Talk:Nick Clegg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Supports 'Work Experience' Slave Labour - Opposes Trade Union Unite

This morning, Clegg came out in favour of this slave labour scheme on BBC1 (29/02/2012). As Deputy PM, he staunchly defended this - claimed he made massive input to Ian Duncan Smith's mothballed scheme, and claimed that '50% of young people who are on these schemes get off of benefits in a matter of weeks'(quoted verbatim). He appeared not to understand the scheme at all, and could not cite the source of his statistic. Was it A4e? He also spoke against Len McCluskey who called for acts of civil disobedience during the Olympics, and said he hoped Ed Milliband would 'reign him in'? 212.139.108.5 (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.108.5 (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Millbank POV

The article unilaterally condemns the Millbank action. See "turned sour" and the quotes from Clegg and Aaron Porter, and the complete lack of any word in defence of the action - most significantly, it repeats the claims that the participants were a minority while ignoring the fact clearly evident from the aerial photographs that as many people went into the courtyard as could have fit into it; the article also fails to mention the music (at least one samba band played, and there was dancing) and the fact that the vast majority of participants condemned the only significant incident of violence and heckled the perpetrator to stop. 91.109.89.166 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Arson

Is his German conviction actually for 'arson' as such? All the references I can find say he damaged some cacti. Does anyone know the formal charge of which he was convicted? If not, perhaps this should be changed to something like 'damaging plants'.217.44.182.191 10:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Damage Act of 1971 1(3) 'destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson' thus I have changed the article to fit. I would also assume that 'rare cacti' are more valuable than the ones in B&Q.

Rsloch (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

However, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 does not extend, as far as I know, to Germany, and never has. I don't know whether there is a separate provision there for "criminal damage by fire", but I would assume so. Without an original source, assuming that he was convicted of arson, when the cited source says damage is original research. Rodhullandemu 14:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this- although the press report it as a conviction, Clegg says the professor was persuaded not to press charges. However, it is reported as arson, so I don't think it's unfair to call it that (at least informally). Have also added refs & replaced a {{deadlink}}. Rodhullandemu 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Setting fire to something illegally is arson regardless of what and if you are charged for. The best I can find re arson under German law is German Criminal Code Section 306 (1).

Rsloch (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I have clarified it, but I would say it's debatable if it should be in at all, it's a relatively minor point. LiberalViews 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A criminal act (admittedly very minor) by a standing politician is significant in the eyes of many voters --MartinUK 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And it shouldn't include weasel words like "technically". Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They aren't weasel words. The word "arson" in English criminal law implies the very serious offence of burning down a building, etc. If the incident had happened in Britain, Clegg and his companion would have been charged at worst with Criminal Damage. This is to do with not misrepresenting the nature of the offence in the English version of Wikipedia - arson is more widely used in Germany and would be understood differently there. I believe some clarification does need giving and if this isn't the word "technically" then we need to explain the actual nature of the charge in more detail, since this is clearly being introduced in the article to smear Clegg and is hardly mentioned in the media generally. LiberalViews 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Clegg's conviction for a criminal offence hidden away under the "education" section? It should be under "personal". 86.7.211.128 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a drunken student prank committed while he was studying abroad over 20 years ago and in relation to which he has expressed contrition. To try and make more of it now would be arguably giving it undue weight for political purposes and a blatant attempt at electioneering. It's never a great idea to go rattling skeletons in the cupboard, lest your own emerge and hoist you by (and yes, that is correct) petard. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What an utterly absurd and ridiculous attempt at a justification! His conviction has nothing to do with his education, and an encyclopaedia is a collection of facts that should not give way to arguments about giving undue weight to the information contained therein. If it is to be included, it should feature in the right section. And anyway, it was not a drunken student prank, it was a criminal act for which he was responsible. If you want to protect his honour, do it elsewhere. 86.7.211.128 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the revocation of my changes; my changes related to the criminal misconduct of Nick Clegg and his denial. I included links. He denied a conviction but this was widely reported as being factual. People here do not have the facts of the trial or the qualifications to judge the English and German legal systems. The key fact is that a Crown Minister concealed information about his criminal past. This raises the entire issue (already debated as a parallel with Bush's US candidacy) of full disclosure; such disclosures are routinely required for many public service jobs, such as teaching, and working in the police. I think my edit should be reinstated. Otherwise I feel the information is being politically edited. User:Merrows2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrows2 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just want to note here that Merrow2 had more to say, but that his message was removed as it contained legal threats, which are not allowed on Wikipedia. I edited his message to remove the threats, but this was also objected to and removed. Merrows2's message (sans threats) can be seen here. The objection was that, by removing the legal threats I was "changing the meaning and intent" of Merrow2's message. However, I strongly suspect that Merrow would prefer to have some of his meaning left available than none of it. Quite what removing a lengthy talk page message is supposed to achieve, I don't know. It will only serve to further infuriate Merrow who is already avowedly moved to threaten litigation. So I say let him say his piece. I hardly think any of us is going to have an accident if we see what he has to say. Note, further, that WP:THREAT does not counsel that legal threats be removed/reverted but instead says to inform an admin and engage with the user in question. One can scarcely engage with something that is no longer there. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not only One can scarcely engage with something that is no longer there. This user along with their legal threats also made personal comments about other editors which were intertwined with his legal threats. I think that there is no satisfactory way to edit their comments and still carry the original intent of their message which was to threaten WMF and editors into submission. Serious threats against other editors here do not not belong in a talkpage. If you edit out the offending parts and sanitise it, it loses much of its intended meaning. Therefore, it is better left out in its entirety. I think we should not engage further in this meta-discussion but instead talk about article issues. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Merrow can say their piece as long as it does not contain legal threats or comments about other editors. This should be an easy block for them to get lifted. All they should need to do is state that they understand why they were blocked and that they will not take any legal action. At that point they can then come back here and calmly discuss their points for inclusion. GB fan please review my editing 16:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have no objection at all for anyone to say their piece. However discussions cannot take place while legal threats are hanging in the air and editors' names are floating around in them. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Setting fire to something illegally is arson regardless of what and if you are charged for. The best I can find re arson under German law is German Criminal Code Section 306 (1). Rsloch (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)"

The illegality of something is only established if you are charged and convicted of it. Otherwise you can only say it could have been/should have been, or arbitrarily label it 'illegal'. Hakluyt bean (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Leader

The infobox has Menzies Campbell as leader (now wrong) and Mark Oaten as previous leader. Do these mean as in leader of the front bench team? If so, both are patently wrong but when I tried to correct them it was overturned. LiberalViews 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Either the info has changed since the 21st October, or you're misunderstanding the infobox. Mark Oaten is listed as the previous Home Affairs Spokesman; the 'leader' part says under which leaders Clegg has been Home Affairs Spokesman. -UK-Logician-2006 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

To argue that Nick Clegg's atheism should not be noted against the religion item of the info box is pedantic. An encyclopaedia should note his religious belief , or lack of it, and this is the place to put it. Arguments that atheism is not a religion aren’t relevant. Lumos3 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree, atheism is not a religion. And it isnt pedantic because as a potential next UK PM this is a relevant issue and by claiming his religion is atheism we are clearly claiming more than the ref states, this is original research. I wont revert for now but this is disputed. What do others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lumos3. Technically, it's true that atheism is not a religion, but it's a perfectly sensible use of the field to note his atheism there. It would of course be more accurate to relabel the field as "religion (or lack thereof)", but I can't see any benefit in such verbosity.

I can't agree with Squeakbox's suggestion that we are going further than the BBC article says. Clegg said that he doesn't believe in god, which fits perfectly with the definition in atheism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm a) a politician's religion is rarely of significance in British politics; b) Clegg may have answered a question and got a write-up in the inevitable flurry of "all about the new leader" coverage but that's not the same thing as being one who is prominently identified by their atheism; and c) that field is ridiculously overused - see Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Usefulness/uselessness of Religion field. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if Nick Clegg would call himself an athiest or not, but I do know that athiesm is NOT a religion, so properly the entry should read "Religion: None" rather than "Religion: Athiest". This would surely adequately identify his stance on religion without misrepresenting athiesm. 212.23.15.98 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BrownHairedGirl. Saying "None" makes him sound like an agnostic or a non-denominational Christian. If he's an atheist then it should say so and be done with it. I can see that atheism is not a religion but some people say that same about Buddhism and there are plenty of Christians who would say that they are "not religious but faithful". If we think that its a problem to associate all these things with religion then lets change the template to say something like "Faith Views". But that’s not to my taste personally.

Interestingly Charles Bradlaugh's template says none but links to atheist (which he was) but that seems like covering the point rather than being correct. CaptinJohn (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly none of the M(E)Ps listed in the National_Secular_Society article have this template. CaptinJohn (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You can be a secularist and a member of a religion. Secularism is about the position of religion in society, not in your pesonal life.Biscit (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with putting "none". He says he's "toward the agnostic end of the atheist spectrum", whatever that means ("atheist end of the agnostic spectrum" would make more sense, semantically speaking) and considering he's allowing his children to be brought up as catholics, he's not exactly a "hardline" atheist anyway. - 88.109.229.84 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anon that we should put religion none and then just include atheism in the bulk of the text. Tim, while UK politicians religious beliefs arent significant in the way they are in America the religious beliefs of a PM are significant because of the role of the C of E in the UK government, which is again why I would support saying none in the religious field. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You all seem to be missing something. He didn't say he was an atheist: he said he was non-religious. Jainism denies the existence of gods, but it's a religion. (What else would forbid killing a plant?!) Agnosticism is neither religious nor atheistic, although it does not preclude religion while it does preclude atheism. Buddhists are usually one or the other. Anyway, my point is he simply is Not religious. Calling him anything else is OR. I know - I read the article on it.85.92.173.186 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait - Jainism isn't necessarily atheistic. I could have sworn Wikipedia said it was a few days ago. Well, the rest is still right. 85.92.173.186 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism does not believe in God either so saying one does not believe in god does not make for atheism as one's religion and to assume so is oroginal research. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Squeakbox, that's pedantry-on-stilts. If he was a Buddhist or a Jaian he'd have said so, but he didn't. The plain reading of those words is meaning that he is an atheist is supported by The Times:

• "Nick Clegg says: 'I don't believe in God'". The Times. 19 December 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-20. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' new leader, has defied political convention with a frank admission that he is an atheist. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

... so I will reinstate the atheist tag, with The Times article as a ref. If you can find a reliable source which demonstrates that The Times got it wrong and that Clegg used a plain and straightforward answer as a devious way of not acknowledging that is in fact a Buddhist or a Jain, then of course please update the article.

Oh, and User:85.92.173.186, Clegg did not he was "not religious". Listen to the interview or see The Times article: he was asked "Do you believe in god", and said "no". That's exactly how atheism is defined, someone who does not believe in god. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true. An atheist is someone that doesn't believe that gods exist. God is just one particular god. Not believing in God does not entail atheism. Ilkali (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a much better ref. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me! CaptinJohn (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to BrownHairedGirl. Maybe the BBC fails RS lol. Or maybe I misread it. Actually, agnostics don't believe in gods either. Now, where the agnosticism/atheism distinction lies is another matter. I'll keep out of this discussion though, because you probably won't like what I have to say on that distinction. 85.92.173.186 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to one of the reports I saw, he issued a follow-up "clarification" statement that included this para

“However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind.”

... whatever that means.

I think you're right that the agnosticism/atheism distinction is potentially a long discussion, but I suggest that it doesn't belong on this page. I'm sure that Clegg will be dragged back to this issue in the future by journalists keen to probe further, so we'll have lots more sources to cite. It'll be interesting to see how Clegg handles this issue, and whether he sticks to his initial "don't believe in God" line or tries to obfuscate for fear that the religious lobbies will give him grief for not signing up. I suspect that by the end of next year we'll have a copiously-referenced "religion" section in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that he'll be called back to this issue in the future which should clear up whether he's an atheist or an agnostic. In the mean time I am going to change the user box back from saying none to saying atheist just becuase saying none and linking to atheist seems like avoiding the issue. If anyone wants to make it say (and link) to agnostic then we can have a vote or something and although I disagree Im not really that bothered. Really its just that saying none irritates me.

Hope that ok with everyone. Any objections, give me a shout.

CaptinJohn (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. I think that linking "none" to atheist is potentially a little misleading, and that it's best to be clear and link directly as you have done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have two problems with listing Clegg's religion as 'atheist' in the way it is currently, both of which have been argued by a significant proportion of contributors, yet ignored with no satisfactory solution being found. Firstly this is a feature designed for US politics where a politician's religion is often central to their identity as a politician. In the UK it is not. Their religion is (with very few exceptions i.e. Northern Ireland) incidental. It does not, therefore, belong in this basic summary of the man but would be far more more appropriate in the main body of the article only. Secondly - and it is semantics - but I feel very uncomfortable reading that someone's religion is atheism. It's just not right. There must be a sensible way around this.--

Athiesm ain't a religion, maybe if it said religious views rather than religion ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.249.81 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I solved that problem.--EchetusXe (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Two issues: Clegg's atheism is mentioned twice, once under Beliefs, and again at the end in the Personal section. Also, the Personal section says that Clegg is the only athiest leader of a UK party. This surprised me, as it suggests Gordon Brown believes; the actual reference supplied says "Clegg is the only English political leader to state that he doesn’t believe in God", which is not the same thing as "the only leader of the three major British political parties not to be a believer". JBel (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I just point out that Nick Clegg is not an atheist - he is a self-defined agnostic. In the April 10th issue of "Saga Magazine" he said; "I'm not sure whether God exists - I'm much more of an Agnostic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.116.123 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg is an atheist. He's an atheist agnostic. Agnosticism is a separate field to atheism vs. theism, it a slightly esoteric philosophical subject but nonetheless interesting. Atheism and theism are claims relating to 'the nature of reality'. Agnosticism is a claim relating to 'how far we are capable of knowing reality'. So, although they aren't exactly in the same category, they still influence one another. Usually, the stronger one's agnosticism the weaker their atheism or theism. So, if someone calls themselves an agnostic, it generally means they consider their agnosticism more important than their atheism or theism. This is self-explanatory when you think about it, because nowone really is 100% unsure whether they believe in a god or not. They can just be more or less sure. Most people if they are strong agnostics, will almost 'automatically' take up a position. Because on such a fundamental issue you make a decision by automation, since your brain will function in such a way that it either takes the existence of god into account or not. This is all very *pipe-in-mouth* epistemology etc. etc., but this is my contribution to this discussion anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seany101 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Seany101, we cannot ignore facts here, or put are own spin on things. Nick has never said he was an atheist. He has, however, said he was agnostic. On your line of argument, he would be a "Christian agnostic", given that Nick has stated he goes to Catholic church with his family, and has "immense respect" for people of faith. As it is - we can't put our own spin or speculate on his views. This is an encyclopedia. He stated he's agnostic, we should respect that and list him as such.

http://www.saga.co.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2010/nick-clegg-transcript.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.74.157 (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seany101 and others To quote "Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ new leader, has defied political convention with a frank admission that he is an atheist."

Citation http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3074541.ece

His religious views are important, they cannot be excluded with justification. We are not a secular society the state and the anglican church here unless I am mistaken and have missed something are linked. (Rovington (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

When you read the actual statement from Clegg there is no self declaration of affiliation to any group. We have to be very careful not to stick living people into groups that they have not self affiliated with, all the content is in the article and that is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The removal of his religion section in info box is now inconsistent with David Cameron and the previous PM Gordon Brown. Undr religion maybe No affiliation is better stated, I do still feel it needs to be in the box, the info box would then be consistent. (Rovington (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

To everyone who thought I was arguing Nick Clegg wasn't an atheist, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. My earlier post was merely to show that atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seany101 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason he was removed from the English atheists category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.37.131 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume this was done due to Clegg being an agnostic rather than an athiest, two very different things. - Galloglass 22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged membership of Conservative Association at university

Greg hands has alleged that Clegg was briefly a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. Theres a copy of a membership list on Hands blog and it's been mentioned in quite a few diary pieces in the print media, but these aren't really suitable for use as a reference. Has anyone seen anything anywhere that might corroborate this information?

I don't think that there are any, or that any reliable sources would print it, unless Nick confirms the story. I would support including that information iff such verification happened. Ross^English 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

short of going and inspecting the society rolls at Cambridge University Library which should list it there i doubt there is any easy definite way to check Dasy2k1 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The story has now (in 2011) been covered by numerous sources that are WP:Reliable. E.g. Lib Dem leader 'was a student Tory' at Cambridge, The Sunday Times, May 15 2011, Marie Woolf, page 8. It belongs in the article. Avaya1 (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really though. I'm defending the section as it stood on 15th of May when Avaya1 seemed to randomly start adding that text, after the issue had already been resolved on the discussion page. She only has one new source, the Sunday Times, hardly likely to be unbiased and independent when it comes to the leader of the Lib Dems. Free Bear's edit is perfectly countered by Sir Richardson's edit summery "None of the sources claim Clegg to have been a member. They illustrate the possibility based upon evidence" so I don't understand why he would add new text stating that he was without a doubt a member. This is an edit warring campaign started by Avaya1 on the 15th of may. --Matt Downey (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, repeatedly pointing to a comment made three years ago and saying the article can't change because of it is unhelpful. Consensus can change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that consensus can change, however it should only do so for a good reason. There is no new evidence or good reason to change the article from how it was in this way.--Matt Downey (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

One comment made three years ago does not equal consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is still no reason for these new changes. It is quite obvious when you look at the original edits which state that Clegg was a member. When referring to "The Nation" magazine in the article, the words left-wing were removed. It is quite obvious that these are simply edits to try and make Nick Clegg look more right wing than bare facts present, and should be treated as vandalism.--Matt Downey (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now that you've stopped stopped calling the single comment above "consensus", it's time to address your assertion of vandalism. Please read this carefully: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism.". Adding content which you disagree with is not vandalism. Wikipedia takes claims of vandalism seriously. Persisting in calling these edits vandalism will get you warned and eventually likely blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be scared, if I didn't honestly recognise this as vandalism. There were not good faith edits, these were edits put in place for an editor to try to make the subject of this article appear as something which it isn't and which they know it isn't. That is vandalism. Sorry if one comment it not technically consensus, but I thought that no one having disputed it within the last 3 years was pretty evident of what you could constitute some sort of unofficial consensus. But perhaps you are right in that I used the term consensus wrong. I'm sorry about that.--Matt Downey (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It might fit your definition of vandalism - it doesn't fit Wikipedia's. So you can continue to label the edits as vandalism and face the actions outlined above or use a different, acceptable argument like WP:UNDUE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I withdraw the complaint of vandalism as defined by wikipedia. Though I still don't see the edits I changed as "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia".--Matt Downey (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Privy Council membership

This document [[1]] provides evidence of the date of affirmation. I have an email from the Privy Council office proving the date of his appointment but no means by which to publish it. How is this possible? Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

Does no one else think the current photo is somewhat insufficient, that it would be better for one of him in a suit. On the Next United Kingdom general election page his picture looks out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.31.221 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Clegg says that "I believe Britain can be better." He is partly Dutch and Russian. He does not explain why his British nationalism does not lead to Teutonic supremacism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the article? Are you wanting to change something? Road Wizard (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not a nationalist of any description. His party is strongly opposed to nationalism, as evidenced by its policies, which involve being in favour of huge-scale immigration into the UK from all over the world, along with allowing asylum seekers to work, which would obviously increase the inflow of asylum seekers. Claiming to want the country to be a better place does not indicate that person is a nationalist. Such statements are typical of politicians of various ideologies. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed 'Nick' from 'Pensions Gaffe' section as was inconsistent with rest of article that merely refers to him as Clegg. 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC) User: 82.24.222.199 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.222.199 (talk)

Family and personal life

His wife is named in the infobox, but there is no mention of when or where they married. Does he have children? His parents are stated as name, profession, past tense - are they dead, or alive but no longer working in those jobs? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Expenses row

I feel that the current section on 'expenses' in the controversies and criticisms section should be moved to the section related to his leadership from 2007. I feel that this should be the case because Nick Clegg has contributed a lot to how this story has developed over the past few weeks (speaker resignation/electoral reform proposals etc...) and could potentially be a significant point in his leadership. What does everyone else think? Notjamesbond (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the "Nick Clegg allegedly claimed the full amount permissible under the Additional Cost Allowance, including claims for food, gardening and redecorating." section should be removed alongside "Clegg claimed the maximum allowed additional costs allowance in expenses from the taxpayer for his second home in the year 2007-2008 [54]." the first of these the majority of MPs could be accused of and whilst claiming a max, this is not a controversy as he did not abuse it. The second does not relate to the expenses controversy that this section is referencing and again is not controversial. I would keep the telephone calls section in as this was seen at the time as controversial. Democritic (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC). His claims for "gardening" and "private phone calls" were adjudged to be inappropriate use of expenses. Mr Clegg accepted this decree and repaid the monies in question. He conceded this during an interview with Politics.co.uk (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81324508/).

Electoral Performance

I've added a new 'Electoral Performance' section to the bit about NC's leadership. I think it's a fair summation of the Lib Dems electoral results but feel free to check if I've been fair. Rsloch (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The facts are there but like any facts they are subjective. I'd avoid use of the word 'badly' as there can be many different interpretations of election results. The by-elections for example were in areas poorly represented by the party and so it wasn't really a suprise when they didn't do anything Notjamesbond (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are more concerned my summation of the results rather than the 'facts' themselves. Considering the Lib Dem's record at by election, not to have come close in either English by election is a bad result for them.

Rsloch (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

POV statements by any editor are a breach of WP:NPOV and cannot be accepted in any article, especially that of a living, active politician. Such statements can be acceptable when given by an unbiased independent source, with references included and even then great care as to be taken and the requirements of WP:BIO need to be closely adhered to, hence my revert of your recent edit.

Rsloch, you also need to provide a summary on each edit of the change you have made and why. As an experienced editor you should under no circumstances be leaving the summary box empty. Thanks - Galloglass 09:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A neutral point of view 'doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but rather a specific, editorially neutral point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints', thus POV statements are acceptable if neutral. I added this section to get other views on if what I had written was a NPOV. Please debate not revert.

A rare and slight error that is hardly worth the fuss.

Rsloch (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

14 April debate victory

On the 14 april first debate of the election he recieved the most support in what he said during the debate in the polls which suprised most of us why isnt this in the article yet?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We need a proper section about his performance in the 2010 election, but we need to make sure that it focuses on him, rather than on the Lib Dems as a whole. I think the debates are an important topic and should go in, but they shoud be mentioned alongside other information about his campaigning. Cortical (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a bio not a day by day political poll commentry, it is not what we are here to do, this is like adding the blow by blow football result, supporters might want to add that he is up today but when it is added tomorrow that he is down it will seem silly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But we need some more information about the election though - at the moment there's very little. Cortical (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that having some commentary of the result of the debate is a good idea. Clegg's "win" got a lot of press coverage and would seem to be a significant point in the election campaign no matter the result. But certainly anything more than one or two lines is just WP:RECENTISM. – Toon 22:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well this is not a news report, it is a biography of his life, the notable issues not if You gov said he had this percentagw today, the pollsters are doing daily reports, are we to add them all, no, are we to chose the ones we like, no.I would agree that a small comment that he got the best reviews from the first ever chat on telly would be ok, but daily poll reports is going to be silly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning specific polls in this way is inadvisable. There are plenty of polls, which will change daily - I don't think this one has any distinct importance. – Toon 22:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever this section needs a current affairs tag adding Dasy2k1 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. That template is intended for "breaking news", not a sustained election campaign. The template specification clearly advises "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic", so I've removed it. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would count yesterday as breaking news, but i agree that given the number of times he is likly to be in the news untill may 6th Current Person isnt really ideal for the job, perhaps there should be some form of election candidate template for this sort of thing, somthing that would be expected to be there until the election itself before being removed Dasy2k1 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Polls dont need to mentioned and I can understand why they cant be trusted, however the fact many where suprised (especially the media who largely mocked who lack of recognition and public appeareances) where stunned how well he presented himself on the debate and the statements of many of the audience members should be used. One woman even switched from being a Labour supporter to campagining for the Lib Dems after the debate who was in the audience. Also both other candidates Brown and Cameron were noted in stating I agree with Nick response. Polls are subjective both other information is revelant. Pior the the debate the Lib Dems had never really being taking serious as a party and had little creditbillity as being taken serious as a real party or serious candidate just like the Green Party♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweeping brush

If nobody minds, I'm going to go right through and copyedit this article. To be frank, its in a bit of a state, and will be disappointing for anyone seeking to learn more about Clegg, given the current political situation. Parrot of Doom 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of years need changing. It says that he joined the European Commission in 1994, but goes on, in the description of what he did there, to refer to somethin in 1993. Also, it says that he decided to "leave Brussels" in 2002, implying that he ceased to be an MEP, but he was an MEP until 2004. Engelsepiet (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Need sources for MEP section

This section was tagged as needing sources. I googled key words from all the uncited statements in the MEP section and couldn't find any independent reliable sources on the web, they were all mirror sites or by the subject himself. Anyone able to find some good references? Tom B (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A little here

from there..Nick Clegg's political rise began in the mid-1990s when he began working at the European Commission. A far cry from the school of Hitchens, during this period Clegg worked as an aide to Margaret Thatcher's former home secretary, Conservative veteran Leon Brittan. Tipped for great things by former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown, Clegg became an MEP in 2001. He was selected as a parliamentary candidate for Sheffield Hallam in 2004 and won more than 50 per cent of the vote at the 2005 general election. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks Robster but it doesn't have anything on what he did while an MEP, Tom B (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, it may be hard to find independent reports, I will look a bit more and get back tomorrow, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:6LsZWZr-sq4J:www.politics.co.uk/mps/party-politics/liberal-democrats/clegg-nick-%24452144.htm+Clegg+co-founded+the+Campaign+for+Parliamentary+Reform,&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk He was elected as a member of the European Parliament in 1999, where as Trade and Industry spokesman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe he led the move to open up the domestic telecoms market, allowing consumers to pick their telephone provider for the first time and advocated trade measures against illegally logged timber. He was a co-founder of the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform, which argued for more transparency and accountability in the European Parliament. Throughout his time as an MEP, Nick wrote essays on public policy issues including greening the WTO, secondary education policy, and reform of the EU’s decision making procedures. For several years he was a columnist for The Guardian Unlimited. Nick stood down from the European Parliament in 2004 and lectured part time at Sheffield and Cambridge Universities. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

nice one. i'm not sure about reliability, it's hard to check what with it being a caché and cannot seem to get politics.co.uk. i think a lot of sources might use politicians own-made cvs, so hard to get independent sources as you say, Tom B (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignacy Wyssogota Zakrzewski

Mentioned in first section regarding family. Ignacy Wyssogota Zakrzewski (1745-1802) was a notable Polish nobleman!!!!!! not Russian!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.116.158 (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What I will do if this might happen?

I first rewrote the comment a bit and tidied up the citation and then realised it is not what we are here to do, it is a comment that is pure speculation, it may never happen, imagine it is the 7 may and the the labour are in second place.. what will we have to do with this content that after insertion two weeks later had no value at all?

edit summary, speculative political comments, wait and see what happens and then report it.

Clegg said on April 24 that he would not support the government if Labour came third in the popular vote, and said reform of Britain's electoral system would be a condition of a deal with the Conservative Party. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning something about all this but I agree a lot of it is speculative. Historically, I think the role of the LibDems in this election campaign, regardless of its outcome, will appear significant but not so important that we need day-by-day updates on what he said to which newspaper etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is support to add it I am fine with that? Personally I don't think we should be adding stuff that we may have to remove after less than two weeks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, a mention (ie a sentence or 2) might be of value even after the election. I'll see if I can work something in that won;t expire in 2 weeks' time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to editors - Degree course at Cambridge University

Clegg majored in Social Anthropology at Cambridge, rather than 'archaelogy and anthropology'. Students study archaelogy and anthropology in the first year but chose a particular specialist discipline, this becoming the degree they major in - Clegg having chosen social anthropology. He refers to himself as having studied social anthropology. See http://www.libdems.org.uk/shadow_cabinet_detail.aspx?name=Nick_Clegg&pPK=8968baa4-6d2c-46b2-b9df-d4600f1cedce and http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/30/nick-clegg-interview-liberal-democrats .This is an important detail - it reflects something of his background, nature and interests, particularly his internationalism. Conversely, he is mabye someone who might not enjoy the labour and detail of archaelogy.

Seems fair enough, we did not actually have a citation supporting our claim, so as you have presented a decent citation I have made the alteration and added the supporting sitation. Thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignacy Wyssogota Zakrzewski

Further to the note above, is Clegg a descendent of Ignacy Wyssogota Zakrzewski; or further to this source [2] a descendent of Ignaty Zakrevsky, a former attorney general in the imperial Russian senate? Or is he a descendent of both of them? -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Budapest

Was Clegg an FT stringer in Budapest? If so, can we get some bylined articles he wrote? And doesn`t that make him a `former journalist`? -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the war

His comment on the British attitude towards the last war is not a minor comment, but has received massive media coverage in the UK, including both criticism and praise ("tenacious obsession with the last war" returns 3,430 Google results). It is also a good illustration of his anti-nationalist, pro-Europe, pro-reconciliation stance. It was not given undue weight, it is a short comment, and this is a long article. I'm putting it back in. Doblouto (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it clearly looks a bit like it is being given undue weight to me, but we can discuss it when thing settle down. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Deputy Prime Minister

Has this actually been announced? Is he deputy prime minister? Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sky are just reporting that AP are reporting that Clegg will be deputy but there has been no official statement. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not been confirmed (Sky, really?!) it's likely but not confirmed. We need reliable sources. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not officially confirmation, I agree. john k (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is just speculation right now isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrikey (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The source we have even SAYS it's speculation. Reverted. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I've reverted all of this: wait until the news confirms it. All we have is "speculation" by "Sky News sources". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given up trying to control this article against unsourced additions. We are not Wikinews, people. Curb your enthusiasm. Rodhullandemu 21:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you might have inadvertently unprotected the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed I see. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Is he actually First Secretary of State as well? I have not see this confirmed anywhere Rutld001 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at First Secretary of State he is there also, also uncited.? Seems looking it the title is totally honourific. ? Over there is was added by user Barbassist [3] I have remoed the uncited claim from both articles and requested citations to support the claim as I have not found one. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The current First Secretary of State is William Hague, who received this title in addition to that of secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs, upon his appointment by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12 May 2010.WWW Number 10

It says Clegg has also been given the title ...Lord President of the Council (with special responsibility for political and constitutional reform) ,, Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AdamFouracre, 11 May 2010

{{editprotected}} Make revision to include reference to the fact that Nick Clegg is now the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Now confirmed.

AdamFouracre (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You will need to provide a source. Because so far you're the only person in the world who's got it confirmed. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

--Not true, the BBC is reporting over and over again.--InaMaka (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, what's the rush? Parrot of Doom 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. It can wait a few hours. Rodhullandemu 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable citations WP:RS to support any desired additions, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

[4] raseaC^{talk to me} 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That website is not going to be around long enough to be archived by WaybackMachine so is too transient to be regarded as usable longterm. If it really matters, it can be used for now but needs to be replaced by a source having longevity asap. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reuters good enough? http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE64A6AH20100511 --AdamFouracre (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the title you will see the issue...Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg to be deputy PM... not is Off2riorob (talk)

Sorry, but I really DO NOT want to live through the Liberal/SDP Alliance merger negotiations of 1987 again. However, Cameron would not have gone to the Queen without being certain of being able to secure a mandate in Parliament, and the negotiations for the current situation have been hammered out long and hard over the last few days. The only reason that specific details have not been announced is that technically Clegg needs 75% approval from both his new PP, and his Federal Executive, before the deal can be accepted. However, if the leftist wing of his party sich as Lembit Opik and Simon Hughes are accepting the deal, I can't see any realistic obstruction to this happening. Even if we only state what Reuter's are reporting, that suffices as a WP:RS for now, except that I thought we were writing an encyclopedia, not a current affairs journal. Rodhullandemu 22:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.41.44.4, 11 May 2010

{{editprotected}} article now unprotected. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr Clegg now also holds the office of Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

217.41.44.4 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable citations WP:RS for any desired addition, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/ LGF1992UK (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS does not include websites that change rapidly and will be outdated before you can say "democracy". The early editions of The Times, The Telegraph and The Guardian will be online before long. Rodhullandemu 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

