Talk:Nigel Evans

Details?
in the text we read: ..." on suspicion of raping one man and sexually assaulting another, between July 2009 and March 2013"... Does this meand that there are 2 persons involved, but every time only once, all at two different dates? How can you rape an adlt man "between July 2209 and March 2013" several times??? Where do you hide him in between? Or is this blackmailing? No further details known? ++--84.73.123.149 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)--++

He was acquitted of all charges, and thus there is no need to enumerate the charges here. One sentence for acquittal after a long section is not going to work - what is left is that he was arrested and then acquitted of all charges. Collect (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is your approach in order to suggest/convince the reader that he is indeed innocent as concluded by the jury? But is it not the job of Wikipedia to simply present the facts, not convince the reader of anything? Can you explain your reasons for censoring the details? C.harrison1988 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nigel Evans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090609090324/http://wageconcern.com:80/2009/05/15/youve-made-the-tories-pull-the-bill/ to http://wageconcern.com/2009/05/15/youve-made-the-tories-pull-the-bill/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Climate change
Belief in the pseudoscience of climate change denial is not a "political view", even if is motivated by ideology, so I changed the section title "Political views" into "Views".

I removed the link to Solar variation, which is a redirect to Solar cycle, which does not explain what "Solar variation theory" is. It was obviously too fringe to mention in a mainstream science article. Even before it became redirected, Solar variation clearly said, "Changes in solar brightness are considered to be too weak to explain recent climate change". So, this guy's belief in loony ideas needs context.

Also, if we call the propaganda piece The Great Global Warming Swindle a "television documentary", we also need to say what sort of "television documentary" it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)