Jump to content

Talk:Chris Huhne

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

Personal life

[edit]

Surely his books should be in a separate section? Also "The other side of the coin" is clearly not his latest book. ISBN references would be useful. [davoloid] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davoloid (talk • contribs) 13:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I have created a separate section. Can anyone help on the chronology of his books? Davidpatrick 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

What do the Leader and Predecessor items in the infobox refer to? If to the current and previous leader of the front bench team, both are clearly wrong, as they are on Nick Clegg - are these mistakes or is there some logic I'm missing to this? LiberalViews 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, the infobox format in Vincent Cable appears to be correct; I propose we harmonise all LibDem front benchers to this format. LiberalViews 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Good idea. Davidpatrick 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing

[edit]

There is nothing about Huhne's parents or grand-parents in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) The article says that he was born in "Westminster, North London". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC) His website says that he went to Westminster School, in Central London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Subsequent spammy rant about him owning too many houses cleared]

Electoral reform

[edit]

Huhne is current chairman of Make Votes Count Coalition. What are his credentials and track record on electoral reform? Sandvika (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children's names

[edit]

Per policy, specifically WP:BLPNAME, we err on the side of privacy of the names of non-notable relatives and non-public individuals. Just because some other articles include them doesn't mean it's not a policy violation. The inclusion of the names does not add to the reader's understanding of Huhne, therefore there's no good reason to include them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The names are in the public ether - just as many politician's children are. No harm is being done. No addresses or personal information is being divulged - just names that have been in multiple national press articles. FWIW most of these "Children" are in their 20s and 30s. They are adult offspring. The articles about other politicians include the names of babies, infants, toddlers, teenagers etc etc. These names have been given in multiple press articles often referred to by Huhne himself - as cited. If you are to be consistent then you would have to remove the names of all the other children of politicians referenced in all Wikipedia articles. I think you will find that you are seeking to apply WP:BLPNAME in a well-intentioned manner that is entirely inconsistent with its practical application on Wikipedia. If you are unhappy about this you really should take the overall issue (not just its application in this article) to Wiki authorities and seek the removal of the names of all children of politicians. If you do so and get a ruling that supports your position (and I truly don't think you will) then I would of course abide by that. Otherwise there is no good reason why this article should have a blind spot relating to public information on an interpretation of Wiki policy that is not shared by a majority of other editors. Respectfully. Davidpatrick (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What understanding does the reader gain from knowing their names? And, more importantly, if enforcement of WP:BLPNAME is "inconsistent with its practical application on Wikipedia", why does it form a part of one of our most important and most rigorously enforced policies? I have removed the names of non-notable offspring from many articles, omitted to add them to may others as is consistent with policy. If you don't agree with the policy, you'll have to go WT:BLP and start an RfC, but you can't do it in a 'change one article at a time' fashion, nor can you claim one article to be exempt from policy, unless, of course, you can provide a sound rationale explaining how the inclusion of their names benfits the readers' understanding of their father. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect you misunderstand the interpretation and practical application of BLP in so far as it relates to the names of family members of public officials. It is not for anyone to prove "what understanding does the reader gain from knowing their names". We are an encyclopedia. Suppression of on-the-record widely available basic family information of public officials that has been volunteered by the person in question to media and printed without any complaint is not acceptable. The names of family members are not classified information. Nor do the children of notable people have to be notable. See the attached. And just try to remove the names of the children from some of these articles and see what happens to you. Listed below are just 6 examples. And those are just a tiny fraction of the articles that do the exact same thing that you are attempting to prevent. You are erroneously asserting an interpretation of Wiki policy that would result in massive disruption of countless Wikipedia articles. It is for you to prove that the Wiki policy is being abrogated by all the other editors in all the other articles that do this. No one can arbitrarily declare one article out of thousands to be child-name-free. By all means try to assert your interpretation on other articles. Remove all the children names and see what you are told. Failing that - the names in this article should be reinstated so that it is consistent with widespread application of Wiki policy.

From Nick Clegg Personal life: In 2000 Clegg married Miriam González Durántez, of Valladolid, Spain. They have three sons: Antonio, Alberto and Miguel,[89][90]

From Charles Kennedy Personal life: Sarah gave birth to their first child, Donald James Kennedy, at 12:14 am 12 April 2005, at St Thomas' Hospital, London

From Tony Blair Marriage and children: Blair married Booth, a Catholic and future Queen's Counsel, on 29 March 1980. They have four children: Euan Anthony, Nicholas John, Kathryn Hazel, and Leo George.

