Talk:Geoff Hoon - Knowledge

1955:

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

506:

was applied by many national newspapers and he was given the joke nickname "Buff" (buffoon). He was widely expected to resign on the publication of the resulting Hutton Report. Whilst many were unsurprised at the absence of any claim of wrong-doing on Tony Blair's behalf there was widespread disbelief that both Hoon and his Permanent Secretary, Sir Kevin Tebbit, were also completely cleared of any impropriety. Hutton concluded that there was no "underhand" strategy in the naming of Kelly but that the Ministry of Defence failed to inform and advise him of the effects his name entering the public domain. Hoon was unpopular throughout the Armed Forces, who considered him to be an advocate of unnecessary change and accused him of weakening the Forces. In particular, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, publicly accused Hoon of neglecting morale and efficiency in his policies. The military's low opinion of him was long-standing and dated back to his handling of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre.

2984:

above. If you care to actually respond to the points made instead of taking offense at the misrepresentation being called "idiotic" (typo or not), you might actually contribute to improving the article. It is up to you to do that or to continue to take offense well out of proportion to that intended. Third and finally, since I didn't say it was polite there is no reason for you to take it as such. What I said was that you were rude about my typo, yet I managed to actually answer your question. I may have done so with some heat (because of your rudeness), but that doesn't change the fact that I answered. Your decision to then act as though I wasn't trying to have a constructive conversation was just petulance. So, you can defend the misrepresentation or not, you can answer the other points or not, but if you don't, it is because you chose not to and has nothing to do with me. -

1803:

included in a way that helps tell the story of Geoff Hoon, by all means include it. As it stands, we are saying, "Some people called him idiot. It was thought Conservatives started it, but it was apparently Peter Kilfoyle. Hoon has been asked about how the nickname makes him feel." That's just silly. How about something more like, "After a series of gaffes, he acquired the nickname "Buff" Hoon, which fellow Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle later admitted to coining." The bit about the interview frankly misrepresents the question and answer, so it should be cut altogether. He was asked if he know it was his nickname and why he though he got it; his initial response was to make a joke about it (presumably taking "buff" to mean muscular), then brushed it off saying "buffoon" is not the worst thing he's ever been called. -

234: 213: 323: 302: 2239:

that adds anything to the article, on its not, would it merit inclusion in anyother encyclopedic boigraphy, no it would not, the reason is that it is just a way to deride and insult a living person, there is no story to it apart from ..we coined an insulting nickname to deride our enemy, value-less. There is also little discussion of the nickname in the citations as there is nothing to say about it, Hoon the baffoon a name given to him because some people think he is rubbish.

365: 2839:

advantage of his name to hurl a childish insult. As I've proposed above, and about which not one editor has commented, we should actually tie the nickname to its cause, i.e., the gaffes. This should be pretty easy and would address the concern that we are taking a cheap shot at Hoon. Also, we should get rid of the idiot statement that he has been asked how he feels about the nickname. If he has, it wasn't in the source we link to. -

1640:(edit conflict) I have looked through the sources and I have to agree with TreasuryTag that there is sufficient supporting evidence to mention that he was given the nickname. However the suggested edit above makes it into a dedicated section, which appears to give undue weight to the name; it is a fact that he was given the name, but I don't think we can say it is enough of a defining aspect to merit its own section of the article. 181: 418: 400: 119: 95: 3185: 428: 64: 2529:

really think it is noteworthy encyclopedic content? I don't and fail to see how anyone really could. Your reason for wanting to include it appears to be that it is in a reliable citation, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion, editors make those choices and that is what creates the level of commentry, do editors see it as informative encyclopedic type content.

3186:

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

3189: 3122: 129: 3190:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon,_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament

2978:

First, there is no false assumption. You have had several opportunities to respond to this criticism, but have failed to do so. Since manifestly ("where the name comes from" + "whether he is aware of the name") ≠ "how he feels about the name", it is not surprising that you cannot support the opposite

2579:

You think it is insulting and encyclopedic? The real valuable content is there in the article, the things he has done right and the things he has done wrong, the lobbying the iraq war and so on, that is what is valuable content to the readers, not some silly insulting nickname on little note and with

2238:

My desired edit to the content simply reveals what the nickname actually is, just a way of insulting Hoon, wich nothing behind it at all and the fact that it can be found in a citation does not make is worthy of inclusion. Its of no value to the article in any way, ask yourself it it valuable content

1825:

includes a bit of negative information, excluding it "per NPOV" (or "per UNDUE", which is part of NPOV) is entirely backwards. UNDUE cannot be construed logically to force zero representation of any reliably sourced content, because we cannot have coverage "in proportion to" its appearance with null

553:

would thank Britain for their use 'one day'. Following an admission by the Ministry of Defence that Britain had dropped 50 airborne cluster munitions in the south of Iraq and left behind up to 800 unexploded bomblets, it was put to Hoon in a Radio 4 interview that an Iraqi mother of a child killed by

2983:

offended. Second, I'm not trying to feel better about myself; I want this article to improve. The question of this nickname was raised here, and frankly it is currently handled quite poorly. The question of completely misrepresenting a source is just one problem, as I have pointed out at least twice

2816:

TT, please remain calm (always best in these cases). Rob, if you make such an undiscussed change I may ask for you to be banned from editing the article (but not the talk page). This is not a battle Rob, and you're not going to convince anyone with the same argument that has already failed. You have

2528:

There is nothing controversial about adding cited content or removing weasly expressions and such like. You will be of course able to remove it if you don't like it and as I said to you, move to discussion. Do you assert that this Hoon the buffoon is more than a simple insulting name for him? Do you

1545:

Whatever, your desired addition has no value apart from insulting the living subject, feel free to seek support for your desired addition on the thread at the BLP noticeboard, this man has done this and that negative notable things and I support the inclusion of those issues, actual they are already

1271:

We are not here to propagate derogatory not notable press nicknames that have no content value apart from to demean the living subject. Also note I have opened a thread at the BLPN as I see this as nothing less than a simple insult and feel free to make your case for inclusion at the noticeboard and

505:

Comment on Geoff Hoon's public persona has varied wildly from that of non-descript minister to a capable Defence Secretary and a "safe pair of hands" during and shortly after the 2003 Iraq War, to adjectives such as "slippery" and "dishonest" during the Dr. David Kelly Affair. The label "Geoff Who?"

2932:

Rubbish. You just can't answer the question. Your pointing out my typo twice was rude, but it didn't stop me from responding to your question. The fact is, you know that you cannot turn what is actually in that source into what you are trying to say it is and are trying to deflect on bogus grounds.

