Talk:Nick Clegg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Politics Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)
The context is already explained in the article. Arson in English law is "the crime of setting a fire for an unlawful or improper purpose" and since 1971 it has existed as a single offence so your belief about UK law is incorrect. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Education

I remember being in the same class as him for several years at Gayhurst, not Caldicott. Of course it was a long time ago and he might have spent some time at Caldicott too but I do not remember this. Can anyone clear up this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.33.34 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
... 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)

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)

[edit] 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. RossEnglish 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)