weak without comment from the subject himself and should sit better in the body of the article, personally I would say that the reason it is not already in the article is because the verifyable citations are very weak to appertain to this and it is a easy way out to tag him with this weak citation in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rob, you too could stand to read BLP, especially with as much as you invoke it in deleting things from articles. Brown's desire to keep his religion private means precisely nothing in terms of BLP. By saying that a direct quote is needed from Brown, you are simply making up a standard which is completely new to Wikipedia. You need to ground your objections in the policies that actually exist, not the ones you wish existed. We have a reliable source saying he is a member of the Church of Scotland. We have an aide of his saying the Church of Scotland is his home church. We have No. 10 saying he believes in god. We have sources saying he is religious. That is far more than enough to justify noting his religion as "Church of Scotland".


 * I do want to take the opportunity to address your point that I misquoted The Guardian. You are, of course, wrong. It is a simple matter of logic. The Guardian says he is a member of the Church of Scotland. Therefore, according to their reporting, Brown would consider his religion to be Church of Scotland. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a member.


 * Finally, if you intend to continue to demand a quote from Brown saying his religion is "Church of Scotland" and that he is devout, then I demand that you directly quote Wikipedia policies supporting the demand for a direct quote and for the demand that religious affiliation be backed by deep devotion. -Rrius (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You argue and resist with no attempt at any kind of compromise or solution. I tire of this worthless typing, "you are of course wrong" yea yea, I am working to improve the article, if that is wrong then I agree with you. You say it all "according to the guardian" it is not according to anything brown has said. Now' Barack Obama, there is a man that is religious and he will tell you exactly which church he is affiliated to, although you don't need him to tell you as he prays and goes to church all the time and talks about his religious beliefs. With Gordon Brown your strongest assertion that you have is that according to the guardian he is a member of the church of scotland .. not very strong is it?  Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is quite strong. You still don't understand WP:Verify and WP:RS. As for compromise, you have presented no reason to. Your entire argument boils down to the fact that you have a bizarre interpretation of WP:BLP wherein only a direct quote from the subject is an adequate source. Where is the room for compromise when you just make up new policies? -Rrius (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am exausted at attempting to reach a compromise with you regarding this. I tire of your accusations and your failure to assume good faith.Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where have I failed to assume good faith? I have asked you repeatedly to justify your position, and you have not.


 * Now, we have a new issue. After pitching such a fit about listing his religious affiliation as "Church of Scotland" when we have a ref saying he is "a member of the Church of Scotland", Off2riorob now thinks it makes sense to imply Brown only attends church for weddings and funerals based on the epolitix cite above, which says, "The chancellor appears keen to keep his religion a private matter - one which only spills out at weddings and funerals." That could be interpreted as saying that he only attends rarely, that he is weak protestant, that he is only effusive about religion at weddings and funerals, or that he is only visibly moved by religion at weddings and funerals. Saying Brown is affiliated with the Church of Scotland when he goes about calling himself "a son of the manse" and The Guardian says he is a member of the church could never expose Wikipedia to liability. Saying he is an occasional protestant could. -Rrius (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as all the citations say, he does not go to church very often, he is not very much of a religious persomn, well it sure does look like that. He also goes to christenings and I will add that later, It to me is a matter of correct balance. He never talks about god, is not a regualar parishoner and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you ok? You have been editing for a lot of hours. You are doing a lot of reverting, and there is nothing wrong with what you are removing? Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I have not done a lot of reverting; I have been adding material to multiple German election articles, copyediting at related articles, changing the way dates are displayed in a list regarding U.S. states, and dealing sorting out the issue of what image is best to use at Joe Biden. Now, stop misrepresenting my actions. What you are adding creates the impression that Brown is only attends church for weddings and funerals, which is not really what the source says. You also say that he never mentions god, which is seems like it is impossible to defend, but does not seem to me to violate BLP, so I just added a fact tag to it. -Rrius (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are on at least two, perhaps three reverts to this article here and I was just giving you a little warning. Brown's religiousness seems more important to you than to Brown himself. Here in the uk we christians usually go to church for weddings christenings and funerals, its a simple fact of uk life, churchs are turned into lapdance clubs and bars. I am going to add some more stuff from citations later, I am bored of this foolishness for now. I am here to improve the article by balancing the tag that you have insisted on keeping that he is a member of the church of scotland I am afraid that the reality is that Brown is not very often going to church and he does not talk about what god means to him.. and so on and so on. And you suggestion that saying it and citing it could lead wikipedia to liability is to be honest laughable.  Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Medication
Aside from his impaired eyesight, shouldn't the article mention the fact that Brown also takes medication for his autism? (92.12.59.182 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Please provide a link to reliable neutral sources on this matter then we can consider if it should be added or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to find an online copy of the report I read. If it's true it should definitely be in the article, because it explains why Brown has such poor communication skills. (92.12.59.182 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Please do, but to add this it must be a very very reliable source, several would be useful. It can not be rumours or reports, it must be mainstream, like the BBC an online forum or blog is totally unacceptable for these issues.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I will look. It seems quite a few politicians and journalists have publicly stated that Brown is autistic over the past few years. (92.12.59.182 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Agree with BW. A very solid source is needed for this, and care would be needed not to go beyond what the source says. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi BW, I am on the verge of reporting this user and have added sockpuppet tags to his page. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ill do it as I have never reported a sock before and it will be good experiance. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reported this IP here Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor retinal tears in PM's eye
--Mais oui! (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8300686.stm

--Mais oui! (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Brown Eyesight Tests Reveal Tears In Retina, Sky News

--Mais oui! (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gordon Brown has hospital eye tests, Telegraph


 * Yes, I would hardly say it is worth a mention, from the bbc, "there had been no further deterioration in his sight." Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

telecom sale 3g
This has been added...

During Browns time as chancellor has also pressed ahead with the telecom spectrum auctions, resulting in 30,000 jobs being lost in the UK high tech sector ref.. David Rudd PhD F.I.E.E C.eng, Spectrum Pricing's uncertain future Electronics World, Vol. 108, September pp. 24 2002 

If you read the Gardian article you don't find any job loss comments, you finf comment more in the line of, what a lot of money this sale made...20 billion. I dispute that the atribution of there being 30 000 job losses in direct consequence to Browns action is a step too far, I looked around and found almost nothing in the press to support this, it is apparently an opinion of this guy. David Rudd an electronics degree person writing in the electronic world magazine, I would say that his comments regarding the possible job losses are not notable and unsupported by reputable sources and notable political opinions, I want to remove the comment about the job losses being directly attributable to browns actions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections I am going to remove it, the 30 000 job losses are unsupported and if that comment is removed then what is left is not worth saving, I thought about expanding on it but I don't really think it would add anything to the article even if it was expanded. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Award
Hi, would it be possible to mention that he's the 225th prime minister of great britain? I could be wrong about the number but I had a hard time finding any mention of it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.133.9 (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence strikes me as a little point of view: "The award, from the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, recognised the prime minister's role in leading the international community towards a solution to the global economic crisis." The world is still in economic crisis and it is very much a matter of opinion whether Gordon Brown will ever be thought to have helped solve it. Could it not be toned down by reporting the reason for the award without stating as fact that it is true? --81.108.134.130 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Gordon Brown lead the world towards a solution to the financial crisis? I don't know, it's a matter of opinion. This is certainly not something that can possible be stated as fact. It's not enough to reflect what the cite says if we don't make clear that that is all we're doing. The reverted wording seems to endorse the view that Gordon Brown led the world towards a solution. It reads like a Labour press release and certainly not something that should be stated as fact.--Lo2u (T • C) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A quote would better. If we had something from the Foundation saying, "for leadership during the global economic crisis," or something like that, that would be best. -Rrius (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the organisation's website says this: "Prime Minister Brown will be cited for his compassionate leadership in dealing with the challenging issues facing humanity, his commitment to freedom, human dignity and the environment, and for the major role he has played in helping to stabilize the world’s financial system." My preferred wording would be 'Brown was praised for showing "compassionate leadership..." but I don't have especially strong feelings. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem, the comment in the article is matching what the org said they gave the award to him for. It is not a labour press release it is the press release of the consiousnesss organisation. The solution they suggest he led the world into is investment in a crisis and it was and is accepted that that was what happened and that was what has prevented the crisis from being worse. Its not a big deal. Its not a fact its a verifiable comment from a wp reliable source, they gave him the award so it is clearly their opinion. Add it as a quote then from the org. Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the lot in quotation marks and added the comment that it was given for according to the org. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that now? clearer? Off2riorob (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The lancashire plot reversal was a mistake, sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks great. Mr problem is that the comment in the article didn't report what the article says, it endorsed it. It may have been verifiable but it wasn't written from a neutral point of view. Besides, we simply don't know whether the crisis would have been worse. Also, there have real doubts expressed about the extent to which it really was Brown's leadership that led to all this and the extent to which the plan was actually implemented in other countries. --Lo2u (T • C) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I do see your point. regards Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Internal link
This Brown Bottom internal link to a newly created article has been added to the article and has been tagged for possible deletion, Articles_for_deletion/Brown_Bottom as it is attached to this article and is titled with this subjects name, I am posting notification here to allow anyone interested to post a comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also "internal links" from Gold, Market trend and Black Wednesday. Perhaps you should post on the talk pages for those articles too? -- Testing times (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Update the byelection part
No mention of the 2009 loss&win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.41.29 (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Post-local and European elections challenge against leadership
Why is there nothing on the plot against his leadership after the May elections? Several cabinet ministers resigned, calling for him to go... it was the biggest plot in his premiership, and there's no mention of it? Why? 77.100.24.221 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What plot. Nothing happened did it? I am sure if anyone resigned then that is on their bio where it belongs. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hazel Blears, James Purnell, Jacqui Smith etc resigned and there was a letter signed by backbenchers calling on him to resign. He may have survived, but cabinet ministers resigning and calling for him to resign is surely noteworthy? 82.36.211.254 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what is notable is that although there has been a strong campaign by mostly blairites and the press and the opposition to get rid of him is the fact that he has fought them all off and is still in a strong position. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not in a strong position at all and the only reason he hasn't been forced out is because there isn't enough time to replace one unelected leader with another before there has to be a General Election, which Labour will almost certainly lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.124.19 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you say almost certainly lose, he is in a stronger position than anybody else. He is leader of the party and has defeated all that have come before him. Do you think that David Cameron has the support of all the party, no of course he doesn't.

David Cameron is in a much stronger position than Brown. It is 99.9% certain that Cameron will be the next Prime Minister, and unlike Brown he will actually have been elected in his own right. Brown hasn't defeated anyone at all because his own side cannot replace their unelected leader with another unelected leader just four months before a General Election. What is funniest of all of course is that Cameron and Clegg want Brown to remain in office, unlike the Labour Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.228.102 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are doubts as to whether Cameron will win, especially there are a lot of people that suggest a hung parliament, there is more support that you think for brown in the party, he has defeated all of the opposition to him as leader. Cameron on the other hand is simply a figurehead for a party that is desperate to get into power, you will I am sure see that if he gets into power there will of course be dissenters in the party, it is simply that right now they keep there mouths shut in an attempt to just get in behind anyone who they think they can promote. Anyway we will see what happens, it is easy to be popular in opposition, the moment you are in power and you have to make unpopular decisions that actually affect real people hen you will see a more honest reflection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no doubts at all that Cameron will win, Brown is unelectable and the only question is how large the Conservative majority will be. No party that has been so far back in the polls as Labour has ever gone on to win the next election. (92.14.229.55 (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, as I said, we will see soon enough, this is not of benefit to the article though, feel free to discuss further on my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New article picture
The picture depicts him to look cheerful which is not what he looks like most of the time. He is more than often seen looking grumpy and bored, and so the current article photo misrepresents Gordon Brown. Willwal, Talk
 * Are you serious about this? Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wikipedia shouldn't misrepresent the UK Prime Minister to be happy and cheerful (which he very clearly isn't!): he's grumpy and depressed looking ... but who can blame him; the country as well as his party detest him! Willwal, Talk 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also of no benefit to the article, the photo has been in the article for about a year with no objections, it is a fair representation of him, Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rise in polls
There was no rise in the opinion polls after Brown took over, that is just an urban myth. Labour's fortunes became increasingly worse as soon as he took over and the Conservatives have consistently remained at least ten points ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.228.102 (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yawn, there is a citation to support that claim, although it is imo irrelevant, also all the so called opinion polls have little value in this article if it was down to me I would remove them all, they belong elsewhere imo. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We will have all the answers soon enough, soapboxing here is a waste of time. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The citation is wrong. It never happened. Brown has NEVER been popular because everybody knew in 2007 he was unfit to be Prime Minister. (92.14.229.55 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but there is no benefit to the article from this soapboxing. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Psychological flaws"
Should the article mention the fact that the phrase "Gordon's psychological flaws" was a reference to him being autistic? (92.4.67.186 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * First of all, this IP contribution should never have been removed. Concerns about BLP do not necessarily reach to the talk page. The contribution was not libelous. Even if we assume the speculation is potentially libelous, it is not because it does not assert the truth of the matter stated; that is, it does not say he is autistic, but that the person who referring to "psychological flaws" was calling him autistic.


 * Beyond that, the answer is no. Having skimmed the piece, the writer does not use "autistic" clinically. Rather, he means "morbid self-admiration". It is little more than a hit piece, and there is no compelling reason to give it any weight here. -Rrius (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP is a previously disruptive blocked user. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Drug policy
Professor David Nutt makes the point that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)'s advice was not rejected before Gordon Brown, specifically, became Prime Minister. Sir Michael Rawlins point, that other ministers had rejected advice in the past, is perhaps misleading in this context. Those other ministers included Jacqui Smith, as Home Secretary, under Gordon Brown's premiership, and Alan Johnson, ditto. Before that David Blunkett, under Tony Blair, had previously followed the committee's advice and downgraded cannabis from 'class B' to 'class C'.

An editorial in the Observer today makes the point that when the Labour government came to power "it promised to develop policy on the basis of evidence, not political expediency, where science would be at the heart of the debates and always be a source of rational decision-making ... Nutt's sacking was another milestone in Britain's progression from a great Enlightenment country into a place where prejudice reigns. Big Media has played its part, but so have timid, callow politicians. The dismissal demonstrates how profoundly disfigured our politics is becoming by a political class unwilling to stand up to the way public opinion is being manipulated."

Okay, that puts it strongly, but in any case I think the inclusion of Rawlins comment as it stands could be considered misleading.

If a shift away from evidence based policy making (at least with regard to drugs policy) has indeed become apparent under Brown's premiership then the article shouldn't fudge that.

--SallyScot (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well this is the Brown Biography article, perhaps all valid stuff on some other article, I feel that the section as it stands now is well balanced. I am hesitant to give excessive weight to a man who had just been sacked and actually has constantly lobbied for a change in the drugs policy. Off2riorob (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

--

In the source the professor says, "Until Gordon Brown took office there has never been a recommendation about drug classification from the council that has been rejected by government". Regardless of being sacked, as former Chair of the ACMD, I think he has his facts straight here. Significantly, also in the source, Rawlins statement about "other ministers" is not really a counterpoint to the professor's. It appears in a different context in different part of the story, so I think we need to be careful about editing them together.

I appreciate the need for balance though and I do accept that your edits were well intended to that end. Hopefully the inclusion of the direct quotes from Professor Nutt and Sir Michael Rawlins better resolves.

