Talk:Malcolm Rifkind

Picture
That's a pretty awful picture, is there no better? Biddlesby 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point will soon be moot, since the picture in question is about to be speedily deleted for copyright reasons... -- simxp (talk)
 * Much better picture now up (courtesy of the man himself!) -- simxp (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Supporter of Israel
Could someone perhaps find a reference or a quote for the "strong supporter of Israel..." bit. There was one before, albeit a dead link, but this has now been removed completely. There doesn't appear to be anything about it in his official biography on the Conservative website. I checked the Conservative Friends of Israel website and couldn't find him anywhere on it.

Secondly, I am neither a huge fan of Rifkind, or even the Conservatives, but I also think the sentence is perhaps a little misleading, he is a supporter of Israel, like many other politicians in the House of Commons (many with no family there), but I wouldn't say he is a particularly "strong" one, meaning he doesn't seem emphasise it all the time, I certainly don't think of him as any kind of "apologist" (for want of a better term) for Israel, which I feel this sentence, sort of, implies. So unless there is a quote where he claims himself to be a "strong supporter..." I think the "strong", should perhaps be left out. He certainly takes an interest in the affairs of the Holy Land, through a quick google one could find that as defence minister he made assurances to Israeli leaders that Syria was ready to move forward with peace talks, working closely with Shimon Peres and in the same year, stood side by side with Yasser Arafat. Maybe worth pointing out that his support for Israel has not stopped him criticising actions of Israel that he believes to be wrong, and also emphasise that he is a supporter of Palestinians as much as he is the Israelis, I would direct anyone to his contribution to the House of Commons debate on the Gaza Strip on 18 June 2007 as evidence of this. Benson85 12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Conservative?
I understand that Rifkind is Scot by birth and culture, but, as he is elected MP in a constituency of London, I consider incorrect to describe him as a member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. Checco (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC) he previously represented Edinburgh pentlands. 82.40.4.248 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute
The rules are Be bold, Revert, Discuss. And on BLP, if in doubt, leave it out. An editor is seeking to overrule another without even citing reliable sources, claiming vandalism. Can I suggest this content dispute be resolved here rather than reinserted. Kittybrewster &#9742;  21:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that Kittybrewster's claims of not citing reliable sources are totally false,


 * Note also that Kittybrewster's edit of 13:49, 19 April 2010 in which they added a line claiming Rifkind's London Expense Claim were the "joint least" was completely false also as he was actually the joint highest.


 * Kittybrewster removed mention of his claims for his wife's travel expenses. This is factual, referenced and of high public interest due to the ongoing scandal of MPs expenses and, in this specific case, whether they should employ their spouses/claim expenses for them. The two references which BillReid removed are attached to the word "controversial" and are not meant to relate specifically to Rifkind; they instead relate to the word "controversial" and help explain why spouses employment/expenses are an issue, otherwise it may not be apparent. If you can explain a better way to phrase this please do, but, if you cannot, then do not delete them.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh good. You are discussing. Why is the claim for wife's travel to their home controversial or interesting? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". Source? How are your cites relevant? Lady R is not an employee nor is Sir Michael a Euro politician. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * a) the Expenses Scandal b) it is Rifkind's personal choice to live in Scotland and not his constituency of Kensington c) Because the majority of the UK do not believe MPs should either employ their wives or claim travel expenses for them.


 * Is it the fact that there is mention of her travel expenses or the use of the word "controversial" that bothers you?--SteamedTreacle (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) Rifkind is scarcely mentioned. (b) Yes and one he made long before Kensington & Chelsea selected him (c) he doesn't employ her; including Rifkind as of some time ago.
 * Both - The word controversial is not sourced re Rifkind. - The article becomes unbalanced by what is essentially trivia. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a strange judgement to think the Expenses Scandal is "trivia". I have reworded the mention of her expenses to link to his own as they are all part of the same issue, i.e. it is his own choice that he lives in Scotland instead of with his constituency so his, and his family's, ensuing travel expenses are not popular with the public.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot include that OPINION without a source. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a source. Read the Rawnsley quote. All the newspapers of the time reported the publics disgust with Mps claiming excessive expenses which included travel costs. Are we talking about the same thing here? --SteamedTreacle (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rawnsley said "Why on earth would you need to visit Scotland in order to represent people in London? It’s all within the rules, but it all repels voters." It doeesn't mention the wife's travel. Do not revert so as to include contentious material in a BLP. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the expenses conditions he was allowed to live wherever he wanted, that he chose to live in Scotland is not controversial at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. But the opinion of many, including Rawnsley, was that he should pay for his own and his wife's travel expenses if he chose to do so. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What has that hack Rowsley got to do with it? There is nothing notable about him quite correctly paying for his Wifes travel, all within policy. We are not involved in the demonising of politicians just because they get good expenses. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the Rawnsley quote encapsulates the issue succinctly, as per wiki recommendations on quotes. Rawnsley himself was just one of many reporters reporting on it --SteamedTreacle (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should add it to Rawsley's Biography, he is a journ and his comments about the totally legitamate expenses of this living person are valueless and opinionated. As in, Rifkind got good expenses and although these expenses were totally within policy the journalist Rawsley didn't like it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer to you my previous point. The quote is a good summary as per Wiki guidelines. Most of the the UK have been outraged by MPs and their claims. Having transparency of them is pretty basic. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The disputed content
In addition to his own travel costs his expenses also included travel expenses for his wife.http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/malcolm_rifkind/kensington_and_chelsea http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/finances.cfm

What is notable or controversial with this? It was totally within policy? Why should we even mention it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal


 * It is pretty evident that choosing not to live with your constituency is a personal choice and the ensuing associated travel costs are not popular with the public. During 2009 Rifkind's travel expenses were reported across national newspapers. The Expenses Scandal still has not gone away. It is also arguably more relevant when you consider he is the chairman of the Standards and Priveleges commitee so should be setting an example to the other MPs as well as to the public.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't report what we think he arguably has a duty to be better than everybody else. What did he do that was against policy, was he charged or rebuked in any official way? Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010(UTC)


 * I suspect you are not British as you are asking that? Whether he was officially charged is not the point, that he claimed these expenses is. And they are relevant because of the continuing Expenses Scandal. It is fact that he claimed them. It is fact that MPs Travel Expenses are highly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteamedTreacle (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please I am busy for this, he did nothing wrong, move along. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with mentioning any criticism that is reported in reliable sources of this fact. But it doesn't need to be a major component of the article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There has been very concise information on this very important issue. The sources so far quoted have been www.theyworkforyou.com and the actual parliamentary expenses pages at www.parliament.uk. Straight from the "Horses Mouth" so to speak. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not notable, it is not aganst any policy, of course all widely reported and notable criticism is welcomed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people think MPs should not claim any travel expenses, others that they should claim just for themselves and others that they should claim for both themselves and their wives. In the name of accountability, which Kittybrewster says she supports, it is important that people can see exactly what he has claimed for. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting your opinions all over the place, where are the citations that it is notable and was reported? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

These sources,, , , , support the criticism of Rifkind. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, only the two Bloombergcites mention the travel,  ConservativeMalcolm Rifkind received 3,066 pounds last year for flights to his home in Scotland -- although he represents a district just three subway stops from Parliament. Labour’s Rudy Vis, whose constituency lies 9 miles north of Big Ben, collected for driving 15,168 miles -- the equivalent of more than halfway around the world it looks a bit worthless imo, he did nothing wrong, it was all within guidelines and totally legsal and correct, if anyone wants to add a comment about it, those issues also need citing and including as it will appear as if he did something wrong when he did nothing wrong, this would cause issues of weight and suchlike. Actually those bloomberg cites are just long lists of claims MPs made, the relevance is doubtful, according to the bloomberg article he could have flown round the world twice, ok. The fact remains, he did nothing wrong at al and was not reprimanded at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No 4 is dated 2003. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Err. No it is not fact that he did no wrong, it is opinion. In cases like this isn't it customary to a) state the facts, i.e. what the expenses were, and to present both sides of the argument? Or do you think you should only present one side of the argument? --SteamedTreacle (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept that 4 is dated. You don't seem to comprehend that this is a big issue in the UK. Perhaps you missed "It’s amazing some of the things they’ve given themselves over the years,” said Andrew Rawnsley, author of “Servants of the People,” a history of Tony Blair’s government. “Why on earth would you need to visit Scotland in order to represent people in London? It’s all within the rules, but it all repels voters.”Questions over the expenses British lawmakers claim have rocked Parliament in the past two weeks. House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin was forced to resign, the first time the legislature’s presiding officer was ousted since 1695. Prime Minister Gordon Brown this week proposed an independent panel to set pay levels and guidelines for reimbursable expenses.". It may have been within the rules, but it has upset the British electorate. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, add it to the Rowsley article. its valueless jouno commentary, the answer is because he lived there and that was totally correct, yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rowsley said he didn't think the politicians should have been able to claim their totally within policy expenses. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that in America the ability of Senators/Congressmen to employ their spouses and claim expenses for them was banned years ago and they look down on the British system as being inferior.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your belief is noted. But it is unsourced and wholly irrelevant. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  03:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is there in the article and balanced by his cited decision not to claim these expenses any more, so I don't see any problem. If Off2riorob is bored by this, then I suggest that they don't comment anymore. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake can I suggest that just the teeny weeny words "and his wife's travel expenses" is added somewhere. It concisely clarifies what he has claimed for in the past and is easily provable.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It can't be done. Because it implies that he somehow broke the rules in some significant way or at all. That is quite wrong. He didn't. It is not NPOV. I am baffled why you are picking on this poor chap who used to make these trivial legal taxable expense claims and no longer does so. It is a non-notable unencyclopedic non-story which unbalances the article. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  03:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite is a weasel word and implies that he did something wrong. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are going in circles. It is your POV that his travel expenses were not wrong. As it was reported across national newspapers your POV is not shared by the UK.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From the wiki NPOV page:-



''It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened, moved to a new article, or even removed entirely on the grounds that it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below.''


 * As it was reported in national papers, and the Expenses scandal, is still a big issue, the views for and against his expense claims are all valid. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is essentially an issue of weighting - i.e. what weight should we put on this issue? Rifkind clearly wasn't any kind of major figure in the expenses scandal. At the moment the only source for suggesting that anything he did was inappropriate is a more or less throwaway line by Andrew Rawnsley. That looks to me very much like "giving undue weight to a minor point of view" - in this case, literally only one person's point of view. He was not found to have done anything improper - a fact which is not mentioned in the article. I propose to remove the expenses section as undue weight on the views of one individual. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a minor point of view and is balanced by the last line--SteamedTreacle (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing that it's only one individual's point of view? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The fact that Bloomberg, etc deemed it worthwhile reporting shows it is a major issue. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a43L_nXgklbw&refer=uk


 * "'Members of Britain’s Parliament have received reimbursements for the cost of travel to homes far from the districts they represent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on parliamentary expense reports.'" etc, etc--SteamedTreacle (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * specify etc etc Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you not think that this matter being reported widely indicates it is not a trivial issue? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a43L_nXgklbw&refer=uk --SteamedTreacle (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It has not been. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any British person knows full well the expenses scandal has been a major concern, including travel costs. The Rifkind case was reported across the national press when the story broke. In addition it was reported internationally e.g. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a43L_nXgklbw&refer=uk If it was trivial this would not have happened. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the "expenses scandal" which is dealt with in another article. We are dealing with Rifkind's wife's travel expenses in a BLP article. You make assertions that they were reported across the press so as to make it encyclopedic and notable and verified. But you don't cite them. It is not enough to say "Any fule kno that". Kittybrewster   &#9742;  11:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We are talking about both the Expenses Scandal and Rifkinds own expenses, both of which were widely reported and a very big issue. Pls look back at the above posts; different people have been talking about slightly different things.


 * Rifkinds wifes expenses were included to add some more detailed info; it was orginally sourced although you removed the refs.


 * I will repost an earlier comment by me:-


 * Some people think MPs should not claim any travel expenses, others that they should claim just for themselves and others that they should claim for both themselves and their wives. In the name of accountability, which Kittybrewster says she supports, it is important that people can see exactly what he has claimed for.


 * There is nothing contestable about the fact he claimed for his wife. To say he claimed just for himself is inaccurate as he claimed for both himself and his wife. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to back up your assertions wiith relevant reliable cites, showing the issue is notable. Lady Rifkind's expenses are mentioned in the Guardian (as part of a list) [ref 8] but are no more notable than Centrally Purchased Stationery £479. This is an encyclopedia and not an opportunity for folk to attack Sir Michael. Fewer opinions and more cites please. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Politicians shovelled nearly £8million of taxpayers' money to their families last year, it was revealed last night.
 * MPs employed their relatives or paid for their road, rail and air travel using their generous Commons expenses.
 * One was criticised for claiming £500 for his wife to make three trips to Westminster - even though his West London constituency is just three miles away. 
 * Sir Malcolm Rifkind claimed £500 for his wife's trips to London, despite living only three miles away"


 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166257/MPs-7-7m-expenses-family-employing-relatives-paying-travel.html


 * "MPs charged the taxpayer £461,000 for their wives and children's travel costs, newly-published figures show."


 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5078669/MPs-expenses-We-pay-460000-for-wives-and-children-to-travel.html
 * --SteamedTreacle (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The second is not relevant as it does not mention Rifkind.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind claimed £500 for his wife's trips to London, despite living only three miles away.

So thats £500 accounted for. That leaves £460,500 to find. Lets see, with 647 MPs in the Commons thats an average of £713 per MP. So Rifkind actually claimed 30% LESS than the average MP. Time to call a halt to this silliness, methinks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That puts it in context. Alastair Darling £9,674 and Charles Kennedy £11,296 yet neither gets SteamTreacled. I regard Rifkind's expenses as a non-notable non-issue and think the entire section should be removed per ChrisO. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think sections 4 & 5 (Content dispute & The disputed content) should now be removed from this talk page. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Attacking me is just trying to change the subject. Because other MPs have similar claims is not to say that it isn't valid to include it for this one. You are just changing the rules to suit your own POV, i.e. you claim there is no reference and when one is provided you move the goalposts. By not including verifiable criticism it becomes a NPOV issue. The Expenses section should not have been removed without this discussion being resolved so it is reinstated. Talk page section should stay for future ref --SteamedTreacle (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking you. I challenged you to produce cites showing Rifkind's expenses are notable. You have not done so. It is clear they are not notable. Particularly when compared with those of other contemporaries. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Claiming that 3 mile trips cost £500 is clearly notable. A taxi would have only cost £60 so there is an issue of asking the taxpayer to pay for this. How can you justify £500 for 3 three mile trips? --SteamedTreacle (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that Malcom Rifkinds own flight expenses between London/Scotland and his wifes taxi trips are 2 related but different issues. Removing his flight information is not justified in relation to his wifes taxi fares. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "his flights -- which comprised 2,567 pounds for himself and 499 pounds for his wife" (Bloomberg). They live in Scotland. Where do you get that 3 three mile trips by taxi cost £500? It would have cost only £60. Do you understand "original research" and NPOV? Has the ham fallen out of your sandwich? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kitty please debate the article instead of making abusive comments like "Has the ham fallen out of your sandwich?". I repeat again Kitty "How can you justify £500 for 3 three mile trips?". That is the point about his wife's Taxi trips. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * flights ... £499. Get it? Home (Scotland) / Westminster / Constituency. How do 3 taxis come into it? What is your source? We need sources on wiki. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kitty please read the dailymail article above and the extract from it in bold. MPs have a duty to minimise their expenses. How do justify paying £500 for 3 three mile trips? --SteamedTreacle (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Proves the Mail is not a RS. They live in Scotland. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No it does not prove the Mail is not a RS; I just misread it and it actually says way down the bottom "He said the claim was likely to relate to a journey from his family home in Edinburgh." So the issue with it is 1) claiming for travel expenses between Scotland and London which is supported by the Bloomberg and Telegraph cites and 2) claiming for spouses expenses as per the Mail and Telegraph. Sorry Chris but concensus has not been reached so I have reinstated.
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5078669/MPs-expenses-We-pay-460000-for-wives-and-children-to-travel.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166257/MPs-7-7m-expenses-family-employing-relatives-paying-travel.html
 * http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a43L_nXgklbw&refer=uk
 * --SteamedTreacle (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean unanimity. So far we have four editors who believe this material should not be included; you are the only one who believes it should be. However, you're clearly pushing your own personal point of view. This is unacceptable in a biography of a living person; if you continue to revert against consensus, you're likely to find yourself being blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, my POV is that Lady Rifkind is a very courageous person. A little research will tell you why I think that. It does not follow, however, that my POV should be incorporated in this article. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true, I also supported the material staying in the article. It is cites and notable. Opposition to its inclusion seems to revolve around the personal opinions of opposing editors. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of personal opinions. Content may be cited, but the question is whether it's notable. In this case, there's no clear evidence that it is; Rifkind claimed a trivial amount, did so within the rules and was not found to have done anything improper. One source, a journalist, has claimed in passing that he did something inappropriate (although even he admits that it's "all within the rules"). The claims about Rifkind appear to have received a minimal amount of media attention. WP:UNDUE sets a clear standard - material may be "removed entirely on the grounds that it gives undue weight to a minor point of view". On top of that, SteamedTreacle is clearly acting here as an advocate against Rifkind - "How can you justify £500 for 3 three mile trips?" etc etc. Those factors together suggest to me that SteamedTreacle is attempting to use this article for advocacy against its subject by putting undue weight on an issue which received minimal media coverage and the opinion in passing of a single journalist - a classic case of coatracking. WP:BLP strongly discourages such an approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO what you claim is totally untrue; it is not just one journalist. The claims received national and international coverage. Multiple links have been provided not just the Rawnsly one. Please read them.
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5078669/MPs-expenses-We-pay-460000-for-wives-and-children-to-travel.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166257/MPs-7-7m-expenses-family-employing-relatives-paying-travel.html
 * http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a43L_nXgklbw&refer=uk
 * Why is it you are claiming that it was only one jounrnalist that reported this scandal? --SteamedTreacle (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is also a red herring to say that £XXX is a trivial amount. If an MP was caught stealing DVDs they may only cost a few pounds but they would be lynched. The issue with expenses is that they are taking advantage of the "gravy train" and setaling from the taxpayer. The claim that an expense isn't notable becasue of its cost is completely false. It is the principal that is the issue. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what is being said here. See Straw man. The coverage regarding Rifkind's expenses is minimal. They were allowed, legal and taxable. It is outrageous that you compare him with a mythical thief. Yet another unsourced opinion. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage regarding Rifkind was widespread and the controversy arround expenses is as much an issue as it was a year ago. You state above your strong admiration for Mrs Rifkind so have exposed a blatent bias. This explains your continued vandalism, ie. covering up what Rifkind actually did by deleting. Were the edits by User:194.60.38.198 you too? --SteamedTreacle (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rifkind is notable as an ex-Foreign Secretary, not for what was claimed which was small and legal. As stated above his expenses claims are one of the very lowest in parliament and it is plainly POV editing in a BLP situation.  There has been scandalous behaviour by MPs which deserves scrutiny, but Malcolm Rifkind is certainly not one.  Suggest you put things in perspective and move on to some of the other guys--there's plenty of them! --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just arrived here and have reviewed this issue and note that this article could have, and should have, been mentioned in the Telegraph story MPs' scandals covered up on Wikipedia because that is exactly what has gone on here. Whether the subject has done anything wrong is totally irrelevant. If multiple reliable sources have made an issue out of something, in this case expenses, it ought to be included. The people trying to exclude this material are engaging in a form of WP:SYNTH, namely, arguing that adding this material A implies B (he did something wrong) and "not B" therefore "not A". The fallacy is trying to go past A in the first place. Reliable sources made an issue out of the subject's expenses. It's reported in a neutral fashion. Case closed.Bdell555 (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's an issue of undue weight. Rifkind's expenses were mentioned briefly, in passing, in a handful of articles. At no time did they become a significant political issue. They are little more than political trivia in the overall context of Rifkind's career. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly grant the potential for undue weight, but weight currently assigned is ZERO. When not one but two articles about expenses feature Rifkin's photo as if to present exhibit A, it is simply incorrect to call it a mention "in passing".  In terms of "significant political issue" (please cite the Wiki policy that says that this is the standard for inclusion/exclusion), that might be the finding of your WP:OR (where is the reliable source for your claim? - not that that's the standard anyway).  Your argument (that it's a non-issue) can, and often has been, used to delete pretty much anything and everything.  Wikipedia has an established standard here, and that's that it is a non-issue if no reliable source has picked it up.  That's not the case here, where the sources are multiple.Bdell555 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is mere "trivia" why such efforts to delete it? When there is a Talk page discussion of this length, the presumption is that there is a serious disagreement, and I would think both sides would acknowledge that the order side feels the matter is important.  Since when do Bloomberg and Daily Mail devote themselves to chasing "trivia"?  You are effectively claiming that these articles could appear under the "diversions" section many media outlets have, yet I see no support for this suggestion that that's how they were categorized.Bdell555 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I might add that it is entirely possible to put a mention of the expenses in context if a mention would be out of context by, say, noting that the MP's expenses were amongst the lowest.Bdell555 (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this, a line (NOT a section of its own) in the chronology to the effect of
 * During the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, Rifkin had what the Evening Standard termed "a minor scrape with the Daily Telegraph" concerning his expenses for flights to Scotland. (Cited to Will Rifkind be up to standard?)
 * In other words, replace EDITOR opinion about non-scrape vs minor scrape vs big deal with CITED SOURCE opinion and apply weight that is greater than zero but really not that much greater. It also leaves open the possibility that Rifkind was just persecuted by the Daily Telegraph, which is practically an indulgence given that Bloomberg, the Daily Mail, and even the Sun also called at least some attention to Rifkind's expenses.Bdell555 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

QC
His QC title is a largely honorary one, is it not, of the kind that used to be awarded to MPs who had been barristers for a while? (As opposed to Ken Clarke, or even Michael Howard who was a QC before entering Parliament)Paulturtle (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)