This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
The 'Expenses' section has two parts, one that deals with CF, one that deals with the police and CPS statement about expenses in general. Having the two together suggests linkage which is misleading.
Hence I've deleted it.
Rsloch (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please take a step back from the conflict between us. Discussion is the key, please talk about it in preference to reverting. As I have said , there is a public and press desire to charge these people and the statement from the police stating that no criminal offenses took place is actually a very strong encyclopediac cite very worthy of addition. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
Let me explain, if you put the section about CF's expenses next to a section saying that the police and the CPS investigated expenses the two could be linked. Not in they way you are saying but in a way that suggests the CF's expenses were investigated.
Rsloch (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
And by the way...it is normal to add sections at the bottom of the page. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
This page needs a photo to be found Matthewfelgate 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
How can this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5277350.stm be included formally? HornetMike
She's been voted sexiest woman MP now, can someone edit this in? Lukeitfc 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Flint&action=edit§ion=3 Editing Talk:Caroline Flint (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaprogrammes/worrickerawards.shtml There we go.Lukeitfc 11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a large paragraph that's recently been added to Caroline Flint#Personal_life, which is completed uncited, and could be highly problematic given WP:BLP, and the foundation's understandable preference for not getting sued. If this is a notable matter of public record, it should be easy to supply reliable sources; if it's not, this'll have to be removed. Alai 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/06/07/do0701.xml is the Boris Johnson column in which he reveals that Flint is behind the targetting of middle-class, middle-aged people who enjoy wine. Perhaps somebody could add this citation in who knows how to do it?
Have removed "The Right Honorable" from Caroline Flint's infobox. She is NOT a member of the cabinet, she merely ATTENDS cabinet and is therefore not a member of the privy council.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1371.asp
As you can see here, even the number10 website doesn't give her the title Right Honorable.
Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems rather a lot here on her expenses. It's not quite explained what the scandal is. Surely, if these expenses are a scandal, we should be told who says so and why. Some of these expenses seem normal, so which are the scandalous ones? Is any action being taken against her? The article doesn't tell us. qp10qp (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that considering her complaint that she has been considered as window dressing that it is not really suitable .. especially not in the lede. The cite is not very strong and the competion was a bit non official... so I think it should go... (Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
They come and go...and nothing much changes...(Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
Flint is quoted in the article as saying that she "...never sought to make personal gains from public funds" yet it is obvious that each claim benefits the claimant, if paid. Someone had to pay the solicitor and if not the government purse, then probably her own. Surely the very act of putting in a claim is evidence that the claimant wishes to benefit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Insisting on inserting every days press comments over one incident like her resignation is nothing less than POV pushing. It adds nothing to her bio at all , we don't work for the press to be constantly spreading their POV. (Off2riorob (talk))
'Just dropped by and gave this a gentle copy edit. 'Nothing too major; mostly toning-down some (possibly not deliberate) POV-pushing around the subject's policy activities while a Minister. As always, 'happy to discuss. John Snow II (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Caroline Flint. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/ah/2003/2003_hasler_6232_1.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)