--SallyScot (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise that this is your pet topic but it is hard to discuss the edit when you make changes without agreement, you have removed what you disagree with and added what adds weight to your position. Drugs advisers are just that and of course ministers listen and still do what they feel is good for the country, you edit has again given the comments of this embittered, sacked man excessive weight and I will be again editing in the cited comment that balances the story. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

--

If anything the section needs make it clearer that Professor Nutt's point - "Until Gordon Brown took office there has never been a recommendation about drug classification from the council that has been rejected by government" is not simply, as you would like to suggest, the claim of an embittered, sacked man, but a verifiable fact. Further than that, Brown took the unprecedented step of declaring his intent to reclassify cannabis from Class C to B before the ACMD had completed its report. The council report recommended that cannabis remain in Class C in May 2008. While in September 2007 Gordon Brown had already declared - "I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about." and (in an interview with BBC Political editor Nick Robinson) - "we are about to make changes in the cannabis law". Regardless of your personally held belief that "of course ministers listen and still do what they feel is good for the country" the article should not fudge these facts.

--SallyScot (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

--

Regarding Off2riorob's revision of as of 17:25, 2 November 2009 - This reintroduced some of the issues that I was attempting to fix. In particular, it misleadingly juxtaposes Professor Nutt's point about Gordon Brown being the first Prime Minister ever to reject a recommendation about drug classification from the council with a comment from Sir Michael Rawlins that ministers had rejected advice in the past and would continue to do so. This has the effect of sowing doubt in the reader's mind; that it's simply an unresolved case of claim and counter-claim. However, Rawlins statement about "other ministers" is not really a counterpoint to the professor's at all. It appears in a different context in different part of the source story. We need to be especially careful about editing them together when the result is so potentially misleading.

Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has stated that Gordon Brown let it be known when he became Prime Minister in 2007 that he intended return the classification of cannabis to the position before Blunkett's decision in 2002, irrespective of the view of the Advisory Committee. The decision fulfilled Gordon Brown's ambition to appear 'tougher' than Tony Blair. It's also apparent from the fact that the council report recommended that cannabis remain in Class C in May 2008., while in September 2007 Gordon Brown had already declared - "I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about." and in an interview with BBC Political editor Nick Robinson - "we are about to make changes in the cannabis law".

Rawlins point about other ministers rejecting advice in the past is applicable to Jacqui Smith, as Home Secretary, under Gordon Brown's premiership, and Alan Johnson, ditto. Before that David Blunkett, under Tony Blair, had previously followed the committee's advice and downgraded cannabis from 'class B' to 'class C', as had Charles Clarke followed their advice, once more under Tony Blair, in leaving at at 'class C' after the matter again had been referred to the Advisory Committee.

In becoming more aware of these facts I'm becoming, if anything, more persuaded that the article could benefit from some further editing. Not, however, so as to wilfully obscure key detail, but rather to support the critical points.

--SallyScot (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All the comments from my addition are from the BBC citation, you have removed them again, ok if you don't like them ..it's no big issue to me, the section as I see it is a bit newsworthy and short lived and is being presently given excessive weight in the scheme of things. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Professor Nutt brings attention to Gordon Brown’s prior involvement in the issue. I can accept that your initial edits may have been well-intended if you were genuinely suspicious and sought better balance in that respect, but otherwise I don’t really follow your argument. Bearing in mind Charles Clarke’s further account, and, if you’re also suspicious of that, simply the time-line of events (Gordon Brown’s verifiable pronouncements made before the ACMD reported), how can further obscuring of Brown’s position now be justified? The story is still unfolding and its implications may yet suggest further edits to follow. --SallyScot (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Internal link
This Brown Bottom internal link to a newly created article has been added to the article and has been tagged for possible deletion, Articles_for_deletion/Brown_Bottom as it is attached to this article and is titled with this subjects name, I am posting notification here to allow anyone interested to post a comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also "internal links" from Gold, Market trend and Black Wednesday. Perhaps you should post on the talk pages for those articles too? -- Testing times (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Update the byelection part
No mention of the 2009 loss&win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.41.29 (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Gordon Brown has physically attacked his staff

 * Angry Gordon Brown 'hit out at aide and yanked secretary from her chair', Mail on Sunday, 31 January 2010

"Well-placed sources say the Prime Minister has been accused of hitting a senior adviser, pulling a secretary out of her chair and hurling foul-mouthed abuse at aides while distraught over an alleged snub by President Barack Obama. The claims, which are fiercely denied by Mr Brown's allies, are linked to a new book about Mr Brown by respected political journalist Andrew Rawnsley. In researching the book, The End Of The Party, due to be published on March 1, Mr Rawnsley has investigated allegations that Mr Brown flew into a number of wild rages since he succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister. The publishers say his accounts are so detailed that readers will think he has 'bugs in the vases at No10'"

