Talk:Henry Labouchère

message: Corrected to British spelling and tried to make use of the accent consistent, except in the Amendment, and his uncle. I'm not sure if those two take an accent. Certainly, the Victorians  gave Labouchère himself the accent at least half the time (and the rest can probably be put down to lazy printers), so it's right in his case. Adam Cuerden talk 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry Labouchère. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5yPic5kyJ?url=http://faculty.winthrop.edu/vorderbruegg/winthropweb/vitaindex/gilbert.html to http://faculty.winthrop.edu/vorderbruegg/winthropweb/vitaindex/gilbert.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry Labouchère. 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/20110707060227/http://www.gabrielleray.150m.com/ArchiveTextH/HenriettaHodson.html to http://www.gabrielleray.150m.com/ArchiveTextH/HenriettaHodson.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For the avoidance of doubt, Labouchère lost by 90 votes, as stated. It was a three-candidate contest for two seats. A Tory won one of the seats, and of the two Liberal candidates Labouchère had 90 fewer votes than his colleague. (Lord G. Hamilton (C) 7,850; Viscount Enfield (L) 6,507; H. Labouchère (L) 6,397. (The Times, 27 November 1868, p. 5.)  [unsigned by Tim riley]
:User:Tim riley, thank you for the explanation, but my calculator says that 6,507 - 6,397 = 110, not 90.  Are all the numbers correct? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have probably mistranscribed the figures (and I could never do sums). The first and third are clear enough in the scan: 7,850 and 6,397. The middle one is a bit blurry. The Times added that the Tory beat Enfield by 1,343 votes and Labby by 1,453. Pray adjust the totals above accordingly. Tim riley talk 20:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. 1,453 - 1,343 = 110, so it seems clear enough that the margin was 110 rather than 90. I'll adjust it in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: No muddle at all.  First of all, do not WP:EDIT WAR.  Wait until a consensus is obtained on the Talk page before making changes that have been resisted by other editors.  Secondly, you make no reference at all in your long explanation above, to the fact stated by User:Tim riley that the election was for TWO seats, not one.  So Labouchere did not have to beat Hamilton, he only needed to beat Enfield, to whom he lost by 110 votes.  If you want to talk about Hamilton's victory, do it at Hamilton's article.  If you want to talk about Enfield's result in the election, do it at Enfield's article.  However, if you have a source that clearly clearly and specifically explains that Labouchere's loss made him stay out of politics for the dozen years, that would be worth citing.  The number you present regarding how far behind Hamilton Enfield was, is, to use your expression, "wildly" irrelevant to Labouchere.  The important figure is that he was a close third to Enfield.  If you think I am wrong in this assessment, then find a WP:CONSENSUS of wikipedians who agree with you and disagree with Tim riley and me.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Concurring with Ssilvers that MiserWizzy is the muddled one. The margin was indeed as small as 110, as the reliable sources we have dug out confirm. Edit warring and snide remarks about reverting the "hard work" of other editors don't help, and don't alter the established facts. Tim riley talk 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are the figures from the Liberal committee:  And here are the figures given in Hamilton's memoir:  Yes, he lost the second seat to Enfield by a narrow margin, but given he'd previously held Middlesex uncontested, his defeat by Hamilton was resounding. MisterWizzy (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this belongs in Hamilton's biography, not Labouchere's -- it may have been a "resounding" victory for Hamilton, but the sources do not establish that Labouchere considered the loss to be "resounding" or that it was the motivating reason why he quit politics for 12 years (although our text does imply that). See WP:OR for Wikipedia's guideline on this.  Of interest here, however: it seems there is slight disagreement as to the actual tally of the votes among the three sources: these two sources and The Times!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "the sources do not establish that Labouchere considered the loss to be "resounding". = "I can't be arsed looking for other sources, so they don't establish it." Point of fact: it doesn't matter a toss if Labouchere considered the loss resounding or not (which in fact he did); the voting tally shows he was trounced. There was no slim margin about it. And until that's altered, the article is misleading. MisterWizzy (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1868 election