Talk:Richard Huggett

Untitled
Neutral point of view

This article as it stands seems to be unduly biased against Mark Oaten, which is not encyclopeadic in content.

Agreed. The discussion of the events of the elections in 1997 and the later career of Mark Oaten belong elsewhere. Spuddy345

No further objections, have removed POV check. Still needs tweeking for style though. IMO Spuddy345

Surely some correction is needed for his reasons for standing? I remember Huggett on a politics radio show about by-elections a couple of years ago - he said that he kept standing because he couldn't stand the Liberal Democrats (I seem to remember him saying he found them 'sanctimonious'), and he wanted them to lose - certainly this is a far more satisfactory explanation for why he kept standing under variations of 'Liberal Democrat' than the one given, which could apply to any political party. I haven't added this, because though I remember the interview, I don't have a reference.

>>>>>>>I agree. Pity, we could do with that reference. Though for a minor and marginal political character, this entry it probably long enough. Still, i need to have a crack at that long sentance. Spuddy345

I'm not sure this really counts as a stub. for such a marginal figure, this article is pretty comprehensive. Could still do with a source for his motives though. Spuddy345

His estranged father was President of Winchester Lib Dems at the time. Rpjs (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Winchester 1997
It appears all mention of Winchester in '97 was completely removed, I've added in some very basic facts with links to the full articles as it is Winchester not the earlier Euros that frequently gets cited for the law change. Not being a regular contributor I've kept it brief and attempted neutrality (I'm a Lib Dem member originally from Devon so if I write more unavoidable bias may creep in) 77.100.150.194 (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)MatGB

Stubbifies
I have stubbified this article due to concerns about policy on unsourced claims about living people, not just the subject of the article. Can some effort be put into finding sources? I'll do my bit. Sam Blacketer 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking
I'm unsure how to do this, so I'm hoping someone else will do it for me :) There was a guy named Richard Huggett who starred in the Australian TV series Neighbours for a while. Click on his name in that article (Neighbours) and this page comes up when clearly, they are different people. Can someone fix it please? Thanks

Can we be sure this person is the primary meaning of this name. There is also the playwright, the Neighbours actor mentioned above, and a British actor who appeared in Sir Frances Drake (see what links here). To complicate matters even further, some of them could be the same person. PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On relevance
There seems to be some misunderstanding. If a subject is notable, then their entire background is 'relevant' in the sense that it may be included in their biography. It must, of course, be properly sourced. But otherwise one is left asking whether it is relevant to Adolf Hitler that he tried to make his living as a painter, or that Pope John Paul II played in goal in his youth, or that James Mason trained as an architect. It leads to any number of silly arguments; the fact is if someone gets a biography, they get a biography: that's their whole life. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a somewhat blurry line between information that is "interesting to note, even if not crucial to the article" and "trivia". A well written biography manages to include the first, but avoids the second. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I accept what you are saying but this guy isn't notable he just stood in a few elections as a no hope candidate does it really enrich my understanding of the notable aspects of his career (standing in elections) that he once studied zoology and like yachts. I think 99.9% of people looking at this page would think that completely irrelevant - they are only interested in the elections, sorry Richard Huggett you're just not that famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdylanlol (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think he isn't notable, then you should nominate the whole article for deletion; removing chunks of the article which you consider irrelevant isn't the way of solving that problem. But if the subject is notable, then his whole life is notable. May I also point out that your claim that this information is unsourced is patently untrue: the inline citation gives you precise details on the source, and being well established newspapers, they are acceptable as a reliable source: "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to be OK to me to include this. It's a biography section under another heading. If you don't think it's relevant, then gain a consensus on what needs to be done, if anything.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Huggett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061120232751/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-062.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-062.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)