This is an important insight into the personality of Gordon Brown, and deserves a (duly cited) mention in the article. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say, wait for the book. Off2riorob (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On what basis? the Mail on Sunday is a perfectly good external source, per WP:VERIFY. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The book will be a primary source of the allegations, so it would be inappropriate for us to base content on it. If media organisations act as a secondary source and provide commentary on the book, then they will be suitable sources. The Mail fills the second role at the moment, but I am mindful of the WP:NOTNEWS policy and the fact that the Mail has a tendency to lean towards sensationalist stories. I would be much more comfortable with it if a non-tabloid source picks it up and if we wait a few days to see if anything comes of it.
 * If there is an urgency to report the information today, I would suggest heading over to Wikinews.Road Wizard (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the Spectator non-tabloid enough?
 * revelations put Brown's temper on the agenda"
 * --Mais oui! (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the Telegraph non-tabloid enough?
 * According to reports, Mr Brown once hit a senior aide who "got in the way" when he rushed out of No 10 to a reception for foreign dignitaries. On another occasion he was said to have pulled a secretary from her seat for failing to keep up as he allegedly dictated a memo to her, sitting it in himself and operating her computer. The third alleged incident saw Mr Brown yelling obscenities at his senior staff in a hotel room in the US after being informed of media reports that he was being "snubbed" by President Barack Obama. Publishers Viking claim the book is "packed with astonishing revelations." However, a source close to Mr Brown pointed to author Rawnsley's close links to allies of Tony Blair, with whom Mr Brown had many angry clashes.
 * Is the Independent non-tabloid enough?
 * confidence in Labour circles will be dented by reports of a new book said to contain damaging revelations about Gordon Brown.
 * --Mais oui! (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment from sock of blocked user removed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to mention autism, so on what basis are you trying to make that connection? Road Wizard (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from sock of blocked user removed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I remove that comment under blp, the user is a sock of a blocked user. It was editor here and Granville and Granville was a sock of John Redwood, I have added a template to his talkpage, what he wants is simply to add it here and get people to talk about it, Granville was blocked for exactly the same thing last year. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As regards the book review Mais oui has added this comment to the article about the writer of the book.. Rawnsley's The End Of The Party will be published on 1 March 2010. On 31 January 2010, the Mail on Sunday reported that the new book will make allegations that the prime minister, Gordon Brown, physically attacked members of his staff .. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be completely unsupported claims from a book that is not even published yet. Its nothing more than political mischief and the type of claimed story that opponents of Brown use to slur him. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From the independent .. "Downing Street furiously denied a claim in The Mail on Sunday that the Prime Minister hit a senior male official. A Downing Street source said: "The idea that the Prime Minister hit someone is absolute nonsense." Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From the telegraph... No 10 sources were quick to deny the claims. One said: "This is all    absolute rubbish. Nothing like this ever happened. A Downing Street    spokesman said: "Journalists are free to investigate whatever fanciful    stories they wish."Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO such unsupported derogatory claims have no place in this or any article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the denial should be noted, but that does not mean the allegations are not worthy of inclusion. It is verified by reliable sources. We should note the book as a source in the text, but it is clearly within WP:RS. -Rrius (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely unverified by anyone at all, in fact I would keep it out even after the book is published unless it gets some confirmation from somewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just nonsense. The author and editor of the book verified that the allegations exist. The editors and writers of the new stories have verified that the book carries those allegations. You once again fail to understand the difference between asserting that an allegation exists and asserting that it is true. This is a case of asserting that the allegation was made. Please try to understand the distinction because we've covered this ground before. -Rrius (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is no more nonsense than asserting that something should be added about this unsupported unconfirmed by anyone book selling advertising claim.and the book isn't even in print yet, it is astounding. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The book doesn't have to have been released for its contents to be known. It is quite common for publishers to release advance copies or portions of copies to the media to drum up support. I'm not sure what the first clause of your sentence is supposed to mean, so I can't respond to it. -Rrius (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You called my position nonsense and I said my position is no more nonsense than yours. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but after saying my position is nonsense, you demonstrate what nonsense really is. What on earth does "than asserting that something should be added about this unsupported unconfirmed by anyone book selling advertising claim" mean? -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is a wikipedia good article, Editors should try to keep it that way, it should not be a dumping ground for such political partisan slurs with no tangible foothold in fact, people go on about Brown and he is attacked by the right wing press and the conservatives and anyone with an axe to grind, about how awful he is, but at this moment in time he his viewing figures on wikpedia are three times greater than Camerons, and there you have the reason that involved parties have to slur Brown in any way they can, Cameron is still not popular with the public even after everything that has happened. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one talking politics. The claim is reported in a book written by a respected journalist, Andrew Rawnsley, and the fact that the book reports the claim is printed in news reports. You have failed utterly to say where the potential failure of proof is. Since no one here is claiming that the underlying allegation is necessarily true, that can't be it. So, aside from the fact that you believe Brown is more popular than Cameron, what is the basis for excluding the claim? -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The claims in this as yet unpublished book have no one named at all, who is the person he is alleged to have hit, who witnessed it, who has said that they were the person Brown is alleged to have done this too? No one. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That the source is unnamed could be noted in the article, but Wikipedia does not exclude claims because the ultimate source is unnamed. The journalist involved is reliable, so that is enough for WP:RS. The fact that the book has not yet reached shelves is immaterial. -Rrius (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing at all to connect it to factuality, imo it has no place in this article. It was in a book that someone had told the person writing the book that G.brown had hit someone ... no one said it was them and nothing was known about it but it was reported in a reliable source. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been reading the sources. I'll ignore The Spectator and Independent, as their articles are just quick notes saying The Mail has an article. And The Telegraph does the same thing, except doesn't even have the decency of mentioning The Mail.
 * So I'm left with The Mail. I hate the weasel-wordedness of the UK papers. The Mail article says: "The Mail on Sunday has been told that the new allegations [in the book] include claims that Mr Brown ... It is not known if the allegations referred to above have been included in the book." This is self-contradictory. Sources are never named, and things are just "alleged". It's disputed by Downing Street (no surprise). So if I read it right, the newspaper is alleging that an unspecified person alleges violent incidents by Brown. My opinion is that's no good enough. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You and Rob are both making the same error. Wikipedia is not going to say, "Gordon Brown attacked such-and-such". Rather, it will say something like, "According to a forthcoming book by Andrew Rawnsley, Gordon is alleged to have hit a senior aide and pulled a secretary from her chair." The second bit I put in quotations is adequately sourced. The Mail have established that the allegation is made, including the use of sources familiar with the book and confirmation from Downing Street that Rawnsley has asked them about the incidents. The information should not be excluded just because it is unflattering to Brown and comes from a newspaper. Rob and I have had this discussion before, and I understand his distrust of the news media, but that distrust has no part in making decisions about whether a source is reliable under WP:RS and, by extension, WP:BLP. -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not even a notable slur, it has dropped out of the press like a brick today. Perhaps later if it shows notability and some support in the real world. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is notable, especially in light of the stories of throwing mobile phones and other stories that are of a piece with it. It's treatment in the press on Monday, 1 February 2010 is not the only criterion at issue here. It is notable and sourced and should be included. -Rrius (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have to disagree with you if that is your position, imo it is not notable at all, it is unsupported by any complainants in the real world, you will notice the phone throwing rubbish is also not in the article, and the other titillating derogatory slurs, none of them are in, this is a wiki bio not a celebrity gossip magazine. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The temperament and management style of HM's manager-in-chief is clearly relevant to the article. It is not just "derogatory slurs". Once again, being encyclopedic is not dependent on whether the detail fails your "reflects negatively on the subject" test, which you have applied repeatedly throughout the project. -Rrius (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should make a complaint about Off2riorob's biased editing of the article. (92.11.226.97 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Tagged as suspected sock of GranvilleHouston. 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My concern is really that this alleges assault, a serious claim which needs serious sources. The Mail's article just isn't strong enough in my view - The Mail itself is repeating what Rawnsley said, Rawnsley is only investigating allegations. Neither of them are actually asserting anything. I notice that the article mentions a previous book by Rawnsley with similar allegations: if it does then that would be a better source as we could say "Rawnsley says X" rather than "Rawnsley investigated allegations that X". --h2g2bob (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the allegations have been made is notable. We know the allegations were made because The Mail, Rawnsley's publisher, and No. 10 all confirm that Rawnsley has at the very least investigated the claims (the first two also confirm that he reports the allegations. Andrew Rawnsley and The Mail are both "serious" sources. You are applying a heightened standard that doesn't make sense here. WP would not be passing judgement on whether the allegations are true; rather, we would be reporting that serious allegations are levelled in Rawnsley's book. -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Smears coming from Tony Blair?
I don't understand why Off2riorob claims that it is "the right wing press and the conservatives" spreading these smears. Even Downing Street itself names Tony Blair as Rawnsley's backer. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And what on earth has the fact that Brown's page is 3 times more visited than Cameron's got to do with the physical assault allegations?--Mais oui! (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Birth Place
✅

Do we know where Gordon was born - Govan or Giffnock?

"Gordon Brown was born in Giffnock, Scotland, in 1951" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3632355/Family-detective.html

"JAMES GORDON BROWN was born in Giffnock, Glasgow on 20 February 1951. " http://www.independent.co.uk/news/i-could-still-be-prime-minister-says-brown-1137937.html

(Msrasnw (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Some Brown nonsense
This may come up - so I thought I'd pre-empt it. We have a Daily Telegraph article headlined - "Gordon Brown accused of throwing a tangerine - Gordon Brown has been accused of breaking a machine by hurling a tangerine into it after losing his temper during a visit to a factory." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/7297028/Gordon-Brown-accused-of-throwing-a-tangerine.html. This was also reported in the Sun and even animated by a Hong Kong based media organization - http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/02/gordon-the-fighting-puppet-returns-armed-with-tangerines/. This is a HOAX - perpetrated by Robert Popper - see http://www.robertpopper.com/2010/02/27/gordon-brown-calls-lady-a-citric-idiot/ 87.194.131.188 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Resignation
I just started an article regarding Brown's resignation. Obviously it requires more information but I thought it would be beneficial to the article if the section was started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairfarmer (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and you were reverted. Brown hasn't resigned; he's announced his intention to resign before September 2010. All of this is already in the article. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

...... Brown is like one of those people who says "Well, I must be going" but doesn't go. He's long outstayed his welcome in Number Ten.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  10:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone has a right to their opinion, not everyone would agree about him going, I wonder how the Government managed in the war, they had a coalition and we did win the war, maybe its important we have an acting PM until the parties settle on who is to be PM in case of national emergency and to ensure smooth transition. I just hope they all act in our best interests as the UK voters. (Rovington (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

I've updated a couple of sentances to reflect this in the initial paragraphs. Gordon Brown is still PM, and he has not resigned. He has announced that both of those will change, but they haven't yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokhorovka (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up that something is to be announced tonight, which will lead to some major activity on this article. -- .: Alex  :.  17:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Telboyo1, 11 May 2010
In the info box it states that Gordon Brown was succeeeded by Nick Clegg, I do not believe this to be true.

