Talk:David Miliband

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would be happy with that. I do however suggest that the Indy is an acceptable source. Frelke 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)


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

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)

[edit] Kozak

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

[edit] Miliband or Milliband?

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

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

[edit] Automatic peerreview

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

[edit] 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)

I am re-restoring the section deleted by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel.Phase4 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What specifically does that have to do with David Miliband? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It has to do with Britain's Foreign Secretary, who just happens to be David Miliband.Phase4 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Has Miliband actually made any comment on this? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

If he is a senior member of the British cabinet, then yes. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Yes I do, especially as his father Ralph Miliband was a top-level communist theoretician also. Would you have a similar objection if a British foreign secretary's father was Nazi theorist and his grandfather was in the SS killing Jews? I doubt it. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
People are not responsible for the actions or beliefs of their parents or grandparents and I will continue to revert you and get further assistance on this if necessary. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever heard him condemn his family's ideology? Of course not. The Labour Party is in the Socialist International after all. And don't threaten me, you will just reveal your true colours (most likely with a reddish tint). --Hereward77 (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you asked all the Austrian and German members of parliament/European MPs whose grandfathers were in the Nazi party (as surely some were) whether they have renounced their grandfathers beliefs? Utter nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you are talking nonsense, sir. Miliband has not renounced his grandfather's beliefs because he is still a socialist, like you obviously. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a classic piece of original research that has no place on wikipedia, people are not considered responsible for the actions of their direct ancestors, as we all know well enough, and to then rant on about the alleged convictions of a fellow editor is unacceptable in this case. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
To the "Hero of Belarus" (the user SqueakBox glorifies the monstrous communist dictatorship of Alexander Lukashenko), how can this be "original research" if it is referenced to a newspaper article? The section in question is about his family, so the political actions of his grandfather are extremely relevant. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Just stop behaving badly, please, hereward, I have no idea what you are talking about but nor have I ever glorified communism on wikipedia. Your attacking other editors indicates you know full well that you have no substance in your argument and will likely result in your eventually being blocked if you do not desist going down this path. Your edit is original research because it isn't about Milliband. If I were to add some sourced material about Hereward the Wake to this article it would also be removed as irrelevant. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
From Squeakbox's user page, one of his comrades wrote: "I, anonymous, award you this Hero of Belarus for unending dedication in fighting wikivandalism." Says it all really. Wikipedia is infiltrated. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Have you ever heard him condemn his family's ideology? ". Hereward, you are thereby making an assumption (WP:NOR) that Miliband has communist beliefs. People don't have to apologize for their ancestor's beliefs or actions which they had no control over any more than the actions or beliefs of any other person in history. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Miliband is in the Socialist International, along with communists Daniel Ortega and Thabo Mbeki. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ortega is a neighbour and as it happens I don't support either him or Chavez, your comments re me are truly clueless so please just stop, we are here to write an encyclopedia not to listen to you ranting. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a "clueless rant", I am stating facts here. You proudly have the Hero of Belarus on your user page, yet deny being a communist. You also state that you are a "citizen of the world", a leftist cliche if ever there was one. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, that seems to be a barnstar from another editor to Squeakbox for correcting vandalism. Secondly, the whole British Labour Party is a member of Socialist International not Miliband personally. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you don't have an argument here. Miliband is a leading figure in the Labour Party, and is therefore in the Socialist International. No supporter of democracy would have such a "barnstar" on their page, he might as well have the Iron Cross on there. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If you persist in calling me a communist on this page or labelling me non-democratic or making any silly and opffensive comments re what you happen to believe my political beliefs are you will clearly be trolling this page and I will seek some kind of action to force you to stop as well as reverting said comments. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Judging by your stubborn determination to censor this clearly sourced and relevant material, it appears to be the only possible explanation. It is a puzzle as to why any person would want to whitewash these facts about his grandfather's controversial (to put it mildly) political activities, unless they were activists for the Labour Party. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that if he is notable you write an article about his grandfather but you'll need a better source than one Daily Mail article. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
He is not particularly notable, but he is Miliband's grandfather and his political activities should be mentioned in the family section. --Hereward77 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that makes no odds. If he hhas an article you can link to him. And your reference didn't correspond to what you wrote anyway. I also suggest you stop making assumptions about my alleged communist sympathies because it will make everyone think you are incredibly stupid, as well as being intolerably rude. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write it, it was written by User:Sassf over a month ago, [2] and it does correspond to the reference. I am not making assumptions, you have demonstrated your political allegiances by your biased censorship actions here. I will be "rude" to practitioners of political censorship. --Hereward77 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Censorship? I don't have any political allegiances nor am I censoring anything. Whoever wrote it, it was entirely off topic original research. And hey, go and take your rudeness elsewhere, it is not wanted here, see how to be civil. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I should also point out that the information in the Daily Mail article actually came from an attack piece on Mr Miliband in the Russian nationalist newspaper Tvoi Den so should in no way be taken as reliable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hereward appears to be here solely to promote a political agenda. We are none of us empowered to do such a thing. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it is you that has the political agenda here. I am just posting facts that you seem determined to hide from the public. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no political agenda whatsoever whereas from your various comments you clearly do. If you want to get involved in politics go to a forum or whatever but if you want to be here please edit ina neutral way and stop making silly, childish comments about censorship when you clearly do not know whatt you are talking about. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You have just censored an entire paragraph that has been part of this article for over a year without explanation, you are insulting our intelligence here. You clearly do have an agenda to cover-up Mr. Miliband's family background. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not insulting anyone, though I am still waiting for you to display more intelligence than to call me a communist censor. Thisa is na article about Milliband not what his ancestors did before he was born. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You do seem very keen on censorship, something that my own libertarian political philosophy abhors. The section is about Miliband's family, certainly his grandfather's political activites are relevant, given that Miliband is also a politician. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by censorship? Removing off topic material is not censorship nor is upholding our living people policy from what looks like an attempted smear. The section on Milliband's family is quite adequate mentioning his parents and brother, that is masses of inof, we do not need this as well. If his grandfather were a well known British politician you would be probably right but that is not the case. Nor is this info in Ed's article, or in this level of detail in their father's article, and it would obvioulsy be far more appropriate there because a grandchild is far less of a connection than a child, and we hardly ever talk about someone's grandfather unless it were someone well known in British circles. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"Our" policy? Since when were you Wikipedia? You are not even an administrator here. [refactor trolling]. You don't have an argument here. The section is about Miliband's family. If anyone's grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky it would be entirely appropriate to mention it here, particularly if they are a politician. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop being a complete dick. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your resorting to crude invective proves your lack of argument. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Er not at all, it merely results from your behaving like one time and time again. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a "dick" for posting the facts, what a wonderful encyclopedia you have here. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, it is for making knowinlgy false accusations against others, that they are communist, unpatriotic and other idiocies. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Why else would you wish to hide these facts, unless you had an interest in hiding them? --Hereward77 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside input

Having seen this appear on the Admins noticeboard, I thought I would add my 2p: There seems no reason to include the paragraph. Miliband is not his grandfather, and he is in no way compelled to publicly denounce his ideology.

A couple of comments to Hereward77: Just because a paragraph has been in place for a year, does not mean it is ok; plenty of mistakes, POV pushing etc have been left in articles for long periods of time before being corrected; it is certainly not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be very much against the Labour Party, so I suggest you try to control your obvious antipathy towards them, or desist from editing related articles. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no mistakes or "POV pushing" in this paragraph, it merely states the fact that his grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky. If certain editors see that as a smear, then they are merely projecting their own guilt. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there is room for mentioning the background of Miliband, including what his grandparents did, without the hysteria above. The article on Nick Clegg is an example of how this can be accomplished. Catchpole (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Its very different in the Clegg article, it just says who some notable ancestors were, the Miliband article is just like giving his family history and then Hereward uses it in a way to try to discredit Miliband, if what was here were similar to what is at Clegg my guess is nobody would be complaining. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not "using" the article for any purpose. Again, you demonstrate your non-neutrality by that statement. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well this edit sure looks like like you are trying to discredit Miliband, as various editors have pointed out to you, while your calling fellow editors communist censors et al is the classic stance of the POV warrior. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That factual statement was posted by User:Sassf [3] over a month ago, not me. It is a fact that the Red Army was engaged in these activities. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you revert to soemeone else's version you are taking personal responsibility for that. Nobody is denying the factual accuracy, I could add that his long distant ancestors came from Africa as that is equally factual and equally relevant, though the other issue we have is that this info is being to discredit Miliband here, so off topic info being used to discredit Miliband, well IMO it should simply be removed. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to discredit Miliband, the section is about his family. His grandfather's membership of the Red Army is relevant. There is no good reason to hide this information. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
But this article is not about his family, it is about him, and as his father has an article it would certainly be more relevant and less problematical there than here (because his father is dead and not serving a high ranking Cabinet minister). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed my name mentioned here, so just for any future reference, I didn't write the info about Miliband's grandparents, I just juggled it around for readability (as I stated in my edit summary). All the info, with refs, was in the article before I touched it. It was added by the ip 80.225.209.197 several times in Oct 07 and has nothing to do with me. Sassf (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal

I have just been looking at the history of this dispute after it popped up on my watchlist, and it seems to me that that there are two issues here: a) whether to include short para on his grandparents, and b) whether to include in that that para details of his grandparents alleged a participation in atrocities.

A family background in the turbulent environment of Eastern europe in the 1920s surely has some relevance to the political outlook of a foreign secretary, and like Nick Clegg it describes a family background radically different to that of most British people. It seems to me that a paragraph on this subject is both appropriate and relevant. The text as edited by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel in this revision looks fine: it's concise and neutral summary.

However, the allegation that his grandfather had been involved in "eliminating" people originates from what even the Daily Mail describes as "Russian nationalist newspaper Tvoi Den", and which a bit of googling reveals as a tabloid. That's potentially a very serious issue, and the fact that the Daily Mail didn't run it as a frontpage lead under heading "Foreign Secretary's grandfather in Soviet death squad" suggests that the Mail took the story with a slight pinch of salt (and maybe they remember that there was a bit of a ruckus last time they placed too much trust in an obscure Russian source). If there is some foundation to this, it will be covered by more reliable sources than a Daily Mail report sourced solely from a Russian nationalist tabloid. Furthermore, they are unclear: is his grandpa alleged to have been engaged in those units which actually carried out atrocities, or is the claim just that he was in the same army? (it's a crucial difference) Was his grandpa fighting during the Russian civil war, or in thr Polish-Ukrainian war, or afterwards? The Mail's vagueness on those crucial points makes it dangerous to use this material.

So the additions by Hereward in this revision go further than is appropriate without more robust sources. Not only that, but they introduce claims not actually in the Daily Mail report. Herward writes "Samuel, then Shimon, fought under the command of Trotsky, 'eliminating' (murdering) white Russians, Ukranians and Poles opposed to Communism" whereas the Mail says that he "fought under the command of Trotsky 'eliminating' white Russians opposed to Communism", with no mention of the Poles or Ukranians. (That's naughty, slipping into a referenced sentence something clearly not supported by the reference).

So I think that SqueakBox was wrong to remove all the material from the Daily Mail article, and Hereward was wrong to try to use it as an attack piece. I suggest that the article be restored to the last version by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe inclusion is necessary I think it would be a fair compromise to restore the version you propose. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
While I would dispute the charge that I was using it as an attack piece (I merely added a wikilink in the statement already present in the article [4] , and was then falsely accused of being the author), I too would support BrownHairedGirl's compromise. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both for your agreement. I'll post an {{editprotected}} request below, and I'll also suggest that the article be unprotected now that the dispute is resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed edit please

In the discussion above (see compromise proposal), the two editors whose dispute led to this page being protected have very constructively agreed to a compromise, which is to revert to the version of the text as edited by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk · contribs) at 21:11, 15 December 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Miliband&oldid=178159679

Please can the page now be restored to this version?

Also, since the dispute has been resolved, I see no reason to expect a resumption of the minor edit war, so I suggest that the protection should now be lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Good work all. I have reverted to the compromise version and lifted the protection. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek

The US magazine Newsweek published its year-end issue this week. In it Mr. Millband was profiled as a person to watch in 2008, calling him "a Prime Minister In Waiting". The article is here. Does anyone know how this could be made to fit in the article? - Thanks, Hoshie 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)