Talk:David Miliband

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 14 December 2007 (→‎Lockerbie bombing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).


Photo

Why was the photo deleted?

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

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

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

Length of the Article

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

Trivia

I think the trivia section is far too big in proportion to the length of the article I think the trivia section is far too small in proportion to his impact on Politics

Blog

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

I think to cost a Blog by calculating how much time civil servants spend on related activities, then using a percentage of their wages to evaluate how much a blog costs to run is completely misleading. This is exactly what the Newspapers sourced have done over the few initial weeks of the Blog launch. To say that this blog costs £8000 a year to run is completely wrong an innacurate, and thus has no place on an encyclopedia. Sorry I didn't discuss it first, i'm quite new to this, but i hope you will now concur with me. thank you Jamesedwardsmith 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, you may well be right. But none of it is libellous. What the para says is that
  • a blog said this
  • a national daily agreed
  • a blog said they were wrong
to me the national daily is a little more authoratative than either the blogs. Can we find a better source to reference that says that the cost is less. Perhaps another report in a national daily. Frelke 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's libelous because it's factually incorrect. Saying that some value has been "revealed" my some other Blog is completely wrong. How can it be revealed if the next sentence queries the very same statistic? This is supposed to be a high quality factual encyclopedia, after all, isn't it? Jamesedwardsmith 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not factually incorrect. Its factually correct.
"Journalist Ellee Seymour recently revealed on her blog the alleged £40,000 annual cost of David Miliband's blog. The Independent newspaper also reported the story. However, the figure is now thought to be £8,000, as another blogger reports."
  1. Ellee Seymour did reveal this on her blog
  2. The Independent reported it
  3. Another blogger reported the figure to be wrong
3 facts, connected by some words. None of those facts are incorrect. Each of them has its own validating link. Now maybe the Ellee got it wrong. Maybe the indy did also. But both of them reported it. That is a fact, and that is all that is being reported here. Now has an authoratitive source confirmed what the second blogger says? Have you got a link to that? It is not libellous to report facts. Are you familiar with WP:3RR? Frelke 09:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually incorrect and would not be something that would be in an encylcopedia.
  • The Blog does not "cost" that amount to run
  • She did not "reveal" any costs it's merely an estimate
  • Something in a Newspaper does not make it true or worthy of encylopedia
  • A Blog is not a valid source of information
This persons blog may have made an opinion about costs, but the sentence in this article makes no sense, is not justified, cannot be proved and is mere speculation.Jamesedwardsmith 11:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that you removed is saying nothing more than the three facts I have detailed above. It doesn't say, for instance, that
  1. the Blog does "cost" that amount to run - instead it says that "Ellee Seymour said in her blog that ...
  2. any of the 3 reports (2 blogs and one national) are correct and the other(s) wrong - instead it says that these three reports exist and you (the reader) can go and make up your own mind as to which is correct
You seem to be suggesting that the 2nd blog is correct but that a blog is not valid source of information. Some inconsistency there wouldn't you agree ?
Would you prefer the following version "The Independent newspaper alleged that the annual cost of David Miliband's blog was £40,000[1]. However, the figure is now thought to be £8,000[citation needed]."
You have also suggested that it can't be proved. In saying this you are factually incorrect. You seem to be getting confused about what is a fact and what is an opinion. It is a fact that Ellie Symour reported the cost as being £40K. Now that doesn't mean that it cost £40K. It just means that Ellie Symour (and the Indy) reported that it is. The latter is proven, is a fact and can be included according to WP rules. Have you read WP:V? WP is not saying anywhere what the cost of DM's blog is. It is just reporting what others say the cost is.Frelke 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody may have made an opinion on their blog but it is not verifiable and it is in no way stuitable for "trivia" in this section. The journalists blog DID NOT "reveal" the cost of the Blog because (a) her blog quotes somebody else (b) the figure was refuted by the minister in question and (c) she does not know the actual cost. I find this Trivia point completetely misleading, as I am sure anybody else reading it would. It does NOT cost £40000 or anywhere near that ridiculous figure - some Libdem MP has plucked the figure out of the air by taking a percentage of civil service wages - do you know any other peice of government 1operations that are calculated in that way??? How can it say that the cost is nearer £8000 with no citation? This point would not be in any other encylopedia because it is at most completely inaccurate and at least misleading Jamesedwardsmith 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, this is not about the calculation and what is correct and what is wrong. It is about reporting in a totally neutral voice what was said. If you are suggesting we should work out the correct cost, that would be Original Research and is totally banned on WP. Have a read of the policies I have linked. Frelke 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, I know your newish around here, but you are falling foul of one our favourite rules, the three revert rule. You have reverted other peoples edits 5 times now. I have placed a {{3RR}} warning on your talk page and you have just removed it. BTW, it is also considered a personal attack to suggest that an editor is engaged in vandalism, when they are actually engaged in legitimate edits. You may be blocked if you continue to revert legitimate edits. Frelke 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see it, blogs are not an acceptable source, and that this is a minor, minor story in the bigger picture of Miliband's career.
Can't there simply be a line like 'Miliband was the first British cabinet member to have a blog, although his alleged use of public resources to support the blog created a minor political controversy (source)', although even this gives a minor story too much importance. Martín (saying/doing) 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with that. I do however suggest that the Indy is an acceptable source. Frelke 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say Frelke, the question is to report things in a neutral way. Stating something was revealed is not neutral. Revelaing is implicative of facts. If the facts are disputed, then to maintain a NPOV, it should be someone "claimed", not "revealed." You seem to be missing James's point completely. "Revealed" is fine according to Verifiability, but not according to NPOV - Fairness of tone. I would therefore suggest the original edit that James objected to was incorrect regardless of source. The18thDoctor 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

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

Global & General Nominees LLC

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

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

Kennedy Scholar

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

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

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

David!

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

Marion Kozak

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

There is this which I found on the Guardian website: "Miliband is the son of Jewish child refugees from the Holocaust, who saw the effects of fascism at first hand and became passionately socialist. It is a credo that has led his mother, Polish-born Marion Kozak, to support a range of left-wing Jewish political groups. His Belgian-born father, the late Ralph Miliband, became one of the leading Marxist theoreticians of his generation." ( http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/comment/0,,2057617,00.html )
It would probably be easiest to assume from that she is just Polish. Mikebloke 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


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

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

Kozak

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

Miliband or Milliband?

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

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

Automatic peerreview

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

Lockerbie bombing

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

I am re-restoring the section deleted by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel.Phase4 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevent- he gets many letters about many issues- why are you picking out this one in particular? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All it says is "On the same day that Miliband was appointed". Unless you can find some more relevent connection I am going to delete it again along with all the other nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word is relevant. And the Lockerbie bombing issue is quickly becoming a foreign policy hot potato (see, for example, Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations#Notable activities).Phase4 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically does that have to do with David Miliband? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with Britain's Foreign Secretary, who just happens to be David Miliband.Phase4 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are putting undue weight on one of the many issues that Miliband is dealing with so I am removing it again. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you both stop reverting. The Lockerbie section does have relevance given Miliband's current role, but it should be in context with the other issues he has encountered since becoming Foreign Secretary. (comments on Israel-Lebanon tiff last year, conflict with Malloch Brown, EU treaty etc.) Catchpole (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph merely says Miliband was sent a letter. Until Miliband actually says or does anything in relation that letter then it is not appropriate to have two wholes paragraph about it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, G v H! Apart from the Köchler letter, there is also a petition by a former British diplomat in this paragraph. Please explain what "two wholes" is or are!Phase4 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you're not going to win this through humour or spotting typos. David Miliband must get sent hundreds of petitions and letters a week. There is no reason why such a concentration should be made on Lockerbie, which I note, by the way, seems to be a particular obsession of yours. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I try to improve articles by adding information. Catchpole above suggests that the Lockerbie section should be put into context with the other issues Miliband has encountered since becoming Foreign Secretary: eg "comments on Israel-Lebanon tiff last year, conflict with Malloch Brown, EU treaty etc." Is G v H prepared to improve the article along these lines?Phase4 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has Miliband actually made any comment on this? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miliband's grandfather

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

If he is a senior member of the British cabinet, then yes. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that his suitability for public office is somehow brought into question because his grandfather served in the Red Army? Ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miliband&oldid=177779699"