Telboyo1 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed already. There's a huge amount of speculative editing and assumptive editing occurring here, as folk jostle to become the First Editor To Make That Vital Change. It'll continue until Gordon Brown is really no longer PM. Hopefully the nonsense will end later today... it's getting very tedious. TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron
Gordon Brown has resigned today as Prime Minister and will tender his resignation to the queen today and recommend that Conservative leader David Cameron should succeed him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallenuk (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, this is incorrect, as is the statement that Brown *was*- he has merely handed in his resignation to the Queen. 82.4.147.183 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Right eye
What kind of "experimental surgery" was done in his right eye. Wikipedia can do better and be more specific than that. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we had this discussion previous and couldn't find the exact detail. Brown has said he had 3 major operations but as I have found he has not specified the exact method of surgery. He had a torn retina and the only thing that may have been experimental at that time was perhaps laser surgery. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the early 1970's vitrectomy was also experimental. That is surgery that one sticks needles in the eye and works through the needle holes (very un-medical description). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I may have found it; "With his sight failing, he was referred to Dr Chawla, who had been trained in a pioneering technique that allowed the whole of the retina to be seen during surgery." Telegraph, 11 Oct 2009 Road Wizard (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done, perhaps you or Suomi want to add an explanatory comment. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd better stop now. I am not British and I have only lived in the UK for less than 3 months.  That might make be objective and have no axe to grind.  However, once I made some non-political comments about an American politician and a two or three meatpuppets started accusing me of being a sock of someone else who did not comment on the same topics (also one user said my edits were completely different as well as the checkuser confirming innocence).  Therefore, unless I am invited, I must stop writing here or face personal attacks again. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Suomi, welcome to the UK. Don't let one bad experiance put you off editing.Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What Off2riorob said. Suomi, no one owns this article, you have as much right to edit here as anyone else. I regularly edit articles about non-UK and non-NZ topics. Anyway, consider yourself invited ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in full with TFOWR you have as much right to add factual content to this or any article as anyone. Welcome to the UK. I agree the more factual details the better. To those who may think I am an immigrant descendant who is supporting an immigrant, you could not be more wrong (Rovington (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC))
 * I did some research and believe that a vitrectomy, not a scleral buckle or pneumatic or laser retinopexy, was done. However, the definitive source is Mr. Brown's surgeon's notes, which are private. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 62.30.142.206, 11 May 2010
Residence is no longer 10 Downing Street.

62.30.142.206 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He also won't be spending any more time at Chequers. 89.243.247.200 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request 12 May 2010
Can the sidebar be updated, as he's no longer Prime Minister but still listed as so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.59.79 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be correct. It says he was Prime Minister until 11 May 2010. Road Wizard (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request 22nd May More in-depth coverage of Brown's Premiership?
At the moment there is very little in the Prime Minister section on this page concerning Brown's handling of the economic recession. Would it be possible for this section to be added to and expanded upon in order to give a wider look into Brown's Premiership? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.168.62 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That might/would sit better in the chancellors article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (but would consider a more specific request). The section on his premiership is quite lengthy, and there's an entire article devoted to the subject (and linked to from this article). It has quite a bit more on the "Banking crisis", the "Recession and fiscal stimulus" and the "2009 Pre-Budget Report". TFOWRpropaganda 18:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If an appropriate link to the suggested article related to the recession could be made more clear on the page, such as in the introductory paragraph, I would be grateful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.168.62 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd (personally) regard that as going into too much detail for the WP:LEAD. Presumably, a reader wanting to know more will read on, to at least the table of contents - where "Premiership..." is listed. I think the WP:LEAD is fine - but the Premiership... section itself could maybe be expanded. TFOWRpropaganda 18:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a small section in the Premiership relating to the recession, with a link to the larger article would be appropriate as this issue to me is the most important aspect of Brown's leadership of the country  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.168.62 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to the article is already there (Gordon Brown, Main article: Premiership of Gordon Brown). What did you have in mind for the text on the recession? TFOWRpropaganda 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a very brief mention of the recession, such as when it came to fruition, and how it subsequently occurred during Brown's Premiership, it may possibly be appropriate to mention one action Brown took in response to the recession (eg Northern Rock nationalised?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.168.62 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a bit short, because I've avoided anything too detailed or possibly contentious, but how's this? TFOWRpropaganda 19:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Very happy with your new topic addition and it's subsequent creation, many thanks for listening, I look forward to seeing it on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.168.62 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! Anyone else before I add this? It's in my sandbox, in case anyone wants to tweak it before it goes in to the main article, and for those of you who'd prefer to read it here:

== Global recession ==

His premiership coincided with the global recession. The United Kingdom lead calls for fiscal action to stimulate aggregate demand. Domestically, the Government introduced a range of measures including a bank rescue package worth around £500 billion (approximately $850 billion), a temporary 2.5% cut in Value Added Tax (Sales Tax) and a "car scrappage" scheme.


 * (Shamelessly lifted from Premiership of Gordon Brown).
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>propaganda 19:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the good of adding something from another article that better belongs there? Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It goes into a lot more detail at the "Premiership..." article, but I think there's a case for some coverage of the recession here. The parent section ("Prime Minister") already "see also"s to the Premiership article, and there's already some duplication but I don't think that's unwarranted.
 * That said, the new section is quite stubby...
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>propaganda 11:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept criticisms of the new section, however, this was a key aspect of Brown's premiership, and in many respects far outweighs the topic on the drugs policy, and therefore I believe this deserves recognition on the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.165.157 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The drugs section is actually much more relevant to the man gordon Brown than the global recession, which actually has nothing to do with him, as in...while he was prime minister there was a sunami or there was a rise in property prices or whatever, all much more relevent at the premiership of gordon brown and not here which is his life story. The drug decision was a situation where brown overrode the advice of qualified people and threw in his personal beliefs. IMO. Anyways it is a minor addition and as such is fine. I also felt the drug section was a bit long and soapboxing as the person who added it was very interested in that subject, it cold be trimmed a bit actually. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
The line about what Brown said on 10th May does not need to be mentioned since he resigned both as Prime Minister and as leader of the Labour Party just one day later. (92.11.177.134 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Prime Minister
'He was also one of only five prime ministers who attended a university other than Oxford or Cambridge'. This suggests to me that ALL British Prime Ministers attended university, and that Brown was one of only five who did not attend O or C. Not true. Should this not read something like 'Of those prime ministers who attended a university, only five did not attend O or C; Gordon Brown was one of those five' ? I hope that somebody with better word control than I can rectify this. gramorak 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramorak (talk • contribs) sorry about the unsigned thingy - Alzheimers. Anyway, of 19 PMs from Salisbury to Major, seven did not go to university - http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/research/working-papers/wp19theakston.pdf. Don't know about pre-Salisbury, but this does suggest that the line needs re-writing gramorak 22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramorak (talk • contribs)