From Al Gore Marriage and children: They would go on to have four children, Karenna (born August 6, 1973), Kristin Carlson Gore[22] (born June 5, 1977), Sarah LaFon Gore[22] (born January 7, 1979), and Albert Gore III (born October 19, 1982).

From David Cameron Personal life: The Camerons have a daughter, Nancy Gwen[202] (born 19 January 2004, Westminster, London), and a son, Arthur Elwen (born 14 February 2006, Westminster)

From George Osbourne Personal life: The couple have two children, Luke Benedict, born in 2001, and Liberty Kate, born in 2003.[9][35]

Davidpatrick (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I removed the names and details of the children, the article claimed that "Both of Pryce's children from her first marriage elected to retain their father's name rather than be adopted by Huhne." If this is true (and it was not supported by the given reference), then I considered that to be some evidence that these (now adult) children do not wish to be associated with Chris Huhne and that Wikipedia should respect their privacy. Whatever the rights and wrongs of naming Huhne's own children, can we agree that the names of Pryce's children by a former marriage do not belong here? Hallucegenia (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To complement to examples of children mentioned above, I looked at the Wikipedia entries of some other cabinet ministers:
  • Kenneth Clarke: "Clarke married Gillian Edwards, also a Cambridge graduate, in November 1964. They have two children—a son and a daughter."
  • William Hague: No mention of wife (Ffion)
  • Michael Gove "Gove is married to Sarah Vine, a writer on The Times, and has two children."
Many other Wikipedia entries for cabinet ministers make no mention marital status or children. Hallucegenia (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallucegenia - you have raised several distinct points in a very civil manner. Let me respond to them point-by-point in separate paragraphs so that they don't get conflated.

1) Many other Wikipedia entries for cabinet ministers make no mention marital status or children

You are absolutely right. And that is because there is no ruling that makes it mandatory to include such information. Nor should there be IMO. Some articles have that info. Some don't. But that doesn't address the point we are discussing. Unless you can provide evidence that the reason that the articles cited by you exclude mention of marital status or children because of BLP concerns (which I respectfully think you will find is not the case) then citing the NON-inclusion of children names in those articles does not have relevance to this point. The issue is simple. Is there a Wikipedia ruling that mandates that the names of the children of public figures must be excluded from every article because of BLP? If there is - then the names of Huhne's children do not belong in this article. And we Wikipedia editors are going to be very busy for the next few years culling thousand of similar articles of the name of every child of a public figure. If you find such a ruling please advise me so we can get busy.

2) text stating "Pryce's children from her first marriage elected to retain their father's name"

I agree that the text was not supported by the given reference. I agree that you were therefore correct in removing that particular text. That would have to be stated in a given reference. There is a reference for the fact that Huhne told an interviewer that he does not see his step-daughters often. And that is therefore an includable point. But you were right to exclude the other text unless and until there is a credible source for it.

3) your point about that these (now adult) children do not wish to be associated with Chris Huhne and that Wikipedia should respect their privacy

Because of the fact in point #2 above - that we are in agreement about - this is at present a moot point. But you raise an interesting issue. If there WAS a credible reference that those adult children do not wish to be associated with Chris Huhne - does that mean that their names should be excluded from the Wikipedia article because of THAT personal preference by the children to not associate with Huhne in their daily lives? We don't need to decide this here and now - but if that WAS a provable fact then it would actually argue the opposite way. It would be a notable fact relating to the personal life of the subject of the article. If (by way of example) there was a legal restraining order or an issue of emancipation that became a public matter then it would be encyclopedic to include that point and un-encyclopedic to exclude it.) Anyway - it's a moot point till there is a credible reference about it.

4) your query: can we agree that the names of Pryce's children by a former marriage do not belong here

I do not agree this at all. If you read Huhne's official biography on his website, his official biography on the Liberal Democrats website (both included below) and in numerous articles in national media, Huhne describes himself as having five children. He doesn't actually distinguish between those he fathered and those fathered by Pryce's children by her first marriage

Chris has been married to Vicky for 25 years, and they have five children, and one grandchild. [1]
Chris is married to Vicky Pryce, Chief Economist at the Department of Trade and Industry. They have five children, three now grown up [2].

Articles in national media regularly refer to his five children. Some make the distinction of which he fathered. Other articles do not.

In any event, Huhne has clearly included those children as part of his biographical material. So their existence and their names are governed by the same criteria as the other children. Incidentally both of them are adults in their 30s.