EC...From the provided citation..Tory sources confirm that Nick Clegg will be deputy prime minister and that there are four other Lib Dem cabinet ministers. . Tory sources seems a bit weak to claim such a important isse. IMO its better to wait for a stronger confirmation or official announcement. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

BBC has reported it, change it all back!! raseaC^{talk to me} 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian's blog is saying Downing Street's confirmed it. I know it's not an RS, but still. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/general-election-2010-live-blog -- 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It says right here. --.:Alex:. 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"A Downing Street spokesman says: "Her Majesty The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister." from the BBC ([5]), also reported by Reuters [6]. Guest9999 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Reuters link seems pretty reliable to me. Let's put it up -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

IMO No. Better wait for an official announcement. Cameron may change him mind and say he has decided to go as a minority gov. So ..No, it is still not officially announced.Is it an official coalition they are reporting that as well? Off2riorob (talk)

OK, on that basis only I'll remove full protection for now, but there still seem to some disgruntled people out there, so I'll keep it at semi for the duration. On the latter point, some suitable wording should cover the possibility that he may change his mind , but the the rime being we have a RS for the current position, FWIW.Rodhullandemu 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Reuters is fine. Otherwise we're the ones speculating now. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Queen approved it, it's a done deal. --.:Alex:. 22:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That old cow just does as she's told. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I meant that in response to "Cameron might change his mind..." --.:Alex:. 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

At least neither Cameron nor Brown has been reported as referring to her as a "bigoted woman". Rodhullandemu 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Its a formal coalition with the conservatives. Con-Lib alliance. The LIBs are pissed that labour forced them to choose the tories, Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour were in no position to dictate terms here; Clegg was bound to talk first to the party with the largest number of seats, and votes, and let's face it, Labour would have put together some crocky Rainbow Coalition to survive, which would have meant so many accommodations that it would have detracted from the principal issue of dealing with the disastrous state of the economy. The next six months need to deal with that issue, and thereafter, it may all go tits up and another election ensues; but at least the economy should have been put back on track. Sorry to get off-topic. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected status should be removed to semi protect

Fully protected status should not be on this article its not on Gordon Brown or David Camerons so why on this?

• Article is now unprotected. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it was due to a high rate of unconstructive editing (i.e. unsourced material). raseaC^{talk to me} 22:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is now back to semi-protection, if only to deter the trolls who are unaware of the pragmatics of the situation, and only for a short while. Rodhullandemu 22:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC

There is no justification on reverting this article back to protected it should not have been protected in the first place, semi protected I agree, keep away the vandals yes but otherwise it will look like wikipedia is allowing political bias which is not on. (Rovington (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

If WP:RS has been repealed, then I as an Admin have missed that. And I made quite sure that the protection of this article, and those of the other relevant political parties, were consonant, to establish parity of approach. It happens that I judged this article, as against comparable ones, to require short-term full protection until reliable sources, as opposed to speculation, were available. So they are now. Let it be so. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I really do feel as this mans status has now reached such a high level and as time passes the article will need to be updated far more often than it was before him becoing DPM semi protect is appropriate over the long term, I do not feel regular contributors are likely to wreck the article. This may also allow citations be added to the article when found and it to be expanded over time. I would suggest removing parts with no citations. These parts removed leaves not justification for use of WP:RS (Rovington (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Lord Privy Seal?

Clegg has been added to the list of Lord Privy Seal's. I can't find a source for it, so if anyone has one could you either add it to that article or remove his name? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed paragraph re illegal logging as no citation - see further notes below

I have removed :

Clegg campaigned extensively against illegal logging, and wrote a report which advocated that World Trade Organization (WTO) rules should be waived to allow an embargo on illegally logged timber. He worked with fellow MEP Chris Davies on legislation to ban cosmetics tested on animals, pushing the law through despite arguments from the government that it was impossible under WTO rules.

My reasons for removal are that there was no citation and on trying to seek a citation I actually came across evidence that gives credit for action on illegal logging to both Gordon Brown and David Cameron, but not Nick Clegg. If someone can find a citation to credit Nick Clegg with this then it would be fair to say its cross party of all three major parties in UK otherwise the entry is not factual and should not be present in the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3296830/Cameron-takes-on-profiteers-of-illegal-logging.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3353454/Illegal-timber-in-British-garden-furniture-says-Gordon-Brown-advisor.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7617709/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-uncovered.html (Rovington (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Removed statement that was a POV and not based on fact

I have removed a statement

It was the fastest piece of legislation ever to go through the parliament, and the subject of an in-depth BBC Open University documentary on EU decision-making.

It is a POV, a quick check of Hansard and comparisons to other claims as being fastest show the statement was not a fact.

In comparison see http://www.independentliving.org/docs2/enilevans9610.html (Rovington (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Removed unsourced material

I've removed the following uncited material pending a suitable source being found (the tone was debatably POV as well):

"Critics believe that as someone who was personally embroiled in the expenses scandal and led his party to a net loss of 5 seats at the May 2010 general election, Mr Clegg has no moral right to be Deputy Prime Minister.

Many grassroots supporters deeply resent an alliance with the Conservatives, a party which historically the Liberal Democrats have viscerally opposed, and warn that that such an alliance is also likely to upset and alienate casual voters in future elections." Chrisd87 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And someone it seems has reverted this edit. I don't want to get into an edit war, so can someone else look at this please? Chrisd87 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see it on there now, without citation to a publication it must not be be in the article. Re: Grassroots support from what I am hearing from Lib Dems locally its probably true. (Rovington (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from Jss28, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Nick Clegg's religion should be changed to "None (Atheism)" rather than "Agnosticism". - SOURCE: Nick Clegg has answered "no" when asked on BBC radio if he believed in God. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7151346.stm

Jss28 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I am going to leave this edit request open to get other editor's opinions first. Chevymontecarlo. 15:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Although you have a reference, I feel that if I make the change, it will get reverted because of the amount of edits that this page is receiving at the moment. Chevymontecarlo. 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this but I have just removed the religion from the infobox, I do wish people would leave him alone and stop attempting to put him in this box or that box, it is not a big issue to him as the comments in the article allude to, saying you don't believe in god to a simple question does not assert you affiliate as an atheist and saying actually I am more of an agnostic is not asserting you are part of that group and it is important to you. It does not appear from his comments that it is important to him at all or that he actually affiliates with any group. The content is in the article and keep it out of the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. the field should be blank imho. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel it should state his religion, I recall he announced he was athiest and some voters do decide by taking into account religion or lack of it. (Rovington (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Do you think this article has got anything to do with any voting? Clegg has never clearly associated himself with any group of atheists or thiest or agnostics or anything at all. It appears he is just not bothered about it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect link

The following link is incorrect, could someone amend it. It should link to an article on Nick Clegg's win of the election but instead links to an article on Vince Cable. 50 (something) Nick Clegg is new Lib Dem leader". BBC News Online. 18 December 2007. Retrieved 18 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supposed (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem, I have corrected the URL. Keith D (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.155.139.176, 21 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the first line under the section heading "GQ Interview" the word "exasperated" is wrong. The writer apparently meant "exacerbated."