 * - Tweaked - Not all British prime ministers have attended university, but of the ones that did Brown was one of only five that did not attend either Oxford or Cambridge, the others were, the Earl of Bute (Leiden), Lord John Russell (Edinburgh), Andrew Bonar Law (University of Glasgow), and Neville Chamberlain (Mason Science College, later Birmingham). Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo...
Global recession

Brown's premiership coincided with the global recession, during which the United Kingdom lead calls for fiscal action to stimulate aggregate demand. Domestically, Brown's administration introduced a range of measures including a bank rescue package..

Should read 'led calls...' --89.211.177.132 (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - ✅ Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a nasty feeling that might have been my fault... oops. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 09:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, led, lead,  laid .. it is a quite an irregular issue. http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic21343.html Off2riorob (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation on global recession
I have an appropriate link, provided by the BBC that would fit nicely as a form of evidence to support the actions taken by Brown's government in response to the global recession http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7658277.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.237.182 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good citation to add to the global recession section with perhaps a little detail to expand the section. Would you like to write a little something, actually what we have is uncited somwhow, so I will add this citation, as I said perhaps a little expansion also? Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Politicians with physical disabilities
There seems to be some issues here and has asked to WP:BRD on this talk page  twice without actually coming here. So - let's disucss. Not Nerd : On WR  20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Subject lives a normal life and does not self identify as ''disabled'. BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But reliable sources such as the BBC do identify him as such. We do not take much credence on Wikipedia of what the subject of a BLP has to say if encyclopedic information can be backed up by verifiable, thrid party reliable sources. Not Nerd :  On WR  20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) I too was concerned about this addition. I think that category itself is rather problematic, it would be an absolutely huge list if it contained every one with a minor disability or problem who are on wikipedia. It would probably be best if that category was more restrictive or split into different types of disability rather than a large general one which can unhelpfully imply certain things. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Self identification in the case of living people is totally relevant, add it to the article if you want to label him as a disabled person not by a back door valueless cat. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the article that he has blindness (second paragrpah). Look Rob this article is on my watchlist from the General election - same as Cameron and Clegg as it happens. I've no vested interest (which seems to be more than you can credibly admit to to be honest) and I'm not fussed. But given that I've stumped up a RS, given he's described as blind in one eye with a RS linking to it, the only fact you can argue is that partial blindness is not a disability - which you'll struggle with to be truthful. As to the value of the category - well that's a fair point - but you'd need to argue that elsewhere. Not Nerd : On WR  20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact the source justifying stating he has a disability also says "Mr Brown's office told Disability Now the Chancellor was "a bit surprised to be nominated because he's never really considered his eyesight to be a disability"." highlights this is a sensitive topic. Id have no problem with a category being added for partial eyesight or something like that, but i do think its problematic to label people as being "physically disabled" and could be a problem with WP:BLP. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good point BW. It seems it's really the category that's the (albeit minor in context) issue. And this is not the place to discuss that, but clearly you're right and if we can add a valuable category then it should be done. Not Nerd : On WR  20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We had it all b4, Half blind politicians its all attack additions. He is not registered disabled he was the working Prime Minister of the United kingdom and as BritishWatcher comments he rejects the label. Disputing his rejection of the status and insisting to label him as such is a bit excessive considering the article is about a living person in his BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob - why don't you just back off. I agree - it looks like the category is far to wide to add value. Your comments above "attack additions", your WP:OWN comments on my talk and your poorly construed "considering the article is about a living person in his BLP" shows up that you have a serious issue here. Please try and remember WP:NPOV - you're self evidently a big fan of Brown (as am I) - but I can contain it and actually edit neutrally. Further, I can discuss rather than scream "WP:BRD" at people without actually bothering to start a debate and just blindly reverting people. Now, after the reasoned comments from BW above, it looks like my RS does not fit the category, and I agree. A smaller field category might help, but I'm not sure it would - "Category:Politicians with visual impairment" being a possible choice but I personally see no value in it. So, unless someone throws in a good RS that Brown is disabled then the category looks like it is not a good idea. Nevertheless Rob you need to understand that what the subjects of BLP's state is irrelevant if we can source information from reliable third party places - but this is not the place to discuss that. Not Nerd : On WR  21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As the category [] defines no criteria for inclusion classifying someone as disabled or not is inherently POV. Therefore, self-identification is the most reasonable criteria and if Mr. Brown does not considered himself disabled he should not be included in the category. Gerardw (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the Crash
I have added this book to the Publications. This change does not seem to me to be controversial enough to require discussion. Budhen (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)