Davidpatrick (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidpatrick. You make valid points, but hope you'll forgive me if I say I am not yet convinced.
1) You ask "Is there a Wikipedia ruling that mandates that the names of the children of public figures must be excluded from every article because of BLP?" WP:BLPNAME says:
  • "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects" and
  • "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated,... it is often preferable to omit it"
I interpret these two sentences to mean precisely that. We should not include names unless they have been widely disseminated (like say Ivan Cameron or Leo Blair).
2) is as you say a moot point
3) Also moot, but my argument would be that this is not about Huhne's privacy, it is about that of the other individuals involved. In the Huhne case, the names have not been widely disseminated (in fact the only reference I can find is ironically in a piece entitled "I want to keep my family out of the spotlight".) Merely because their names are in the public record does not mean that we have to include them here. (But if the consensus is that we should, then I will happily do so).
4) But neither official biograghy or the LibDem website name the individuals concerned. My preference would be to adopt a similar level of discretion here.
Can I suggest that we continue this discussion at WT:BLP? All the best. Hallucegenia (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've started a discussion at WT:BLP on this general topic. -Rrius (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disproved claim about his mother appearing in Superman movie"

[edit]

Aside from the fact that is would be totally non-notable and boring even if true, the story isn't even as clear cut as it makes out to be. As the last few lines of the 'investigation' admit:

  • she didn't want to talk about it anyway,
  • what she said might have been misinterpreted, and
  • she was actually a non-speaking extra.

That is why I removed the section. Comments? ninety:one 22:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to me, at first glance, that it's worthy of a mention in this article. It might be worth a mention in Mum's article if she had one, but I don't think she does. We certainly don't need that much about it in this article and if it's to be included, we need better sourcing the Daily Mirror, of which I can't begin to express my opinion without it being defamatory. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
We all have our prejudices about the media. I'm not a huge fan of tabloid press. But there are indubitably occasions when they do get a story correct. As evidenced when the broadsheets pick up, repeat and the develop stories that first appear in a tabloid. And the second safety net is that patently untrue stories can be either withdrawn or apologized for on application to the paper or newspaper authority. And of course there is the sanction of the courts if something defamatory is printed. A choice that is certainly available to wealthy politicians. Regardless of that, there is no Wiki policy that says one cannot cite an article that happens to be in a tabloid if the facts in it have not been disputed. Even though there is no such rule - I am a reflexive double citer. If there is more than one source for a fact - I will err on the side of more citations. It's just safer that way. And this particular issue was covered elsewhere. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not looking good..! ninety:one 22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it does not look good for the position that posits that this is not a legitimate story. As you have discovered from reading the Mirror story, the facts are pretty straight-forward. The story ended up becoming part of the coverage of the leadership contest. Creating comment about Huhne. It received coverage on BBC radio and TV. It was commented upon in the Guardian/Observer (hardly a tabloid), triggered discussion in the blogosphere, It was investigated by the Mail on Sunday etc etc. Bottom line is that the story definitely became a part of the discussion of Huhne during the 2006 Lib-Dem leadership contest. I respectfully suggest that it really belongs in this article. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable piece of trivia at best. Collect (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV - lack of neutrality

[edit]

Currently this reads like a bit of a case-against hatchet job. 2/3rds of the content is in the "criticisms" section. There are references for each issue but surely that's a skewering of proportions? Even the first sentence uses the negatively charged "self-styled..." phrase. Not very encyclopeadic. --PRL1973 (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect but this criticism of the article is simply not factually correct. "2/3rds of the content is in the "criticisms" section." Well I just did a word count of the article - excluding the lists in the references and external links sections. Total number of words in the article: 5,007. 2/3rds would be approx. 3,300 words. But the total number of words in the "criticisms" section comes to just 1,834. Not remotely "2/3rds". The very inaccuracy of this claim underscores that this complaint is coming from a subjective rather than fact-based objective perspective. The whole article, including the "criticisms" section is extremely well sourced, cited and referenced.
I think there does need to be MORE content in a couple of other sections - which will ensure that all his accomplishments are fully represented. There is a reasonable amount of content about his time as "Lib-Dem Environment spokesman" (2006–2007). But there is practically nothing about his 3 years as "Lib-Dem Home affairs spokesman" (2007-2010). That section needs to be expanded (with sources cited). There also should be continual updates of his work as "Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change". Lastly, while his career in the City is featured, his distinguished career in journalism (which appears to have been from the mid-late 1970s till 1994) is under-represented in the article. There should be more about that and details of other prominent articles he wrote and awards won etc. Davidpatrick (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding info about 2007 onwards and about his journalism

[edit]

I have added info about his time as Lib-Dem Home affairs spokesman and his work as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. There is more info that should be added. There also needs to be more info about his career as a journalist. Davidpatrick (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV write

[edit]

I recently did a couple of hours work rewriting this article as when I came across it it was so awful, almost attacking. This was reverted with an edit summary "re-instatement of version with cited sources systematically deleted by one user" .. this is not an accurate description of the good faith neutral contribution rewrite of an article close to attacking in need of a write, just because content is cited does not make it good or mean that it has to be kept at all cost. Since then a few edits have occurred and I reverted back to the NPOV rewrite version yesterday and it was reverted again reason given as intermittent edits were not included. The article is still awful and the neutral write I did was far better, as I do not really want to have to spend two more hours writing it again I would like to revert to the version and add any intermediate edits of value after, hopefully there are no objections to this beneficial contribution. This is the write for people to compare the two versions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Huhne&diff=384281642&oldid=384280978 - Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this. It's was quite over the top with detail about his private life. How many quotes do we really need about him selling himself as a family man but actually having an affair? One will do. I also removed the headings which were unsightly and possibly POV. Hurdygurley (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "one will do", why are you removing all of them? Which one would be appropriate for inclusion in your view? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 NPOV BLP

[edit]

I have been watching the reverting, and as I stated and actually did a rewrrtite that was neutral some time ago and was reverted back to the disputed one by the same user that is replacing the same conent still when other users have disputed it, I have added a NPOV tag. IMO - the article reads as if it is written as a bit of a mostly cited partisan attack. Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some of the trash :). Collect (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support re-removal of the election funds allegation bit. We usually don't report allegations that come to nothing in BLP's unless they are significant and very well sourced. In this case.. it doesn't seem significant and was poorly sourced (to a Blogspot blog, which I removed because we can't use such shoddy sources for controversial BLP content). --Errant (chat!) 12:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The story was a major news story and of course should be covered. But I quite agree that a blog - even by a respected high-profile blogger - which Iain Dale certainly is - is not sufficient sourcing. So I have added sourcing from The Times and The Guardian - which both reported the matter because it was notable. Davidpatrick (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple partisan attack that came to nothing and as such even if it momentarity gain partisan news reports it is a not notable event in the subjects life story - a MEP opponent accused him of something but it was not true, its just attack content to insist it is a noteworthy event. This is a BLP for notable events in his life not for any partisan attacks anyone has alleged without any basis. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the national newspaper sources it was not an allegation "without any basis". It was over a substantive issue - and the two positions related to interpretation of election law. Huhne did spend the money. He simply claimed that his interpretation of the election law was correct. In the end the governing body did not dismiss the matter on the basis that it was a groundless allegation. It declined to go further because there was INSUFFICIENT evidence. Not NO evidence. Just insufficient evidence to prosecute. The matter was substantive enough to be reported and debated on BBC Newsnight and in major national newspapers. You cannot just pretend this controversy didn't happen! The text states that Huhne did not get prosecuted in the end. But an encyclopedia can't airbrush the existence of such an incident! Davidpatrick (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple partisan attack without any merit or action at all by a political opponant, we have not a requirement to carry such unremarkable detail about a notable persons life as if it is also notable when it has no true value at all just because it is carried in a newspaper.Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Off2riorob analysis. MikeBeckett (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One section only on divorce

[edit]

Making two long sections is not right per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE etc. Choose one. Collect (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I condensed this undue content two a single section. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rob's version, much better reading & a lot less like an attempted hit piece. --Errant (chat!) 17:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

Regarding all the mention of minor expense claims as the subject was allowed to claim for - it there any claim of wrongdoing or falsification of anything at all? I can't see any, as such, apart from the subject claimed his allowed expenses and such trivia was big news at the time, what is actually being reported in this section as a controversy? Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC) .. Currently we have this, but why do we have it? seven lines of trivia more coverage than the whole of the article content reporting the subjects Education and upbringing.....a couple of the low quality citations that support this titillating trivia are[reply]

As part of the Daily Telegraph investigation into expense claims by MPs, Huhne was reported to have claimed for various suspect items including groceries, fluffy dusters and a trouser press. In 2006, he claimed £5,066 for painting work on his garden fences and chairs. His office running costs included 62p for semi-skimmed milk, chocolate HobNobs (79p), tea bags (89p) and a bus ticket (£3.20). Other items claimed included a cheese muffin (99p), bacon flavour Wheat Crunchies (28p) and Ready Brek (£1.81). He submitted a bill for £85.35 bill for the "mounting, framing and inscription of photo of Chris Huhne" claiming that he purchased the picture at the borough council's request to hang in the civic centre entrance.[62][63] He collected £119 for a mahogany Corby trouser press from John Lewis but later said he would repay the cost in order "to avoid controversy". He later claimed on a live Channel 4 news programme that he needed the trouser press to "look smart" for work.[64] In June 2010, it was revealed that in the second half of 2009, a period after the expenses scandal news story became known, Huhne claimed £14,948 in expenses, including a 14p bill for stationery. The claim also included costs incurred in servicing an old boiler at his constituency home.[65]

I agree with this. It's trivial. This goes for any section in an MPs entry relating to their expenses. Unless they broke the law, like Elliot Morley or David Chaytor etc, it's quite irrelevant. Hurdygurley (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was just thinking the same thing. Will be bold...leaving in the trouser press though, he did pay that back. 92.21.216.243 (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done it, I think 07/08 is the year the 'dodgy' expenses apply to....but certainly every years expense ranking could easily be notable if anyone can be bothered to add them all.92.21.216.243 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated sentences

[edit]

A couple of sentences about houses and wealth appear twice, just above and just below the header "Personal interests". But for Wiki's referencing system (which is beyond me) I would simply have done a minor edit to remove the earlier occurrence, but my attempt to do this caused more problems elsewhere. (Note that refs 12 and 93 mentioned in these sentences are identical, but ref 12 claims that the material is in the "Daily Maik" (sic) but ref 93 attributes it to "Mail on Sunday".) Could somebody more competent than me please do the editing job? Thanks. Eebkent (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, fixed. I used "Daily Mail" as ref 12 as that's the name of the website (even though the article was published on a Sunday). Hope that's ok. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much; it looks fine to me.Eebkent (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

[edit]

my weird edit summary was due to two people reverting the POV comment in the article at the same time <g>. Collect (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracies

[edit]

There are a number of things that are simply untrue:

1. Chris Rennard was never Chief Whip but was Chief Executive of the Liberal Democrats (Election Conduct)

2. The assertion that "the "Calamity Clegg" dossier had actually been created and circulated by Trimingham" is untrue. She did not create or write the dossier and did not sign off the title (Election Conduct)

3. The assertion that "it was also revealed that Huhne had exercised his right to remain silent in response to a series of police questions in May" is untrue. He answered all the questions.

Points 2 and 3 above are serious as they are damaging to the reputation (both professional and personal) of the two people mentioned. These "facts" are based on unreliable newspaper articles whose journalists cannot possible know the truth because they weren't there.

B Accurate (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we should just believe you, instead of a national newspaper? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I am close to both individuals involved. National newspapers have an editorial point of view and many are hostile to the Lib Dems and Huhne. Also, they weren't present in the Huhne leadership campaign HQ (I was) and not present in the police station. In both cases these newspapers rely on second-hand gossip and innuendo. B Accurate (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is stated in the referenced papers that they used "second-hand gossip" or used subjective language, then feel free to reflect this in the article. E.g. the Daily Mail states "It is understood he exercised his right to remain silent", which I would say is slightly subjective, therefore this article could read: "it was also believed that Huhne had exercised his right to remain silent in response to a series of police questions in May".
Alternatively you can always try to find a more up-to-date verifiable source that states this is untrue. Zangar (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take me at my word that I always endeavour to assume good faith on other editors parts' but I would be quick to warn you however that in this instance you (B Accurate) appear to have a conflict of interest and to have partaken in original research to uncover material, which is therefore not eligible for inclusion in wikipedia. As pointed out already perhaps the line on the questioning could be prefaced by a comment on the fact that this is what is 'understood' by the Mail but I am afraid your assertion will have to remain simply that. Reichsfurst (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "Calamity Clegg" was coined by Trimingham or Huhne and Trimingham has been repeated in The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and on Guido Fawkes' website. If it were demonstrably false then Trimingham could sue them for libel. She has not done so therefore it's perfectly reasonable for Wiki to treat it as a fact. Of course I'm fully aware that none of those media outlets are friendly towards Huhne (let's face it, who IS friendly towards him?) but that's besides the point. TheMathemagician (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Steel

[edit]

Lord Steel was not a leader of the Liberal Democrats. He was leader of the Liberals. He merely served as interim joint leader of what was then called the Social and Liberal Democrats while the new party formally elected its first leader. I have corrected the text accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.28.178.10 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over-hasty editing

[edit]

I've removed the reference to him being a "former" MP/politician as this is not strictly true until such time as he is appointed to the Manor of Northstead / Chiltern Hundreds (which he presumably will be within the next few days) as it is not possible to resign as an MP by any other means. Seems like a slightly hasty edit on someone's part; obviously this edit will need making at some point soon but I thought his page ought to be as accurate as possible at any moment in time. Pbrione (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Chris Huhne. 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 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chris Huhne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Huhne&oldid=1231619486"