Jump to content

Talk:Julian Huppert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corrections/updates

[edit]

Hi - this is Julian, and I'm loathe to change my own entry, even for factual errors, so I'd be grateful if someone would consider making some updates:

There's no such thing as a 'Cambridge Member' of the RSC, it's just 'Member'.

I'm no longer on the National Council of Liberty, having resigned shortly after my election to avoid a potential conflict of interest if I were to end up effectively lobbying myself about issues.

I'm vice-chair of the APPG on humanism, not chair. I'm also an officer on a range of other APPGS, including Vice-chair of the APPGs on Drug Policy reform, Life Sciences, Engineering and IT and Wellbeing Economics, Secretary of the APPGs on Libel Reform, and Treasurer of the APPG on Medical Research. Use any or all of these!

As well as the Home Affairs Select Committee, I'm on the Joint Committee on Human RIghts, and am the Co-Chair of the Lib Dem Parliamentary Committee on Transport (ie speak on behalf of the Lib Dems on transport issues)

There's other more political comments I'd make - eg I secured a commitment that the worst off would get more money from the EMA replacement than under EMA - but I'll leave those and other interpretation to other people! Jlh29 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Julian Huppert was a Cambridge County Councillor for 8 years, served on the Eastern Regional Assembly, is an academic scientist at Cambridge University, (that's enough notability - ed) Laurence Boyce (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your justification that he meets POLITICIAN (point 2) or that he meets the PROF guidance? Fæ (talk)
I'd say it was more POLITICIAN (point 1). Laurence Boyce (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
County councillors haven't come under POLITICIAN 1 in the past. Nor have members of quangos regional assemblies. Wereon (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if a regional assembly isn't a sub-national body, then I'm not sure what it is. Laurence Boyce (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not elected, and it doesn't have legislative or substantial executive powers. Wereon (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? The House of Lords is not elected, has no executive power at all, and has a highly emasculated legislative function. Are you going to go removing their Lordships from Wikipedia too? A regional assembly is a sub-national potitical entity. I'm sorry that British democracy is so limp-wristed – really I am – but I can't see how that is relevant here. Laurence Boyce (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Huppert having being recently elected to the Parliament in yesterday's general election, I think it is safe to say that he is notable now (though for the record I do not think he was notable 'prior' to his election. Severe Punishment (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref.8

[edit]

Julian Huppert is said in reference 8 to be a member of the All Party Humanist Group in Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.131.204 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cycling and Refugees" seems to have no connection logically with humanism, which is apparently atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.131.204 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that made no sense. I've fixed it now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Julian's comments at the top of this page, you'll see that he is/was a vice-chair on the APPG on Humanism Bluap (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in Parliament

[edit]

At present, there is little on Huppert's voting record in Parliament and the entry reads a bit like a hagiography, in my view. I think that is a major omission in an article about an MP. I added a paragraph on how Huppert voted during key/interesting votes during the current Parliament but this has been removed. I think an article about a politician should focus on how they have voted - particularly on contentious issues. I think a lot of the rest of the article could be trimmed. Tomayates (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for the addition of voting records; selective adding is not neutral ( not including every single possible vote is the only way to not be selective) and Wikiepdia is not a news service and is not for indiscriminate addition of information (adding all votes possible would be an indiscriminate information dump) . If there are tone issues or other relevant neutral information please feel free to add that or amend the tone.21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I find this bizarre. Surely how Huppert voted on key issues in each policy area is more relevant than anything else? Not mentioning this is definitely selective - it gives the impression that all he did in Parliament was to champion science and cycling when, in fact, he voted to support a lot of controversial legislation. Regards selectivity, including awards he has received but not protests against how he voted seems selective. I will try and add a 'non selective' section on his voting record and a section on criticisms of his record in Parliament. Tomayates (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The votes listed are whipped votes for the Liberal Democrats where he voted with the Coalition line; there's nothing remarkable about his contributions there. If the votes were rebelling against his party or he had contributed significantly to the debate or expressed strong views on the subject before or after they might still be interesting, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Public Whip and TheyWorkForYou are linked at the bottom for anyone wanting to scrutinise the full voting record.
Also, you replaced my example of an independent newspaper report as an example of the inaccurate references to him as "the only scientist" in the House of Commons with a link to a Lib Dem blog which repeated the claim three months later, and also edited the text to - most likely falsely - attribute the inaccurate claim to the Lib Dems. Please do not do this. Dtellett (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regards sources for the only scientist claim, perhaps this can be moved to the controversies section? I think it is relevant that Cambridge Liberal Democrats claimed this on their website when it is demonstrably false. Regards detailing Julian Huppert's voting record, he has been vocal about renewables. I also think that how MPs vote on key issues is more remarkable than anything else about an MP. Surely this should be the focus of any article on a politician? Tomayates (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent wrote an article calling Huppert the "only scientist". A Lib Dem blog did the same afterwards, as did the BBC at some stage. Huppert subsequently corrected the misconception. Not even the most partisan interpretation can make that innocuous sequence of events into a "controversy"; as far as I'm aware you are the only person to suggest anything remotely controversial about it. Voting records are clearly _important_ - which is why exhaustive lists and campaign pamphlets exist, but Wikipedia is neither of those. If Huppert were to retire tomorrow, then he would be notable as the Parliamentarian that banged on about cycling and said he'd been bullied, and not one of 297 Parliamentarians that did what their whips told them to do and quietly voted down Opposition Day motions attacking the government for reducing the Feed In Tariff. I'd have to ask, if "how MPs vote on key issues" is what really interests you, how you managed to highlight the feed-in tariff votes and yet miss Huppert's rebellions on tuition fees and military action... and even watering down the subject of the bedroom tax?
[nb some of the generic local MP campaign stuff needed to go as well, and it now has]Dtellett (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'only scientist' assertion is still there, uncorrected, on the website of the Cambridge Liberal Democrat Party. I think repeating a false assertion is controversial. Good that you added more detail on Huppert's voting record - I think this is starting to look more like an article about a politician. Tomayates (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is in signicantly said better shape than it was at the beginning of the year.
That said, I still find it bizarre that you consider the fact an article on the Cambridgeshire Liberal Democrats' website retains an innocuous inaccurate claim on an old blog entry is remotely relevant to an encyclopedia entry on the subject of the article. Since your stated intention for including it was to manufacture a controversy, can I politely suggest you solicit feedback from others before including it again?

And again, please don't replace accurate claims with less accurate claims. Tuppert's voted for the rebel amendment giving exemptions to the Bedroom Tax is on the Public Whip link and it's in the local press, which I've now added; the fact he rebelled over the issue is the only encyclopedia-worthy aspect of his participation in the whole process...

Have to say I'm also struggling to see the link between Huppert endorsing a CBI report on the financial benefits from investment in wind farms and not rebelling against the government on reduction of a subsidy for privately owned solar panels, and it doesn't appear that any notable press sources picked it up either. A whipped vote that attracted little attention, even locally, is really not that encyclopedia-worthy, and this is coming from someone whose family earns money from the Feed In tariff! Dtellett (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That beard

[edit]

Can anyone think of an encyclopaedic way to mention that he appears to model his facial hair on Walter Ulbricht (and Lenin)? I wish him well politically and would vote for him if I still lived in Cambridge, but (1) I don't and (2) that comradely beard still troubles me. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Julian Huppert. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian Huppert. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Huppert&oldid=1207673398"