2885:

This is really quite simple: "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" does not equal "How do you feel about your nickname?". It is idiotic to suggest it does. As I have already explained, the two questions actually asked are "Were you aware of your nickname and where does it come

1954:

So why do they insult him with this buffoon nickname? The reason should be included. The comment as added is not correct, it says in at least one interview... how many interviews is it? one? in the cited independent it is not an interview it is a question from a member of the public and hoons reply

2203:

If it's not noteworthy, why is there so much RS coverage? Neither you nor I can be the arbiter of whether things given extensive coverage are noteworthy. Also, I think your proposed text makes it read worse - highlighting the derogatory nature of the nickname. Basically, you have no policy to back

1606:

it would be absurd to say that it is non-notable. (I'm at the 3RR limit, so – unless there are any overwhelming arguments that the references listed above are all unacceptable because perhaps Mr Hoon might not like that sort of thing – I'll re-add the passage tomorrow afternoon, but not in its own

1642:

One thing to consider when referring to a nickname is not just the number of sources that use it, but the time periods as well. The CNN source is about the May 2006 reshuffle, the Independent asks him about the name in October 2008, the Mail is from February 2009, the Express is from April 2009,

2838:

I don't think anyone is going to win over Rob on this one. He has this notion that nothing insulting should be included, and it is not clear why he thinks that. However, he is right that what is there is not encyclopedic. It's only purpose at present is to highlight that some people have taken

2794:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, content is without context and clearly disparages the subject. Noteworthy criticism is fine but imo insulting content without context is not. As in He has been nicknamed hoon the buffoon..why is that then? Well no reason..just to insult him really.

2014:

I am only trying to discuss the content, censor is not the keeping out of valueless insulting content and NPOV what is the issue there, the citations you have presented refer to the nicknme as insulting and created to insult him by his enemies, as I said the content that we have now is without

1802:

applies to article subjects, not bits of content. It is abundantly clear that the nickname is verified by reliable sources. But that is really beside the point. No, we don't exclude negative material, but we don't include it without a point. Right now, the nickname is gratuitous. If it can be

1840:

That doesn't really address my point. The passage, as currently written, does not say anything meaningful. Essentially, we are saying that people called him an idiot, that Kilfoyle (not the Tories as originally thought) started it, and that he has been questioned about how he feels about his

1198:

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

2856:

It wasn't in the source we link to? Really? Because when I click on that link, and scroll down to the bottom, Philippa Shirley poses Hoon the question, "Did you know your nickname was 'buff'? Why, do you think?" So I'm confused about how there is an "idiot" statement involved.

1488:

Feel free to add any of the worthwhile content you are citing here about this and that mistakes hoon has made, this is not under dispute and unlike the not notable valueless insulting nickname has a value.Please seek support and consensus on the BLP noticeboard to add the

2019:

comment. If it is used to insult him we should say that, in anouther citation it says.. "He is the worst Transport Secretary I have ever come across and that is saying something," said the angry union general secretary. "I can see why everyone calls him Buff Hoon.

783:==Nickname== Hoon has aquired the irreverent nickname Buff, (''Buffoon''). Although it was originally rumored to have been the invention of a member of the Conservative Party, fellow Labour Party collegue Peter Kilfoyle recently took responsibility. <ref: --> 2180:

I also think that we should change as per the cites I have quoted the acquired the irreverent nickname..to .. been given the insulting nickname....something like... As a way to ridicule and insult Hoon his political enemies coined the demeaning nickname

788:{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/geoff-hoon-you-ask-the-questions-966947.html|title=Geoff Hoon: You Ask The Questions|date=20 October 2008|work=]|publisher='']''|language=]|accessdate=8 June 2010|location=]}}</ref: --> 1716:

It is a simple valueless insult, we are here to report what he has done not such insults, people rush to agree that we should add such rubbish but the real valuable to the reader content is ignored. Hoon the coon, I have removed that also previously,

735:

This is what is going to be added. It has several citations, including one with the man himself discussing the name. If you don't provide a reason not to include it (other than "Hoon might not like it" then you are clearly acting inappropriately.

1643:

while the Times, Mirror, Sky and Daily Record all date to January 2010. That means we have evidence of repeat use for at least 5 years; it is not just a slur used for a single election campaign, but something that appears to have stuck with him.

3104:"His daughter goes on bare crewdates with MC Dollers at Jamals." I don't know what this means, but it is unsourced and should probably be removed. Also, colleague is spelt incorrectly. I tried to fix the spelling but the page got protected. 786:{{cite news|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/jan/24/euenlargement|title=Hoon's no buffoon in eyes of the EU|last=Tran|first=Mark|date=24 January 2007|publisher='']''|language=]|accessdate=8 June 2010|location=]}}</ref: --> 1217:

OK, now we're talking. It's perhaps not worth its own section, but given the preponderance of sources discussing the name, including Hoon himself, I think it's definitely worth a mention. Perhaps in the section "Member of Parliament"?

2439:

Given that there is no consensus (and, yes, you do need it, you are subject to Knowledge's policies just like every other editor) for your proposed actions or for your arguments, any continual threats to edit the article against the

3344: 195: 1873:

prior to this. One of us was asking a question, not making a statement. Admittedly, it would've been clearer to use a disjunction instead of separating the clauses with punctuation, but it's still a question.

3364: 274: 284: 1020: 3339: 2494:

Your insertion without discussion was the starting point of an edit war, you are experienced enough in edit wars to know that. I am available to discuss it, feel free to open a discussion about it.

880: 382: 1721:, it is not a notable nickname at all, its a simple insult. If you want to add an insult then enjoy but it is imo a shame on wikipedia that this sort of valueless insult is added to any article. 2421:

I don't need a consensus from you pair to add content or tweak content. I will add cited content relevant to the article and I will correct the points I have mentioned, such as the weasely

250: 3359: 2097:

As for you ignoring me, I would like that, why you assume I am talking to you I have no idea, I am simply commenting on the talkpage, whether you like it or not is meaningless to me.

627:

This derogatory not notable not well known not encyclopedic valuless partisan slur disguised as a nickname has been added, it has no value at all. Please provide here or move to the

190: 105: 1769:

Sorry, when you say, "it is not a notable nickname at all" – could you please enlighten me as to why nineteen reliable sources (twenty if you include Hoon himself) discuss it, then?

2118:

Do you have any policy reasons why we should discount multiple RSs? If not, please stop repeating the same argument. I noticed you missed the actual BLP problem with this article.

911: 2327:

So as you have no argument, rob, I assume you wont be removing the well sourced addition again? If so, we can ask for the page to be unblocked so actual issues can be addressed.

2189:

at least that has context, I imagine everyone would know the story behind it, with this there appears to be no context, it just appears to be a non specific way to ridicule him.

2584:

the text should reflect those points. Also I want to include hoons reply to the question from the member of the public in the independent interview where hoon responded that if

3349: 241: 218: 2472:

I can edit the article and I don't need any consensus to do it, it is not a threat at all. As I said I have every intention of adding cited content to it when it is unlocked.

914:

explicitly notes, "The lecture from Mr Hoon, whose previous gaffes have earned him the nickname ‘Buff’ Hoon, was ridiculed by opposition politicians and transport experts..."

3389: 2062: 474: 43: 3374: 372: 2950:

Well, if false assumptions like that make you feel better about yourself, then who am I to stop you? You're surely not claiming that your message above was polite?

480: 3227: 3223: 3209: 502:

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

3379: 3394: 3329: 2890:

sorry for accidentally leaving off "-ic" from "idiotic". It seems to have been very annoying to you, so I prostrate myself in begging for your forgiveness. -

48: 31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 343: 1116: 3369: 450: 2854:

Also, we should get rid of the idiot statement that he has been asked how he feels about the nickname. If he has, it wasn't in the source we link to.

3384: 1855:

Sorry, I just bulleted my response for emphasis--I was responding to the general discussion, rather than to your (immediately prior) post. Cheers,

698:. As it is, I've added a citation in which Hoon himself discusses the name in a press interview, so that can clinch it. Don't revert again because 2933:

Please just admit whether he knew of the nickname and why he thought he earned does not somehow equate to asking how he feels about the nickname. -

3354: 147: 23: 2069:

includes reference to his (insulting) nickname of "poodle" – OK, now I've said it. Don't expect any further replies to comments you leave here.

3061:

Thanks, BlackKite. FYI the noticeboard recommends people discuss things here, so it's here where the consensus is likely to be formed. Best,

1052: 330: 307: 233: 212: 2053:

the nickname was created by Hoon's "enemies" (as you put it). However, neither of these are reasons to exclude it from the article, as per

1904:

this one does appear to have multiple actually reliable sources. It's got to be worth a sentence - but nothing more than that, I suggest.

441: 405: 151: 2138:

The name is a simple insult, no notable reason for it apart from a way to insult the man, childish really and not noteworthy in any way.

1297: 3334: 1826:

representation. This is not a scientific topic where "tiny minority" views can appropriately be excluded; it's a politician's article.

1155:

We are not here to propagate derogatory not notable press nicknames that have no content value apart from to demean the living subject.

1086: 3307: 155: 3205:

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

3075: 3014: 2964: 2918: 2871: 2780: 2732: 2700: 2630: 2565: 2514: 2458: 2407: 2311: 2267: 2166: 2083: 2000: 1930: 1783: 1753: 1672: 1621: 1530: 1471: 1440: 1410: 1379: 1348: 1313: 1232: 1184: 1132: 1102: 1072: 1037: 1006: 928: 897: 865: 833: 750: 716: 666: 146:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3052: 2347:

I have every intention of adding to and tweaking the content as I have said in my comments here, the present text is misleading.

1908: 1513: 2253:

I want to choose one pithy quote from the above to highlight as being especially wrong/misguided, but I really can't choose...!

1892:

No, that's not correct, as you know from a previous issue :) Tiny minority views, especially if derogatory, should and indeed

784:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-kilfoyle-i-gave-geoff-his-buff-hoon-nickname-1874219.html</ref: -->

142: 100: 1590:

Thank you. I agree entirely. Since I have uncovered nineteen reliable sources covering the nickname, from some of the world's

1546:

in the article, I object to your desired addition of what I see as a insulting slur of a nickname with no encyclopedic value.

2671:

I don't see those two things can go together, something that is simply insulting can not by its very nature be encyclopedic.

246: 2904:

Since you are clearly not interested in engaging in polite and constructive discussion, there is no need for me to respond.

985: 522:

I've taken the uncited military negativity out, I suppose they are not bothered now he is gone. It looks a lot better now.

2886:

from?" How can anyone argue that those questions equate to "how do you feel about it?" Please, tell me how. Oh, and I am

977: 3270: 75: 1978:

Can I make a couple of requests, please? Could you make your future contributions to this page repetitive, contrary to

3285:

This entry seems to say he was an MEP and simultaneously an MP, between 1992 and 1994. I don't think that's possible.

3048:

To prevent an edit-war; if there's consensus at BLPN that the material can be included that's probably the way to go.

1693:

I was actually about to do the same thing. This would be an excellent solution. I propose we go back to that version.

680:

Having a citation in a newspaper does not make it notable or worthwhile content. Its a not notable insulting nickname.

1875: 1251: 1204: 955: 848: 798: 1273: 1170:

Yes, we are, actually. This is an encyclopedia, not Hoon's autobiography. We don't only state the positive facts.

787:

In at least one interview, Hoon has been questioned over his feelings towards the name.<ref name="buffoon": -->

549:

Shortly after the US/UK led invasion of Iraq began in 2003, Hoon stated that mothers of Iraqi children killed by

3226:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2204:

your position, which goes against both existing, core, policies, and against current practice as TT has shown.

1363: 1821:

Treasury Tag's citations are more than adequate, but several people have the premise of UNDUE upside down: If

3195: 2297:

Well, since you didn't say that, it would be excessively foolish, not to say deceptive, of me to "quote" it.

3311: 3261: 3177: 2389:

whatsoever for your proposed changes, and you have provided no justification for any alteration except that

1330: 631:

the context and discussion to reveal reasons for its notability and to support it is a well known nickname.

32: 1896:

be excluded from any article on a person whether living or dead. That's not even a BLP issue, it's merely

3140: 3098: 3245:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3233: 3069: 3008: 2958: 2912: 2865: 2774: 2726: 2694: 2624: 2559: 2508: 2452: 2401: 2305: 2261: 2160: 2077: 1994: 1924: 1777: 1747: 1666: 1648: 1615: 1524: 1465: 1434: 1404: 1373: 1342: 1307: 1226: 1178: 1126: 1096: 1066: 1031: 1000: 989: 922: 891: 859: 827: 744: 710: 660: 433: 81: 3176:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1250:

wait for further input on this, given that it's been listed at the BLP noticeboard. G'night folks. --

797:

Let's just slow down on this, bring sources to the talk page, and then reach a consensus. Please. --

3049: 2800: 2753: 2676: 2604: 2596: 2534: 2477: 2430: 2352: 2286: 2244: 2194: 2143: 2102: 2025: 1968: 1960: 1905: 1799: 1726: 1551: 1498: 1281: 1160: 812: 685: 636: 613: 594: 578: 562: 527: 513: 42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 1516:

understand that we do not omit notable facts simply because they negatively portray their subjects.

981: 63: 3151: 3286: 2817:

not gained any support for your position, which goes against consensus here and policy consensus.

449:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

342:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

322: 301: 249:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2113: 2036: 1860: 1831: 1688: 1565: 1272:

see if there is consensus for inclusion of this derogatory nickname there, thread at the BLPN is

46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 3230:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3246: 3290: 2390: 1658:

As you'll see, the latest version makes it part of another section, which I agree is better.

3112: 3064: 3003: 2953: 2907: 2860: 2825: 2769: 2721: 2689: 2619: 2554: 2503: 2447: 2396: 2369: 2335: 2300: 2256: 2212: 2155: 2126: 2072: 2054: 2041:

I'm afraid I don't know how to make this any clearer, so I'll say it one last time and then

1989: 1983: 1919: 1772: 1742: 1701: 1661: 1644: 1610: 1578: 1519: 1460: 1429: 1399: 1368: 1337: 1302: 1289: 1221: 1173: 1121: 1091: 1061: 1026: 995: 917: 886: 854: 822: 816: 739: 705: 655: 134: 3253: 2580:

no story behind it. If is it clearly insulting and the alleged creator said his humour was

811:

I've brought sources. So far, the only argument against the name that anyone has raised is

2989: 2938: 2895: 2844: 2796: 2749: 2672: 2600: 2592: 2530: 2473: 2426: 2348: 2282: 2240: 2190: 2139: 2098: 2021: 1964: 1956: 1897: 1870: 1846: 1808: 1722: 1547: 1494: 1277: 1200: 1156: 1056: 681: 648: 632: 609: 590: 574: 558: 523: 509: 364: 339: 39: 2748:

Also there is the BLP issue, you know it is insulting and yet you insist it is included.

1570:

As there is RS for it I see no reason not to include it, but in the body of the article.

2496:

As you pointed out, it is necessary to discuss changes which you know are controversial

554:

these cluster bombs would not thank the British army. He replied "One day they might."

3212:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3147: 2998: 2058: 2042: 1979: 1879: 1509: 1293: 1255: 1208: 959: 802: 695: 628: 446: 3252:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2015:

context and if it is to stay we should imo give it context and correct the weasely in

180: 3323: 2763: 2441: 2386: 1856: 1827: 699: 550: 1288:

You keep repeating that we don't include derogotary names, but it's still bollocks.

1424: 1394: 968:

Yes, I am, as the preponderance of a nickname. But fair enough: what about the two

3304:

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

2979:

conclusion and instead have resorted to pretending to storm off because you were

2947: 2853: 2613: 2493: 2487: 1736: 3219: 3106: 2819: 2363: 2329: 2206: 2120: 1986:, tedious, dull and extremely boring? (Oops, sorry, you're already doing that.) 1695: 1572: 118: 94: 3218:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3169: 2985: 2934: 2891: 2840: 2066: 1842: 1804: 1739:

The more you say that, the more annoying it is. It doesn't get any more true.

423: 335: 124: 3300:

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

1454: 417: 399: 3196:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101203160946/http://www.taylorhoon.co.uk:80/

1841:

nickname. The last part is not only meaningless, but is also inaccurate. -

541:

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

154:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 3315: 3294: 3275: 3155: 3084: 3055: 3023: 2993: 2973: 2942: 2927: 2899: 2880: 2848: 2832: 2804: 2789: 2757: 2741: 2709: 2680: 2639: 2608: 2574: 2538: 2523: 2481: 2467: 2434: 2416: 2376: 2356: 2342: 2320: 2290: 2276: 2248: 2219: 2198: 2175: 2147: 2133: 2106: 2092: 2029: 2009: 1972: 1939: 1911: 1883: 1864: 1850: 1835: 1812: 1792: 1762: 1730: 1708: 1681: 1652: 1630: 1585: 1555: 1539: 1502: 1480: 1449: 1419: 1388: 1357: 1322: 1259: 1241: 1212: 1193: 1164: 1141: 1111: 1081: 1046: 1015: 963: 937: 906: 874: 842: 806: 759: 725: 689: 675: 646:

It is the subject of an article in a respected British newspaper,

640: 617: 598: 582: 571:

this link is to do with cluster bombs but with different comments

566: 531: 517: 1600: 2766:

states that insulting material must be excluded? (Hint: none.)

2488:

I can edit the article and I don't need any consensus to do it.

3199: 2361:

I oppose you proposed changes as they make the article worse.

1597: 57: 38:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

15: 1603: 608:

Its working now, I added an additional explanatory comment.

179: 3345:

Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles

2588:

was all he was being called then he considered that he was

2551:

I do feel that it is noteworthy, notable and encyclopedic.

3180:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

702:

applies even if you are protecting a politician's honour.

2486:

Ah, OK, I see where the misunderstanding is now. You say

1594: 1737:

We are here to report what he has done not such insults.

445:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 3365:

High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles

3173: 2444:

are likely to result in the protection being extended.

1508:

I'm not engaging with you any more, because you either

1591: 3340:

C-Class biography (politics and government) articles

334:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 259:

Knowledge:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

245:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3222:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2063:

List of Presidents of the United States by nickname

262:

Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

479:This article has not yet received a rating on the 2686:Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) 2385:do anything of the sort, Rob, since there is no 694:I know it's insulting. That's not the point, we 3360:C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles 2717:Really? Which policy states that? (Hint: none.) 2065:includes many insulting nicknames. Our page on 3208:This message was posted before February 2018. 2490:The problem is that that is not actually true. 8: 2948:Rubbish. You just can't answer the question. 3350:Politics and government work group articles 3146:in the external links section, thank you.-- 2614:You think it is insulting and encyclopedic? 696:don't cut it out just because it's negative 3390:Unknown-importance European Union articles 772:The following discussion has been closed. 763: 394: 296: 242:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom 207: 89: 3168:I have just modified 2 external links on 652:. That is the reason for its notability. 3375:Mid-importance Nottinghamshire articles 1395:European Foundation Intelligence Digest 396: 298: 265:Politics of the United Kingdom articles 209: 91: 61: 191:the politics and government work group 1053:Transport Salaried Staffs Association 352:Knowledge:WikiProject Nottinghamshire 7: 3380:WikiProject Nottinghamshire articles 2003:Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1457:mention him receiving the nickname. 1316:Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 459:Knowledge:WikiProject European Union 439:This article is within the scope of 355:Template:WikiProject Nottinghamshire 328:This article is within the scope of 239:This article is within the scope of 140:This article is within the scope of 3395:WikiProject European Union articles 3330:Biography articles of living people 2185:. With other nicknames like blairs 1798:I think it is clear it is notable. 462:Template:WikiProject European Union 80:It is of interest to the following 2547:I agree that it is insulting, and 2391:you don't like the current version 14: 3172:. Please take a moment to review 3370:C-Class Nottinghamshire articles 3120: 1950:Hoon is a Buffoon: section-break 1362:Respected political publication 426: 416: 398: 363: 321: 300: 232: 211: 127: 117: 93: 62: 21:This article must adhere to the 3385:C-Class European Union articles 377:This article has been rated as 279:This article has been rated as 164:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 3355:WikiProject Biography articles 2616:I believe that's what I said. 2543:In answer to your question(s)— 942:You're not seriously offering 256:Politics of the United Kingdom 247:Politics of the United Kingdom 219:Politics of the United Kingdom 167:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2492:As you said to me yesterday, 618:13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 599:13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 583:13:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 567:13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 532:11:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 518:14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC) 453:and see a list of open tasks. 346:and see a list of open tasks. 253:and see a list of open tasks. 188:This article is supported by 24:biographies of living persons 3295:20:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 3136:Could an admin please place 1963:) 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 785:<ref name="guardian": --> 152:contribute to the discussion 3276:10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3200:http://www.taylorhoon.co.uk 2049:the nickname is insulting. 1334:think it worth mentioning. 1021:The (Scottish) Daily Record 972:references, the article in 331:WikiProject Nottinghamshire 36:must be removed immediately 3411: 3335:C-Class biography articles 3239:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3165:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2599:) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1869:Only two people mentioned 481:project's importance scale 442:WikiProject European Union 285:project's importance scale 3156:02:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3024:08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 2994:07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 2974:07:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 2943:07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 2928:07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 2900:22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 2881:07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 2849:04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 1284:) 9:08 pm, Today (UTC+1) 545:Comments on cluster bombs 478: 411: 376: 316: 278: 227: 187: 112: 88: 3316:23:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3085:20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 3056:20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 2874:First Secretary of State 2833:17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2805:15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2790:15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2758:15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2742:15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2710:15:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2681:15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2640:15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2609:15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2575:15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2539:15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2524:15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2482:15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2468:15:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2435:14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2417:14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2377:14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2357:14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2343:14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2321:14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2291:14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2277:14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2249:14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2220:14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2199:13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2176:13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2148:13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2134:13:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2107:13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2093:13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2030:12:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2010:12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1973:12:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1940:17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1912:17:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1884:05:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1865:04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1851:02:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1836:02:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1823:even one reliable source 1813:21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1793:20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1763:20:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1731:20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1709:20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1682:20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1653:20:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1631:20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1586:20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1556:20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1540:20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1503:20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1481:20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1450:20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1420:20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1389:20:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1358:20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1323:20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1260:20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1242:20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1213:20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1194:20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1165:20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1142:20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1112:20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1082:20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1047:20:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1016:20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 964:20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 938:20:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 907:20:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 875:20:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 843:20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 807:19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 775:Please do not modify it. 760:19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 726:19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 690:19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 676:19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 641:19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 358:Nottinghamshire articles 3161:External links modified 2425:how many is that then? 1786:Africa, Asia and the UN 1425:Sri Lankan Sunday Times 954:as reliable sources? -- 465:European Union articles 106:Politics and Government 3132:Template:Brown Cabinet 1055:use the nickname in a 819:(clearly irrelevant). 587:here is the dead link 184: 70:This article is rated 2281:How about "Bollocks" 815:(clearly untrue) and 434:European Union portal 183: 143:WikiProject Biography 3220:regular verification 2783:international waters 2735:international waters 1135:international waters 986:The Evening Standard 817:"It's a nasty name," 719:international waters 3210:After February 2018 1023:note the nickname. 931:Counsellor of State 813:"It's not notable," 3264:InternetArchiveBot 3215:InternetArchiveBot 1087:This is Nottingham 851:use the name too. 185: 170:biography articles 76:content assessment 3240: 3117: 2830: 2582:cruelly insulting 2442:general agreement 2374: 2340: 2217: 2131: 2117: 2040: 1706: 1692: 1583: 1569: 1474:presiding officer 1351:without portfolio 1246:Right, I'm going 1009:without portfolio 794: 793: 495: 494: 491: 490: 487: 486: 393: 392: 389: 388: 295: 294: 291: 290: 206: 205: 202: 201: 56: 55: 3402: 3274: 3265: 3238: 3237: 3216: 3145: 3139: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3103: 3097: 3083: 3080: 3079: 3072: 3067: 3022: 3019: 3018: 3011: 3006: 2972: 2969: 2968: 2961: 2956: 2949: 2926: 2923: 2922: 2915: 2910: 2879: 2876: 2875: 2868: 2863: 2855: 2831: 2828: 2824: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2777: 2772: 2740: 2737: 2736: 2729: 2724: 2708: 2705: 2704: 2697: 2692: 2638: 2635: 2634: 2627: 2622: 2615: 2573: 2570: 2569: 2562: 2557: 2522: 2519: 2518: 2511: 2506: 2495: 2489: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2455: 2450: 2415: 2412: 2411: 2404: 2399: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2341: 2338: 2334: 2319: 2316: 2315: 2308: 2303: 2275: 2272: 2271: 2264: 2259: 2218: 2215: 2211: 2183:Hoon the buffoon 2174: 2171: 2170: 2163: 2158: 2132: 2129: 2125: 2111: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2080: 2075: 2034: 2008: 2005: 2004: 1997: 1992: 1938: 1935: 1934: 1927: 1922: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1780: 1775: 1761: 1758: 1757: 1750: 1745: 1738: 1719:Hoon the buffoon 1707: 1704: 1700: 1686: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1669: 1664: 1629: 1626: 1625: 1618: 1613: 1584: 1581: 1577: 1563: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1527: 1522: 1491:Hoon the buffoon 1479: 1476: 1475: 1468: 1463: 1448: 1445: 1444: 1437: 1432: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1407: 1402: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1376: 1371: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1345: 1340: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1310: 1305: 1274:Hoon the buffoon 1240: 1237: 1236: 1229: 1224: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1181: 1176: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1129: 1124: 1117:The Scottish Sun 1110: 1107: 1106: 1099: 1094: 1080: 1077: 1076: 1069: 1064: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1034: 1029: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1003: 998: 936: 933: 932: 925: 920: 905: 902: 901: 894: 889: 873: 870: 869: 862: 857: 841: 838: 837: 830: 825: 777: 764: 758: 755: 754: 747: 742: 724: 721: 720: 713: 708: 674: 671: 670: 663: 658: 623:Hoon the buffoon 467: 466: 463: 460: 457: 436: 431: 430: 429: 420: 413: 412: 402: 395: 383:importance scale 367: 360: 359: 356: 353: 350: 325: 318: 317: 312: 304: 297: 267: 266: 263: 260: 257: 236: 229: 228: 223: 215: 208: 172: 171: 168: 165: 162: 148:join the project 137: 135:Biography portal 132: 131: 130: 121: 114: 113: 108: 97: 90: 73: 67: 66: 58: 44:this noticeboard 16: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3320: 3319: 3302: 3283: 3268: 3263: 3231: 3224:have permission 3214: 3178:this simple FaQ 3163: 3143: 3137: 3134: 3121: 3119: 3113: 3105: 3101: 3095: 3093: 3077: 3076: 3070: 3065: 3062: 3046: 3016: 3015: 3009: 3004: 3001: 2966: 2965: 2959: 2954: 2951: 2920: 2919: 2913: 2908: 2905: 2873: 2872: 2866: 2861: 2858: 2826: 2818: 2782: 2781: 2775: 2770: 2767: 2734: 2733: 2727: 2722: 2719: 2702: 2701: 2695: 2690: 2687: 2632: 2631: 2625: 2620: 2617: 2567: 2566: 2560: 2555: 2552: 2516: 2515: 2509: 2504: 2501: 2460: 2459: 2453: 2448: 2445: 2423:in at least one 2409: 2408: 2402: 2397: 2394: 2370: 2362: 2336: 2328: 2313: 2312: 2306: 2301: 2298: 2269: 2268: 2262: 2257: 2254: 2213: 2205: 2168: 2167: 2161: 2156: 2153: 2127: 2119: 2085: 2084: 2078: 2073: 2070: 2002: 2001: 1995: 1990: 1987: 1952: 1932: 1931: 1925: 1920: 1917: 1785: 1784: 1778: 1773: 1770: 1755: 1754: 1748: 1743: 1740: 1702: 1694: 