Jump to content

Talk:William Hague: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 122: Line 122:
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016 ==


{{edit semi-protected|William Hague|answered=no}}
{{edit semi-protected|William Hague|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->
<!-- Begin request -->

Remove the website for William Hague from the right hand column at the bottom near the signature. The reason being it no longer exists.
Remove the website for William Hague from the right hand column at the bottom near the signature. The reason being it no longer exists.
<!-- End request -->
<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/165.120.81.229|165.120.81.229]] ([[User talk:165.120.81.229|talk]]) 10:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/165.120.81.229|165.120.81.229]] ([[User talk:165.120.81.229|talk]]) 10:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Added dead link template --[[User:Allthefoxes|allthefoxes]] <sup>([[User_talk:Allthefoxes|Talk]])</sup> 13:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:39, 16 January 2016

Soapboxing and Npov

Large sections of this article are starting to look like a speech from the subject - large quotes that Hague said this... no rebuttals - I am going to go through it and trim the soap in the near future unless anyone can explain why I should not... Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The William_Hague#2011_Middle_East_protests section for example ... says

In March 2011 Hague said in a speech to business leaders...bla bla... the Foreign Secretary stated ..bla bla .. Hague has warned ..bla bla ..the Foreign Secretary said:..bla bla ... Hague, on his way to Qatar summit in April 2011, called for ..bla bla .. Mr Hague said. .. he added ...more bla ..he said. yet more bla bla .. he added... bla bla ..Hague, speaking on the protests in Syria said ... more bla bla bla...

Not everything the subjects says is noteworthy in his life story. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads like this! Just came here to say the same thing. So much fluff. What this article need is more of what Hague actually DID. Such as something like "During Hague's tenue British foreign policy supported, and later armed, the rebels in Syria who flatly refused to negotiate with Assad, rather than encourage a non-violent transition proposed by the willing if untrusted regime".
Don't want to be POV with statements (like explicitly blaming him for the civil war and what followed) but this is practically what happened. There are plenty of sources to use in the press for actual - rather than stated - policy I just don't have the time to do it all myself. Harshmustard (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Lawrence

Can someone put in a section about William Hague's comments on Macpherson enquiry back in 1999-2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.83.209 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mckinsey contract

I am not sure if I am missing something, but I don't see how Hague's former employer being awarded a government contract in a department not managed by Hague is relevant to an article about Hague? I've left the section in for now but could someone explain why it should be in this article and not one about McKinsey (or even there, I don't think it is a good idea to list every contract a company has).

Near the beginning of 2011, it was revealed that Hague's former employer, McKinsey, had been awarded more than a £1m in NHS consultancy fees. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/12/management-consultants-paid-7m-gps

What absolute nonsense. It's very relevant when someone uses their political connections to help win government contracts that they themselves have a financial interest in. Your faux-scepticism and passive-aggressive question didn't go unnoticed. You've removed a relevant piece of information with a good reference, apparently because you are trying to whitewash the article. I motion to revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=William_Hague&diff=472662318&oldid=471116969

It would indeed be relevant, if we had any evidence that it was so. He worked for McKinsey in a vey junior capacity 25 years ago, so it is hardly likely that he is in close touch with the firm's workings nowadays, and I don't see any evidence that he has a personal "financial interest" - public figures nowadays are subject to pretty stringent rules and regulations about this kind of thing, and would be expected to absent themselves from any decision-making in which they could be accused of having a personal interest. If you want to include this (libellous) insinuation in the article you would need to find a good source which actually makes it, not juxtapose unrelated facts in such a way as to invite the reader to draw an unsubstantiated conclusion.MissingMia (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

What exactly is the difference between a "full" Conservative party leader and a Conservative party leader?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.65.206 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this refers to the fact that until the election of Andrew Bonar Law in 1922 there was technically no post of leader of the Conservative Party, rather there was a party leader in the house of Commons and a party leader in the House of Lords. Austin Chamberlain who was leader in the Commons 1921-1922, and was the de facto overall leader, is often stated to be the only Conservative Leader before Hague not to be Prime Minister,. Actually earlier leaders in the Commons had also failed to gain this office (in their cases because the Party leader in the Lords was the more senior figure and thus became Prime Minister). Thus I think what is trying to be said here (albeit not terribly clearly) is that Hague was the first person to hold the official title 'Leader of the Conservative Party' not to become Prime Minster. Dunarc (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is actually true, and we need a better source. The previous system was that an ex Prime Minister was overall leader (e.g. Lord Beaconsfield in 1880-1) but if neither was an ex PM then they were regarded as equals (e.g. Stafford Northcote and Lord Salisbury in 1881-5, with the former being initially regarded as the more senior). Balfour as an ex PM was, obviously, overall leader in 1905-11, but Bonar Law (1911-21) and Austen Chamberlain (1921-2) were certainly treated as such. I can't even remember who was leader of the Tories in the Lords in 1921-2 (Curzon? Birkenhead? or some nonentity?). The article currently sources this claim to the online obituary of Robert Carr, who was briefly acting leader for about a week in 1975, I can't find any claim in said obituary that the "modern job of party leader" was invented in the early 1920s. I'm guessing that the practice of acclaiming the new Tory leader by a joint meeting of MPs and Peers began in 1922 - it continued with Chamberlain in 1937 and Churchill in 1940. I don't know whether this was just rubber-stamping a convention which had already arisen, or whether that gave him the right to appoint the Tory leader in the Lords.Paulturtle (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books

We should add in a list of the books he has written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.193.123 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection

Just a friendly note - it is better that IPs who may have a COI get an coherent account that can discuss changes on the talk page, and other editors can converse with a single account. Better for all of us that we discuss articles and keep them as neutral as possible. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

then attended Wath-upon-Dearne Comprehensive, a state secondary school near Rotherham, then known as Wath Grammar School.

shouldn't this read

then attended Wath Grammar School, a state grammar school near Rotherham.

the reference to Wath-on-Dearne Comprehensive gives the impression of comprehensive education and could be seen as political spin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.142.73 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War Criminal

Where is the section regarding Hague being a War Criminal leading the UK to atrocities abroad to divert attention from the UK economy failing? 86.139.189.47 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LG episode

Seems surprising that there is nothing in the article about the LG inward investment to Newport, given it's significance at the time, and indeed the later fall out. There must be plenty of sources about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.104.7.206 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Boy inspiration

Harry Enfield has stated that Hague's famous 1977 Conference speech was the inspiration for Tory Boy, mentioned in the book "Harry Enfield and his Humourous Chums", but a cursory search fails to find a quote online. Can someone track this down?--MartinUK (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Hague bio

Please make up your mind whether William Hague attended a comprehensive or a grammar school. Both are mentioned in your article. They are totally different.

If I had turned in text like this when I was a journalist, I would have been fired.

Jeannie Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.51.76 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recast sentence to say that he attended Wath Comprehensive, a school that was previously Wath Grammar. Acabashi (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ffion - separate page?

I think Ffion has done enough to merit her own page. Valetude (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create it then. See if it flies.Nickpheas (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange questioning by Swedish authorities

Swedish authorities have confirmed that they've going to question Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/13/julian-assange-wikileaks-swedish-prosecutors-london-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.36.83 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Nation or Thatcherite?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.32.161 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So he's retired ?

If not, his specific job right now should be mentioned in the first sentence, or, say that he is retired in the first sentence. The article is very unclear about this.

Appointment to the Peerage

Hague's title should now read The Right Honourable The Lord Hague seeing as he received a life peerage this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjuliano1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on William Hague. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

Remove the website for William Hague from the right hand column at the bottom near the signature. The reason being it no longer exists. 165.120.81.229 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added dead link template --allthefoxes (Talk) 13:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Hague&oldid=700110003"