24.155.139.176 (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ForkieTMS, 23 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Request: To Add Nick Clegg to the "English Atheists" Category

ForkieTMS (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed this quite a lot and he doesn't clearly belong in that category and actually is allegedly more of an agnostic and from his comment it simply is not very important to him all of which is in the article including that he was introduced to the Catholic pope last week by the queen. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per reasons stated above. SpigotMap 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.74.72.126, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Looking at atheism and related sections, I get a feeling that Wikipedia religious editors are doing whatever they can to avoid any prominent figures' religion showing atheism or none. Just checked Nick Clegg's and Ed Miliband's page on Wikipedia. (Nick Clegg is the current British Deputy Prime Minister.) Both pages, after all those atheism section discussions, Wikipedia editors ruled not to show their religion as none or that they are an atheist in the info box on top? If my understanding is right, Wikipedia originates from the USA, a country, though not written in their constitution, in reality, is one where if a presidential candidate said they don't believe in God they're the last person on earth to become president. Europe is different and the secular UK is indeed where the current Deputy Prime Minister is an atheist and the newly elected Labour Party leader and someone who could be the British Prime Minister in the next 5 years is obviously an atheist, and it only does educational good to inform the world about it. But all that being so pedantic on definition of atheism blah blah so the articles musn't show it unlike David Miliband's page (where it does show in the infobox that his religion is none9Atheist)), I mean, both Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband said 'I don't believe in God.' If that isn't at least 'no religion' if not 'atheism,' what is? It's as clear as mud. This American Wikipedia looks like run by a bunch or devout religious editors.

87.74.72.126 (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Declined {{edit semi-protected}} requests are intended for specified edits, with reliable sources, and general discussions and debates are outside that scope. By all means, start a discussion thread, but what happens in other articles is somewhat irrelevant in particular cases. Rodhullandemu 23:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

I strongly question the need for a family tree in this article. There is only one relative shown that is of sufficient note to have a Wikipedia entry, Kira von Engelhardt, and she is referenced in the text. I don't see what this contributes, other than making the article longer. Indisciplined (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Zakrevsky

Ignaty Zakrevsky was not an "attorney general". I think you should call him a Ober-Procurator (Обер-прокурор). --Ker (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Languages

You probably won't allow this because you have a weird rule about youtube but here is an example of Clegg giving an interview in Spanish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypvKvKLfk8 Here he is being interviewed in Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XmO-4G9T0E Here he is trying his hand at German: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMnkmqXXEW0&feature=related----Shortspend (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tuition Fees

There's a guardian artile, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg, that says the Lib Dem leadership planned months before the election to abandon their pledges on tuition fees. Might be worthy of a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.27.9 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly is worthy of mention, it is certainly worthy of controversy at any rate. If you think about it he flat out lied to voters for the entirety of his campaign. 90.219.225.84 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that having a contingency plan for situation that might or might not have arisen amounts to "lying". On the contrary, it could be said to be showing a foresight unusual n British politics. The situation might be different if he had been questioned on those plans, but I don't remember that he was, and had he been, I don't think he would have said anything other than "we have plans, but do not need to reveal them until we know the situation we face after the election". The election manifesto is a statement of plans in the event of a party winning an election, but if it doesn't do so, some modification of aspirations may well be necessary for the good governance of the nation. Let's not be so naive about the reality of politics please. I've been there, and done it. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If the pledge he'd signed was "I promise to vote against any raise in tuition fees except if not doing so gets me power as a member of the government" then you may have a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.229.238 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is already a substantial section of the article which covers this and i have expanded it today to take into account the protests Notjamesbond (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It still does not mention that the leadership had a plan to abandon the pledge and that this plan was made not only made before the election but possibly before the pledges were even made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.147.228 (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Clegg and his henchman Cable must be the two of the most unprincipled politicians on the planet. They both signed a pledge not to vote in favour of increasing tuition fees; they then agree to a coalition agreement saying they can obstain;finally having devised a policy to incease them by up to 200% they say they will vote for the increase!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.202.40 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hermajesty21, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I'm currently creating an article on the "Vote for Students pledge" signed by Nick Clegg before the general election. Please could you add a wikilink? (I'm too new to edit here.)

My suggestion would be, in the "tuition fees" section:

Change: During the interview Clegg also said that he regretted not been able to keep his pre-election pledge to scrap tuition fees.

To: During the interview Clegg also said that he regretted not been able to keep his pre-election pledge to oppose tuition fee increases.

Note, the pledge was actually to oppose tuition fee increases rather than to scrap tuition fees - I listened to the source interview for that section but couldn't find any evidence that he pledged to scrap tuition fees

Thanks, --Hermajesty21 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Hermajesty21 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Once the page is created, then we could add it. Redlinks can be added to articles, but only when it is highly likely that a page can and should be created. As it's not clear to me that that pledge will meet our guidelines, I think it better to wait until the page is created. However, I or someone else will be happy to add it when/if you do get the page created; just make another request at that time. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been created, it's here: Vote for Students pledge Hermajesty21 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Have added a couple of links to this page within the tuition fees section Notjamesbond (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Hermajesty21 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Slang

Heading added. --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

HI,

This page should really mention that the term Nick Clegg has already become slang in British educational institutions for a lie, liar, or broken promise, particularly for the purposes of material gain or position

141.241.160.229 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether this is true or not (and I make no remark either way), if reliable sources have said this, then it should. If no reliable sources have done so, then it shouldn't. The criterion for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Feel free to add this claim, 141, if you can back it up with reliable references. --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism.

I think it is worth mentioning that unlike many in his party he is a conservative.

Has he said that he is? I don't remember reading that. Rodhullandemu 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an unsourced claim, this is either not from a neutral point of view or without links to evidence that to support or contest it unverifiable and should not be included in the article.

MikeBeckett (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

minor change needed

Would it be possible for someone to edit the caption under the Gurkha picture here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg#Gurkha_campaign

to remove the extra "to"

thanks. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I have removed it. Keith D (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick Clegg Esquire?

What's with the esq in his styles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.159.99 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.214.166.45, 20 April 2011

The following reference "Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent (12 November 2010). "Lib dems planned before electon to abandon tuition fees pledge". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-12-21." has a typo in it. Electon should be Election.

90.214.166.45 (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Done - David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from C4PL1N, 8 June 2011

Under "2011 Local, Scottish and Welsh Elections", in the phrase "In Scotland the party lost all it's mainland constituency seats", remove the apostrophe in it's

C4PL1N (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph article: "Attacks on Nick Clegg cost us dear, admit Liberal Democrats"

• "Posters branding Nick Clegg as "Cleggzilla", trampling over public services, helped to condemn the Lib Dems to a disastrous result in the 2011 local elections, an internal party inquiry has found."

Ben Leapman, Daily Telegraph, 27 August 2011 --Mais oui! (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Really not necessary to be added at all really. --Matt Downey (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Clegg's teenage indiscretion worthy of note when compared to his statements over teens involved in the 2011 riots?

I had an edit reverted here. The reason given is that the material "is not worthy of note". What do people think? Personally I think it's a worthwhile inclusion as it is of the "do as I say, not as I do" variety of pronouncement we see so often from those in authority. I find it revealing. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not ready to comment on whether it is worthwhile of inclusion at this point, still looking at what reliable sources are saying. I will comment on the "do as I say, not as I do". I do not see this as a "do as I say, not as I do" but as "don't do what I did". "do as I say, not as I do" to me is more of someone currently doing something and then telling others not to do it. A person who smokes telling others they shouldn't smoke, a person who speeds telling others to slow their car down. I do not see the problem with someone who did something in the past (and is no longer doing that) telling others that what they are currently doing is wrong. GB fan please review my editing 15:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that this is a case of WP:UNDUE which according to WP:BLP should not be included. First, the incident of the so-called arson may have been far less serious. By the end of the article citation it is mentioned that the Germans don't recall any arson episode but someone putting a lighter and quote: "scorching " the surface of a few plants. So the incident may be blown out of proportion. The second aspect of this is that we have only a single reference of the so-called double-standard of Clegg. Are there any other sources covering this episode? If not, this means this is a small incident which makes it WP:UNDUE weight per the BLP policy. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

what is Biteback?

Alexander, Danny with forward by Clegg Nick (2010), Why Vote Liberal Democrat?. Biteback. ISBN 978-1-849540-21-6.

This Biteback doesn't seem likely.

Also please show wp "lock". 99.181.141.143 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunday Times: "Sinking Clegg set to turn on Tories"

This could be a turning point in the stability of the coalition:

• "Nick Clegg is set to attack traditional Conservative values in an attempt to shore up his ailing leadership. The Liberal Democrat leader will ridicule Tory attempts to preserve the traditional family unit, question David Cameron’s big society and hit out at wealth and privilege in a speech tomorrow. In one of his most provocative interventions since entering No 10... an attempt to appeal to the Lib Dem grass roots following his confused response to the prime minister’s decision to veto changes to the European Union treaty. After initially backing Cameron’s handling of the summit, the Lib Dem leader had a change of heart 36 hours later when the scale of anger within his party became apparent. He began criticising Cameron’s approach, saying the consequences of using the veto were “bad for Britain”. A YouGov poll this weekend for The Sunday Times showed a slump in the public’s assessment of his performance, with 73% now saying he is doing badly, up from 65%. Two-thirds (66%) believe he handled the issue of the Brussels summit badly. Even among Lib Dem supporters that figure is 33%."

Worth keeping an eye on the reporting with an eye to verifiable, npov additions to the article, --Mais oui! (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph states "A study has shown that the Liberal Democrats got 75% of their manifesto commitments into the 'Programme for Government', whilst convincing the Conservatives to drop 40% of their manifesto." The 'study' is not peer reviewed but a report with no displayed author - is that reliable enough? - and having looked over it is full of all manner of subjective analysis. Is the text even relevent for the opening paragraph? Regardless, if it is to be included would it not be more fitting under 'Deputy Prime Minister' > 'Coalition Agreement.'77.100.209.216 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The same report is cited in the opening paragraph of the 'Liberal Democrats' article and the dispute about it has led to an edit war there, a couple of temporary blocks and the temporary locking of the topic. I agree that it's a highly tendentious report, putting numerical quantities onto unquantifiable concepts and as such is highly unencyclopedic. Riversider (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it out of the lede again. It doesn't belong in a biography intro. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, the key reason it doesnt belong in the opening para is because it isn't even about Nick Clegg. The editor who keeps replacing this sentence has numerous warnings for disruptive editing. He could change his ways and discuss it here. I hope he will. Riversider (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jewish vs Germano-Slav in "Russian" ancestry?

Regarding Clegg's Russian background, is it certain they're all of Germano-Slav Christian stock? In the UK, the phrase "Russian ancestry" and "Polish ancestry" are often used as PC euphemisms for "Ashkenazi Jew". What other sources are available on this aspect? Rí Lughaid (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter? If the sources say he has Russian ancestry, that is what we write. His ancestors would be no less Russian if they were Jewish than if they were Christian. And what do you mean by a "PC euphemism" for Jewish? RolandR (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, real Russians don't consider Ashkenazis to be Russian; they're a different race, identity, nationality... and we should record that by being specific, looking under the glass at those who hide behind "of Russian descent". Just so everybody knows where they stand. Rí Lughaid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

Who are "real Russians"? Please keep your racist prejudices out of Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians are Slavs who are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Please keep your Trot derailing out of Wikipedia, "the revolution" is over, comrade. Rí Lughaid (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Language skills

While I find Clegg having admirable language skills with fluency in both Dutch and Spanish, I have found absolutely no support for the claim made in the article that he speaks fluent French and German. Quite the opposite, the scant evidence found on youtube shows the opposite. I already removed those two languages once and suggested that the claims needed to be sourced, but my edit was undone by a user whose only argument was "rubbish". Finding that particular argument lacking, I removed the claim once again. If there are sources showing that Clegg speaks fluent German and French, they should be added.Jeppiz (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of tuition fees section

The only part of the tuition fees section appears to be the apology for signing the pledge. The other parts such as the protests are not to do with Clegg that belongs on an article only to them not on the Clegg article as it makes out Clegg was the focus of the protests or the instigator, where neither are true. The protests were against austerity as well as fees and were also aimed at the Conservative Party. The part of the section on the actual tuition fees policy and the Brown review belong on the related articles specifically not here. The signing of the pledge belongs on the NUS page and the Liberal Democrats page not here. Finally the apology and parody song are the only thins which are relevant exclusively to this article. There is nothing stopping a short paragraph which the directs to the main article. At the moment it is too much non-relevance to the subject of this article included. Sport and politics (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)