1674: 1673: 1667: 1662: 1659: 1623: 1622: 1616: 1611: 1608: 1579: 1571: 1532: 1531: 1525: 1520: 1517: 1473: 1472: 1466: 1461: 1458: 1442: 1441: 1435: 1430: 1427: 1412: 1411: 1405: 1400: 1397: 1381: 1380: 1374: 1369: 1366: 1350: 1349: 1343: 1338: 1335: 1315: 1314: 1308: 1303: 1300: 1234: 1233: 1227: 1222: 1219: 1186: 1185: 1179: 1174: 1171: 1134: 1133: 1127: 1122: 1119: 1104: 1103: 1097: 1092: 1089: 1074: 1073: 1067: 1062: 1059: 1039: 1038: 1032: 1027: 1024: 1008: 1007: 1001: 996: 993: 930: 929: 923: 918: 915: 899: 898: 892: 887: 884: 867: 866: 860: 855: 852: 835: 834: 828: 823: 820: 773: 767:Expand to see. 752: 751: 745: 740: 737: 718: 717: 711: 706: 703: 668: 667: 661: 656: 653: 649:The Independent 625: 547: 539: 500: 464: 461: 458: 455: 454: 432: 427: 425: 357: 354: 351: 349:Nottinghamshire 348: 347: 340:Nottinghamshire 310: 308:Nottinghamshire 281:High-importance 264: 261: 258: 255: 254: 222:High‑importance 221: 169: 166: 163: 160: 159: 133: 128: 126: 103: 74:on Knowledge's 71: 12: 11: 5: 3408: 3406: 3398: 3397: 3392: 3387: 3382: 3377: 3372: 3367: 3362: 3357: 3352: 3347: 3342: 3337: 3332: 3322: 3321: 3301: 3298: 3282: 3279: 3258: 3257: 3250: 3203: 3202: 3194:Added archive 3192: 3184:Added archive 3162: 3159: 3133: 3130: 3092: 3091:Real BLP issue 3089: 3088: 3087: 3050:Black Kite (t) 3045: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2762:Which part of 2746: 2745: 2744: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2491: 2379: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2109: 2061:. The article 1951: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1906:Black Kite (t) 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1796: 1795: 1766: 1765: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1641: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1543: 1542: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1452: 1422: 1391: 1326: 1325: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1114: 1084: 1049: 1018: 952:The Daily Mail 912:The Daily Mail 909: 900:Tellers' wands 877: 792: 791: 779: 778: 769: 768: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 624: 621: 546: 543: 538: 535: 499: 496: 493: 492: 489: 488: 485: 484: 477: 471: 470: 468: 456:European Union 451:the discussion 447:European Union 438: 437: 421: 409: 408: 406:European Union 403: 391: 390: 387: 386: 379:Mid-importance 375: 369: 368: 361: 344:the discussion 326: 314: 313: 311:Mid‑importance 305: 293: 292: 289: 288: 277: 271: 270: 268: 251:the discussion 237: 225: 224: 216: 204: 203: 200: 199: 196:Low-importance 186: 176: 175: 173: 139: 138: 122: 110: 109: 98: 86: 85: 79: 68: 54: 53: 49:this help page 33:poorly sourced 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3407: 3396: 3393: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3373: 3371: 3368: 3366: 3363: 3361: 3358: 3356: 3353: 3351: 3348: 3346: 3343: 3341: 3338: 3336: 3333: 3331: 3328: 3327: 3325: 3318: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3299: 3297: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3280: 3278: 3277: 3272: 3267: 3266: 3255: 3251: 3248: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3235: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3211: 3206: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3166: 3160: 3158: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3142: 3141:Brown Cabinet 3131: 3129: 3127: 3116: 3110: 3109: 3100: 3099:editprotected 3090: 3086: 3081: 3073: 3068: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3054: 3051: 3043: 3025: 3020: 3012: 3007: 3000: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2982: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2970: 2962: 2957: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2924: 2916: 2911: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2877: 2869: 2864: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2829: 2823: 2822: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2786: 2778: 2773: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2738: 2730: 2725: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2706: 2698: 2693: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2641: 2636: 2628: 2623: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2563: 2558: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2520: 2512: 2507: 2500:making them. 2499: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2464: 2456: 2451: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2413: 2405: 2400: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2378: 2373: 2367: 2366: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2339: 2333: 2332: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2309: 2304: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2273: 2265: 2260: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2221: 2216: 2210: 2209: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187:bush's poodle 2184: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2172: 2164: 2159: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2130: 2124: 2123: 2115: 2114:edit conflict 2110: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2089: 2081: 2076: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2038: 2037:edit conflict 2033: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2006: 1998: 1993: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1949: 1941: 1936: 1928: 1923: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1824: 1820: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1801: 1800:WP:Notability 1794: 1789: 1781: 1776: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1759: 1751: 1746: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1710: 1705: 1699: 1698: 1690: 1689:edit conflict 1685: 1684: 1683: 1678: 1670: 1665: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1632: 1627: 1619: 1614: 1605: 1604:organisations 1602: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1582: 1576: 1575: 1567: 1566:edit conflict 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1541: 1536: 1528: 1523: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1482: 1477: 1469: 1464: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1446: 1438: 1433: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1416: 1408: 1403: 1396: 1392: 1390: 1385: 1377: 1372: 1365: 1364:The Spectator 1361: 1360: 1359: 1354: 1346: 1341: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1319: 1311: 1306: 1299: 1298:Daily Express 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1238: 1230: 1225: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1190: 1182: 1177: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1143: 1138: 1130: 1125: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1108: 1100: 1095: 1088: 1085: 1083: 1078: 1070: 1065: 1058: 1057:press release 1054: 1050: 1048: 1043: 1035: 1030: 1022: 1019: 1017: 1012: 1004: 999: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 966: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 940: 939: 934: 926: 921: 913: 910: 908: 903: 895: 890: 882: 878: 876: 871: 863: 858: 850: 846: 845: 844: 839: 831: 826: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 804: 800: 796: 795: 790: 781: 780: 776: 771: 770: 766: 765: 762: 761: 756: 748: 743: 727: 722: 714: 709: 701: 697: 693: 692: 691: 687: 683: 679: 678: 677: 672: 664: 659: 651: 650: 645: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 630: 622: 620: 619: 615: 611: 606: 604: 601: 600: 596: 592: 588: 585: 584: 580: 576: 572: 569: 568: 564: 560: 555: 552: 551:cluster bombs 544: 542: 537:cluster bombs 536: 534: 533: 529: 525: 520: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 497: 482: 476: 473: 472: 469: 452: 448: 444: 443: 435: 424: 422: 419: 415: 414: 410: 407: 404: 401: 397: 384: 380: 374: 371: 370: 366: 362: 345: 341: 337: 333: 332: 327: 324: 320: 319: 315: 309: 306: 303: 299: 286: 282: 276: 273: 272: 269: 252: 248: 244: 243: 238: 235: 231: 230: 226: 220: 217: 214: 210: 197: 194:(assessed as 193: 192: 182: 178: 177: 174: 157: 156:documentation 153: 149: 145: 144: 136: 125: 123: 120: 116: 115: 111: 107: 102: 99: 96: 92: 87: 83: 77: 69: 65: 60: 59: 51: 50: 45: 41: 37: 34: 30: 26: 25: 20: 18: 17: 3308:46.93.242.77 3306: 3303: 3284: 3262: 3259: 3234:source check 3213: 3207: 3204: 3167: 3164: 3135: 3125: 3107: 3094: 3047: 2980: 2887: 2820: 2815: 2716: 2670: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2568:inspectorate 2548: 2544: 2497: 2422: 2382: 2364: 2330: 2207: 2186: 2182: 2121: 2086:Lord Speaker 2050: 2046: 2017:at least one 2016: 1953: 1901: 1893: 1822: 1818: 1797: 1756:constabulary 1718: 1715: 1696: 1639: 1573: 1544: 1490: 1487: 1382:inspectorate 1329: 1270: 1248:to go to bed 1247: 1235:UK EYES ONLY 1154: 974:The Guardian 973: 969: 951: 947: 943: 782: 774: 734: 669:Lord Speaker 647: 626: 607: 603:is this it? 602: 586: 570: 556: 548: 540: 521: 508: 504: 501: 440: 378: 329: 280: 240: 189: 141: 82:WikiProjects 47: 35: 28: 22: 3281:Dates clash 3017:directorate 2169:directorate 1645:Road Wizard 1105:most serene 970:Independent 836:assemblyman 753:Not-content 557:any ideas? 3324:Categories 3271:Report bug 3170:Geoff Hoon 3078:duumvirate 2797:Off2riorob 2750:Off2riorob 2673:Off2riorob 2601:Off2riorob 2593:Off2riorob 2590:doing well 2531:Off2riorob 2474:Off2riorob 2427:Off2riorob 2349:Off2riorob 2283:Off2riorob 2241:Off2riorob 2191:Off2riorob 2152:Bollocks. 2140:Off2riorob 2099:Off2riorob 2067:Tony Blair 2043:ignore you 2022:Off2riorob 1965:Off2riorob 1957:Off2riorob 1933:duumvirate 1819:Include it 1723:Off2riorob 1607:section.) 1548:Off2riorob 1495:Off2riorob 1278:Off2riorob 1157:Off2riorob 948:The Mirror 881:The Mirror 682:Off2riorob 633:Off2riorob 610:Off2riorob 591:Off2riorob 575:Off2riorob 559:Off2riorob 524:Off2riorob 510:Off2riorob 336:Nottingham 3254:this tool 3247:this tool 3044:Protected 2517:draftsman 2461:co-prince 2387:consensus 2381:You will 2055:WP:CENSOR 1984:WP:CENSOR 1598:political 1595:respected 1443:co-prince 1290:WP:CENSOR 978:The Times 868:consulate 161:Biography 101:Biography 40:libellous 3260:Cheers.— 3066:Treasury 3005:Treasury 2967:belonger 2955:Treasury 2921:quaestor 2909:Treasury 2862:Treasury 2771:Treasury 2723:Treasury 2703:sundries 2691:Treasury 2621:Treasury 2556:Treasury 2505:Treasury 2449:Treasury 2410:belonger 2398:Treasury 2302:Treasury 2270:belonger 2258:Treasury 2157:Treasury 2074:Treasury 1991:Treasury 1921:Treasury 1916:Agreed. 1898:WP:UNDUE 1871:WP:UNDUE 1857:Jclemens 1828:Jclemens 1774:Treasury 1744:Treasury 1675:quaestor 1663:Treasury 1612:Treasury 1521:Treasury 1462:Treasury 1431:Treasury 1401:Treasury 1370:Treasury 1339:Treasury 1304:Treasury 1223:Treasury 1201:WP:UNDUE 1175:Treasury 1123:Treasury 1093:Treasury 1075:quaestor 1063:Treasury 1040:Woolsack 1028:Treasury 997:Treasury 919:Treasury 888:Treasury 856:Treasury 849:Sky News 824:Treasury 741:Treasury 707:Treasury 657:Treasury 3287:Bigmund 3174:my edit 2633:Speaker 2586:buffoon 2314:Speaker 2059:WP:NPOV 1980:WP:NPOV 1902:However 1624:sheriff 1455:The BBC 1294:WP:NPOV 976:, plus 700:the 3RR 629:WP:BLPN 498:uncited 381:on the 283:on the 72:C-class 3108:Verbal 2821:Verbal 2764:WP:BLP 2498:before 2365:Verbal 2331:Verbal 2208:Verbal 2122:Verbal 1697:Verbal 1574:Verbal 1533:Regent 1413:Regent 1187:Regent 984:) and 78:scale. 2986:Rrius 2935:Rrius 2892:Rrius 2841:Rrius 1843:Rrius 1805:Rrius 1514:can't 1510:won't 1493:slur. 1203:? -- 990:twice 982:twice 847:Ooh, 3312:talk 3291:talk 3152:talk 3126:Done 3114:chat 2990:talk 2939:talk 2896:talk 2845:talk 2827:chat 2801:talk 2754:talk 2677:talk 2605:talk 2597:talk 2535:talk 2478:talk 2431:talk 2371:chat 2353:talk 2337:chat 2287:talk 2245:talk 2214:chat 2195:talk 2144:talk 2128:chat 2103:talk 2057:and 2026:talk 1982:and 1969:talk 1961:talk 1894:must 1880:talk 1861:talk 1847:talk 1832:talk 1809:talk 1727:talk 1703:chat 1649:talk 1601:news 1592:most 1580:chat 1552:talk 1499:talk 1393:The 1292:and 1282:talk 1256:talk 1209:talk 1161:talk 1051:The 992:) – 960:talk 950:and 879:And 803:talk 686:talk 637:talk 614:talk 595:talk 579:talk 563:talk 528:talk 514:talk 338:and 275:High 150:and 3228:RfC 3198:to 3188:to 3071:Tag 3053:(c) 3010:Tag 2999:OK. 2960:Tag 2914:Tag 2867:Tag 2776:Tag 2728:Tag 2696:Tag 2626:Tag 2561:Tag 2549:yes 2545:yes 2510:Tag 2454:Tag 2403:Tag 2383:not 2307:Tag 2263:Tag 2162:Tag 2079:Tag 2051:Yes 2047:Yes 1996:Tag 1926:Tag 1909:(c) 1876:Ibn 1779:Tag 1749:Tag 1668:Tag 1617:Tag 1526:Tag 1512:or 1467:Tag 1436:Tag 1406:Tag 1375:Tag 1344:Tag 1331:CNN 1309:Tag 1252:Ibn 1228:Tag 1205:Ibn 1180:Tag 1128:Tag 1098:Tag 1068:Tag 1033:Tag 1002:Tag 956:Ibn 944:Sky 924:Tag 893:Tag 861:Tag 829:Tag 799:Ibn 789:'' 746:Tag 712:Tag 662:Tag 475:??? 373:Mid 29:BLP 3326:: 3314:) 3293:) 3241:. 3236:}} 3232:{{ 3154:) 3144:}} 3138:{{ 3102:}} 3096:{{ 3082:─╢ 3063:╟─ 3021:─╢ 3002:╟─ 2992:) 2981:so 2971:─╢ 2952:╟─ 2941:) 2925:─╢ 2906:╟─ 2898:) 2888:so 2878:─╢ 2859:╟─ 2847:) 2787:─╢ 2768:╟─ 2756:) 2739:─╢ 2720:╟─ 2707:─╢ 2688:╟─ 2679:) 2637:─╢ 2618:╟─ 2607:) 2572:─╢ 2553:╟─ 2537:) 2521:─╢ 2502:╟─ 2480:) 2465:─╢ 2446:╟─ 2433:) 2414:─╢ 2395:╟─ 2393:. 2355:) 2318:─╢ 2299:╟─ 2289:) 2274:─╢ 2255:╟─ 2247:) 2197:) 2173:─╢ 2154:╟─ 2146:) 2105:) 2090:─╢ 2071:╟─ 2045:. 2028:) 2007:─╢ 1988:╟─ 1971:) 1937:─╢ 1918:╟─ 1900:. 1882:) 1874:-- 1863:) 1849:) 1834:) 1811:) 1790:─╢ 1771:╟─ 1760:─╢ 1741:╟─ 1729:) 1679:─╢ 1660:╟─ 1651:) 1628:─╢ 1609:╟─ 1554:) 1537:─╢ 1518:╟─ 1501:) 1478:─╢ 1459:╟─ 1447:─╢ 1428:╟─ 1417:─╢ 1398:╟─ 1386:─╢ 1367:╟─ 1355:─╢ 1336:╟─ 1320:─╢ 1301:╟─ 1296:. 1258:) 1239:─╢ 1220:╟─ 1211:) 1191:─╢ 1172:╟─ 1163:) 1139:─╢ 1120:╟─ 1109:─╢ 1090:╟─ 1079:─╢ 1060:╟─ 1044:─╢ 1025:╟─ 1013:─╢ 994:╟─ 962:) 946:, 935:─╢ 916:╟─ 904:─╢ 885:╟─ 883:– 872:─╢ 853:╟─ 840:─╢ 821:╟─ 805:) 757:─╢ 738:╟─ 723:─╢ 704:╟─ 688:) 673:─╢ 654:╟─ 639:) 616:) 605:] 597:) 589:] 581:) 573:] 565:) 530:) 516:) 198:). 104:: 3310:( 3289:( 3273:) 3269:( 3256:. 3249:. 3150:( 3148:] 3074:► 3013:► 2988:( 2963:► 2937:( 2917:► 2894:( 2870:► 2843:( 2803:) 2799:( 2779:► 2752:( 2731:► 2699:► 2675:( 2629:► 2603:( 2595:( 2564:► 2533:( 2513:► 2476:( 2457:► 2429:( 2406:► 2351:( 2310:► 2285:( 2266:► 2243:( 2193:( 2165:► 2142:( 2116:) 2112:( 2101:( 2082:► 2039:) 2035:( 2024:( 1999:► 1967:( 1959:( 1929:► 1878:( 1859:( 1845:( 1830:( 1807:( 1782:► 1752:► 1725:( 1691:) 1687:( 1671:► 1647:( 1620:► 1568:) 1564:( 1550:( 1529:► 1497:( 1470:► 1439:► 1409:► 1378:► 1347:► 1312:► 1280:( 1276:. 1254:( 1231:► 1207:( 1183:► 1159:( 1131:► 1101:► 1071:► 1036:► 1005:► 988:( 980:( 958:( 927:► 896:► 864:► 832:► 801:( 749:► 715:► 684:( 665:► 635:( 612:( 593:( 577:( 561:( 526:( 512:( 483:. 385:. 287:. 158:. 84:: 52:. 27:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index