Wikipedia

Talk:Nick Clegg/Archive 2

< Talk:Nick Clegg
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Fm675 in topic New Picture?
Archive 1Archive 2

How personally does cash for honors touch on Clegg?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/cash-for-honours-lib-dems-name-indians-for-house-peerage-dy-pm-caught-in-row/

Did Clegg have a personal hand in the Sudhir Choudhrie mess or is this handled down the food chain in the LibDems? Hcobb (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Found a more direct ref. Adding it in. Hcobb (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and this time the consensus looks like it is leaning towards not using the religion parameter for agnostics and atheists.
On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Deputy PM

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know a great deal about infobox presentation but is it worth adding that the deputy PM post was actually vacant for three years? Technically Prescott was the last deputy and the listing of 2007 more or less surmises this detail but for persons outside the UK (or those less familiar with politics) it is probably a good idea to cite the fact outright. Either way, I am not sure how best to present this in an infobox without making a mess. Does anyone else agree? --89.242.228.37 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not currently an MP

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rednose64: MPs **DO** cease to be MPs at the disolution of Paliament. For the past 25 days Nick Clegg has **NOT** been an MP. Once Parliament is dissolved there is no long a (P)arliament to be a (M)ember of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.250.60 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And? It is only temporary; if they lose their seat then it can be changed but it shouldn't be changed between the Dissolution of the Parliament and the election even if they aren't standing or they won't win. Wetter88 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ban from entering Russia

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Telegraph, Guardian and Independent (as well as many others) all state that Nick Clegg has been banned from entering Russia. (Telegraph, Guardian, Independent). This seems to be noteworthy, but I'm not sure exactly where to place in the article. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nick Clegg got married in September 2000.[1] Please add "September 2000" on the bit about his marriage. Thanks. 86.30.216.12 (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Nick Clegg's wife Miriam Gonzalez says his dance moves won her over". metro.co.uk. June 22, 2012. Retrieved June 23, 2015.
Thanks for the request. I have added this with the reference supplied. Keith D (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

His maternal grandfather, Herman Willem Alexander van den Wall Bake, was a friend of the Dutch royal family and president of the Netherlands' banking giant ABN Amro.[1] Thanks.

References

  1. ^ "Mystery of Nick Clegg's 'Mata Hari' aunt and a plot to kill Lenin".

--79.223.23.113 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Nick Clegg. 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 03:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nick Clegg. 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) 22:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Nick Clegg. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Section - Nick Clegg#Electoral performance and standing in the polls

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this section be on a different page as it mostly relates to the party and not Clegg specifically? Crookesmoor (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Nick Clegg. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the second sentence change "from 2005 to 2007" to "from 2005 to 2017". Typo confirmed also by the information on the right hand side. 158.169.40.9 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done –72 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The link for the 2017 General Election at the end of the first block of text points to the 2010 election instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1E00:5D00:64E8:DD21:286F:B943 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Now corrected. Thank you. Nedrutland (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nick Clegg. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Over 110,000 signed two online petitions to block Nick receiving a Knighthood

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The edit was immediately reverted by User:Mélencron stating: 'Possibly undue weight? skeptical of the noteworthiness of online petitions in general.' Any other views on whether we should include this? Reaper7 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included, especially as there is no secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of secondary sources documenting the petitions as they increased in number. Here is a good one: Checkmate.
This is a nice story but is news and not notable. Source are great and all but this is just news reporting, on activities of those who dislike clegg. It has no wider significance outside of being human interest. This does not belong on the page. Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. I think 'nice story' and 'no wider significance outside of being human interest' describes better this section in the article:
When he appeared on Desert Island Discs in October 2010, his choice of discs included Johnny Cash, Prince and Radiohead and his luxury was a "stash of cigarettes".[1] In an interview in April 2011, Clegg stated he dealt with the pressures of political office by reading novels late at night and he "cries regularly to music".[2] He supports Arsenal F.C.[3]
I think we can make the article a little more balanced. I think over 110,000 citizens signing petitions specifically to get the UK Government to block his Knighthood is far more relevant and of interest to the reader - than Mr Clegg occasionally liking to listen to Prince for example. Reaper7 (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The claim of "110,000 citizens signing petitions", is unverified. It is two petitions not one. This means it is unknown how many duplicate signers there are on both petitions. It is also not known how many bot signatures there are on these petitions. These are also not on the number 10 petition site, and as such no one in government need pay any attention to these two petitions. Simply setting up a petition ad having people from anywhere on earth sign and having multiple signings on both petitions significantly diminishes the "110,000 citizens signing petitions" claim. This just a story for those who dislike Clegg. This article is for encyclopedic information. If there is other information on the page which is unencyclopedic, feel free to remove that as well. Sport and politics (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Lord President of the Privy Council (2010 - 2015)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nick Clegg served as Lord President of the Privy Council from May 2010 to May 2015. [4] Davisboudreau (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Supporting Opportunities for Young People

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Serco has been congratulated by Nick Clegg, the UK's Deputy Prime Minister, for opening their doors to young people from all walks of life by providing opportunities including apprenticeships and work experience placements.[5] Davisboudreau (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change incorrect adjective order in the first line: 'British former politician' should be 'former British politician' Nose Tackle (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You're suggesting he's no longer British? e.g. Edwina Currie, Nigel Waterson, David Blunkett all use this same construction. The list of retired MPs is quite long, if you wanted to check all of them who have an article: see "Living former Members of the House of Commons (PDF, 227.23 KB)" at [20] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Official website wrong

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Now hosting spam payday loans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.194.217 (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I have removed it from the infobox. Nedrutland (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Have also removed it from Ext links... grrrr..., these damned spam payday load ads!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Knighthood - more detail please

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recall his knighthood being in the news after he ceased to be Deputy PM. While his honorific prefix Sir is given, there seems no mention of it being conferred in this article, nor whether it was Knight Bachelorhood or in an order of knightood like the Orders of the Bath or the British Empire.Cloptonson (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nick Clegg and Donald Trump

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In June 2021, he confirmed to BBC news the role he played in banning President Donald Trump from Facebook 92.0.245.46 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Update Clegg's photo to his most recent headshot, from the Meta website: https://about.facebook.com/media-gallery/executives/nick-clegg/ 208.58.205.55 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: The license for that image is incompatible with Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

New Picture?

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why is there a new picture? When did we decide and Where? RealTaxiDriver (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated to this new picture, but I updated his photo to be one from 2023, since the previous photo was 12 years out of date. Seems more appropriate to capture individuals in as most accurate and recent ways as possible ways. If you disagree, I can understand, and I'd not have too strong an opposition to reverting the change. DougDommadome (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I think as with many Politicians we should have a picture of when they held office for instance how Gordon Brown has a picture of him in office when he was in office despite pictures when he left office being published. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
As he has gone on to do other notable things - especially at such a big company as FaceBook - I think it should be an updated photo. Brown hasn't done anything like that. Either way I think the current portrait isn't particularly good and another should be found for Clegg. Fm675 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Desert Island Discs with Nick Clegg". Desert Island Discs. 24 October 2010. BBC. Radio 4. Archived from the original on 7 April 2011. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Prince, Rosa (6 April 2011). "Nick Clegg: I cry to music and even my sons ask why everyone hates me". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 9 April 2011. Retrieved 8 May 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "Cameron and Clegg asked about favourite football teams". BBC News. Archived from the original on 28 April 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/people/nick-clegg
  5. ^ https://www.serco.com/news/media-releases/2012/serco-congratulated-by-uk-deputy-prime-minister-on-providing-opportunities-for-young-people
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Clegg/Archive_2&oldid=1229946168"