Talk:Chris Huhne

message: 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)
replies: text: Good suggestion.  I have created a separate section.  Can anyone help on the chronology of his books?  Davidpatrick 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I agree.  Good idea. Davidpatrick 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nothing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Electoral reform 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Not looking good..! ninety:one   22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Disproved claim about his mother appearing in Superman movie" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Adding info about 2007 onwards and about his journalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Removed some of the trash :). Collect (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV write 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed some of the trash :). Collect (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: April 2011 NPOV BLP

message: Making two long sections is not right per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE  etc.   Choose one. Collect (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I condensed this undue content two a single section. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Rob's version, much better reading & a lot less like an attempted hit piece. --Errant (chat!) 17:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One section only on divorce 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks very much; it looks fine to me.Eebkent (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated sentences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit conflict 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[David Steel]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Over-hasty editing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chris Huhne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071111150231/http://www.kentnews.co.uk:80/kent-news/How-Brazier-hosed-down-the-student-radicals--newsinkent6737.aspx to http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/How-Brazier-hosed-down-the-student-radicals--newsinkent6737.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060220065739/http://www.cix.co.uk:80/~rosenstiel/ldelections/all-member.htm to http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/ldelections/all-member.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080906122553/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article348003.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article348003.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110611044054/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/13th%20May2010%20List.doc to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/13th%20May2010%20List.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224190006/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/people/profiles/article3084316.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article3084316.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112001946/http://chrishuhne.org.uk/speeches/000043/summation_speech_from_tax_debate.html to http://chrishuhne.org.uk/speeches/000043/summation_speech_from_tax_debate.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108134615/http://www.chrishuhne.org.uk/speeches/000041/climate_change_and_the_challenge_for_business.html to http://chrishuhne.org.uk/speeches/000041/climate_change_and_the_challenge_for_business.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813080831/http://www.chrishuhne.org.uk:80/about to http://www.chrishuhne.org.uk/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119174649/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/uk/politics/article3070593.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3070593.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923035803/http://www.libdems.org.uk/mps_detail.aspx?name=Chris_Huhne_MP&pPK=b466660a-12e7-4e90-a08f-ea44080c32580 to http://www.libdems.org.uk/mps_detail.aspx?name=Chris_Huhne_MP&pPK=b466660a-12e7-4e90-a08f-ea44080c32580
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified