| Revision as of 13:45, 6 June 2007 editThe Giant Puffin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,719 edits assessed← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:25, 10 January 2008 edit undoRelata refero (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,630 edits →Encyclopaedic facts: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| I hear that Sudeley is one of those in the group of 100 or so peers who are going to raise a constitutional legal challenge against their expulsions. ] 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | I hear that Sudeley is one of those in the group of 100 or so peers who are going to raise a constitutional legal challenge against their expulsions. ] 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Encyclopaedic facts == | |||
| Can someone explain why non-notable club memberships and such like are encyclopaedic? Also a lot here is uncited, and this reads like a fairly absurd puff-piece combined with WW entry. Unless a reason is given, harsher cleanup will be undertaken. ] (]) 12:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:25, 10 January 2008
 | Biography: Peerage and Baronetage Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
His father, Michael David - a Scots Guards officer - died from wounds received at Dunkirk; his father, Felix, also an officer in the Scots Guards, died
--So who was his father? Michael David or Felix? --Aggiebud 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
He was one of those hereditary peers expelled from the Upper House by the Blair Labour government. The Lord Sudeley has been active in the Monday Club, a traditional conservative group since the 1960s.
- This is one of several skewed edits written by the same editor or editors. See also Western Goals Institute for more information. CJCurrie 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have followed CJCurrie here. The above is a factual statement. its not a question of whether Mr.Currie likes it. Its a question of whether it is true, or not. Just how does he get away with these comments? Robert I 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- The first sentence quoted is not strictly NPOV. David | Talk 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but it struck me as a bit skewed (the word "expelled" seems somewhat contentious). My main objection was to the second sentence, in any event. CJCurrie 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was saying - it's not neutral to refer to someone as being expelled because it implies a punishment and a forceful move. Best to use a neutral phrase such as "He was among the hereditary peers whose membership of the House of Lords ceased in 1999.". David | Talk 12:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I misread your initial post, sorry. CJCurrie 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course the hereditary peerage were expelled from Their House, where they have sat for 1000 years. At least thats the way they and just about everyone else sees it. Robert I 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I hear that Sudeley is one of those in the group of 100 or so peers who are going to raise a constitutional legal challenge against their expulsions. 86.129.69.37 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopaedic facts
Can someone explain why non-notable club memberships and such like are encyclopaedic? Also a lot here is uncited, and this reads like a fairly absurd puff-piece combined with WW entry. Unless a reason is given, harsher cleanup will be undertaken. Relata refero (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Categories: