This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jacqui Smith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
A news item involving Jacqui Smith was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 April 2009. |
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 article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't Jacqui Smith, an important member of the government, after all, deserve a photograph? Your policy regarding photographs should be reconsidered. After all, US politicians' photos are heavily featured. Are not the DH and DWP some of the largest government departments? The NHS is not just a tiny organisation without global significance.
If you can find a usable uncopyrighted photo, feel free to add it to the page Lamuella 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite this fact, it has been widely acknowledged that major crimes such as serious assault, rape & murder have increased year-on-year under the Labour government and, as of 2008, are at their highest level under said government.
If this is such a "widely acknowledged" fact, why is it not sourced? I also fail to see what Labour's record on crime has to do with her, when she's only been in the position of Home Secretary for one of Labour's eleven plus years in power. I thus question the paragraph's purpose in this article, along with allegations that she's a "liar".
This article is biased and needs cleaning to meet with Wikipedia's standards. Any negative assertions are not compensated for with opposing arguments and some aren't even referenced to a reliable, impartial source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger Warrior ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Are her parents alive or dead? Is her sister whom she lives with her only sibling? What is her husband's occupation? Nietzsche 2 ( talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Her husband is a 'Parliamentary Assistant' employed by Jacqui Smith for a reported £40k a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.44.197.132 ( talk) 13:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:WELLKNOWN suggests that "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth". This edit may not comply and should possibly be redacted. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 10:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am amzed that this person can claim so much in expenses and not be held to account. If it were you or I claiming for this amount I am sure that we would be asked questions. Why do we as memebers of the public that actually voted for this party now have to put up with being musled in this way. It is appalling and the party should be ashamed of themeselves. It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that whoever is in power eventually succumbs to the power themselves and think themselves invinsible. This is the time for change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.156.224 ( talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wat een kut wijf is dit zeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.188.115 ( talk) 11:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, without realising, I have reverted an edit more than three times in an attempt to remove some questionable parts of the article. There is a dispute over how much can be written about the Dutch MP being banned from the UK, so instead of reverting again, I will leave it for now, in the hope that the situation will resolve itself. If anyone would like to take a look at it, or give their opinion on the dispute, I would be grateful for that. Best wishes to all. Sky83 ( talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why has the ban on Geert Wilders been removed? It is one of the most important controversies of our time and needs mentioning in detail, if it is not re-added I will claim the article NPOV. Twobells ( talk) 12:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"She lives in South London with her sister." Yeah right. What she really does is to claim to live in the box-room of her sister's house in south London and that this ludicrous falsehood enables her to enrich herself to the tune of 25000 pounds per year. If this isn't theft from the public purse I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rush-is-right ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It works like this. It is allowed that MPs living outside of London need to spend money to support themselves while attending the Westminster Parliament. So MPs are allowed to claim the cost of their secondary residence as if it were an out of pocket expense. But what Mrs Smith has done has been to claim that the room at her sister's house in London that she dwells in from time to time is her primary residence, and this stunt enables her to render the costs relating to her real main home in Redditch refundable. So she benefits by claiming the mortgage interest payments and all the utility expenses and furnishing allowances etc. etc. from her Redditch property which in reality is her main residence. It's an obvious fraud which the Parliamentary Commissioner is investigating. Rush-is-right
She was interviewed by Marr this morning; I'm not sure how much of the content of it should be included in the article, but it should be mentioned. She claimed that she does spend more time at her sister's house than at her Redditch house. Other topics covered were immigration, using evidence obtained through torture and Guantanamo inmate Binyam Mohamed being allowed to move to the UK again. Nietzsche 2 ( talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I could not believe my ears. [1] 124.87.202.56 ( talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is very little on the Secretary's purchase of porn films and claiming the cost back from the United Kingdom taxpayers. Can this information be added to the lead? This news has been flashed around the world, I saw the news break in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. Other information would be: what films did Ms Smith watch?, has she purchased any other adult films, pornography or sex toys using UK tax collection receipts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.44.226 ( talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, she changed the rules about prostitution in UK. This was also very controversial, because prostitution is still legal but it is illegal for the customer if the "lady" was forced to do it (which is impossible to check). Isn't it worthy to mention this as well? Mrwoody ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC).
Someone added this. I would add that this is quite a controversial change (since the client doesn't know the status of a prostitute). There was an article on the economist about this few months ago. Mrwoody ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC).
In the wake of her dodgy "second home" claims, and porngate, should this not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.208.122 ( talk) 13:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In reponse to Jacqui Smith's reoccuring expense scandals, the Jury Team - an organisation aimed at getting more Independent candidates into Parliament - launched an attack ad against her on 3rd March 2009. It went on the website of the Redditch Advertiser (the local newspaper for her constituency) and on a number of internet sites. See http://www.order-order.com/2009/04/jury-finds-jacqui-guilty/, http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/jury-team-launches-attack-ad-against.html, http://www.juryteam.org/blog/?page_id=277 JuryTeam ( talk) 10:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not done for now; it's not clear that the event is notable. If you wish to proceed with this edit, please give;
Then, please re-post your request here.
Best regards, Chzz ► 08:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The characterisation of Jacqui Smith's policies as "authoritarian" does not comply with Wikipedia's requirement that biographies should adopt a neutral point of view. The term "authoritarian" is pejorative and is a matter of opinion, not fact. Matthewburchell ( talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is libellous to say that Jacqui Smith is currently under investigation for "corruption". The term corruption implies criminal wrongdoing. The complaint being investigated about her expenses relates to House of Commons rules and is not a criminal matter. Matthewburchell ( talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Matthew Burchell is an alias for Matthew Burchell.
I am pleased to see that this has been edited, but it is still wrong. The revised wording says she is being investigated for "illegally" claiming expenses. That is not true. What is being investigated is an alleged breach of House of Commons rules, not a breach of the law. Matthewburchell ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
In October, 2008, Jacqui Smith banned certain foreign individuals from traveling to the United Kingdom. In May of 2009, she released the names of 16 banned individuals because of "certain behaviors." ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html) Included in this list were racially-motivated murderers, anti-gay activists and radio talk show host Michael Savage. Michael Savage threatened to sue Ms. Smith for defamation. Ms. Smith defended her choice of individuals. "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded." she said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakellog ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You fucking morons. TungstenCarbide IV ( talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why I should not remove sourced content. I see no reason why we should have to go into such deatail about what Smith has claimed for. We are not being so detailed for other members of Parliament, and I doubt we would for Smith if we hadn't had the affair of the Pornos. I also think claims such as 'People think she is certain to be sacked' are just mad. It seems bloody likely, but it is still opinion, and adds an undue weight of implicit criticism to her article. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The radio talk show personality banned from entering Britain goes by the stage name "Michael Savage". For encyclopedic purposes, we should be using the individual's real name, which is Michael Alan Weiner. It just seems inappropriate to be writing things like "Savage was putatively singled out for expressing on air", when this is a wholly made-up last name. Instead, the appropriate thing to do is mention "Michael Savage" as the stage name, and theretofore using his real name, so as to not lead credence to his fabrication.-- Cumbiagermen ( talk) 01:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Her husband likes to watch adult films at taxpayers expense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.123.237 ( talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Guido Fawkes blog < Not much yet, but keep an eye out. - 137.44.1.200 ( talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to be portraying Smith from a negative point of view. Accusations and controversies... It is supposed to be encyclopediac biography of a living person and not a tabloid rag mag. Any objections to a more balanced rewrite? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
I would find a comment from a minister like that a good reflection of their honesty, her career has been fine, some people don't like her and some do, its fine that you don't but I like to see a decent article and imo recent edits to this article have done little to improve it, any way the election is soon and after that people will move on and then I will give this article a fair rewrite. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. I have not read all of the above text, but I read the first few lines, and this article is very biased. I am from America, and I had never heard of this women before reading this article. It is clear that she may have been a sub-par politician, but the article seems like it was written by her political opponents, not by wikipedia editors. Maybe those editors are her opponents? Hmmm... I don't know if a complete rewrite should be done, but it does need serious work. Charles35 ( talk) 04:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
links 6 and 7 are dead and need a new link to the cited information. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) replaced. Done
15, is a cnn page not found. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) changed Done
from the article.... Smith is currently under investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for standards over accusations that she inappropriately claimed expenses for her sister's home in London
Is she still under investigation or has it all been decided now? Off2riorob ( talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking around the internet it looks like no action was taken and no charges were brought and the investigation is over....please let me know if you know anything different, ta. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to argue, but I preferred the previous infobox image. [2] The current photo is awful, she looks like she is pulling a face with her teeth.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Jacqui_Smith,_September_2009_cropped Ah, posting this and looking up this was discussed six months ago, it has been inserted again. I don't think it is very good portrayal of her but it is newer and apart from the poor portrayal closer to MOS, she is looking at the camera etc, the comment is taken surprised which is telling in itself, what do other editors think? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
She's not an MP. She has no job. She is not currently a professional politician. She is no more a politician that you or me. Etc etc. That is why her description should read 'former Labour politician'
Until she announces her new job with Labour, if she gets one, it should read former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.129.111 ( talk) 11:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of what the new editor, was saying was true, review his edits, he may have a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryhater. ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Toryhater. ( talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
11:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Mid_Worcestershire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s. Is this Jacqui Smith standing for Labour? Crooked cottage ( talk) 00:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Jacqui Smith. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jacqui Smith. 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.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05057.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacqui Smith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jacqui Smith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: the photograph with the teeth and the photoshopped grey background was and still is awful. It doesn't provide anything like a suitable image for identifying Smith and would be rejected by most news agencies. This image from a press release isn't perfect, but it is much more natural. There is a limiting factor of WP:NFCC and there are only two images of Smith on Wikimedia Commons, which is remarkable considering that she was once Home Secretary.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jacqui Smith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
A news item involving Jacqui Smith was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 April 2009. |
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 article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't Jacqui Smith, an important member of the government, after all, deserve a photograph? Your policy regarding photographs should be reconsidered. After all, US politicians' photos are heavily featured. Are not the DH and DWP some of the largest government departments? The NHS is not just a tiny organisation without global significance.
If you can find a usable uncopyrighted photo, feel free to add it to the page Lamuella 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite this fact, it has been widely acknowledged that major crimes such as serious assault, rape & murder have increased year-on-year under the Labour government and, as of 2008, are at their highest level under said government.
If this is such a "widely acknowledged" fact, why is it not sourced? I also fail to see what Labour's record on crime has to do with her, when she's only been in the position of Home Secretary for one of Labour's eleven plus years in power. I thus question the paragraph's purpose in this article, along with allegations that she's a "liar".
This article is biased and needs cleaning to meet with Wikipedia's standards. Any negative assertions are not compensated for with opposing arguments and some aren't even referenced to a reliable, impartial source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger Warrior ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Are her parents alive or dead? Is her sister whom she lives with her only sibling? What is her husband's occupation? Nietzsche 2 ( talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Her husband is a 'Parliamentary Assistant' employed by Jacqui Smith for a reported £40k a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.44.197.132 ( talk) 13:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:WELLKNOWN suggests that "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth". This edit may not comply and should possibly be redacted. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 10:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am amzed that this person can claim so much in expenses and not be held to account. If it were you or I claiming for this amount I am sure that we would be asked questions. Why do we as memebers of the public that actually voted for this party now have to put up with being musled in this way. It is appalling and the party should be ashamed of themeselves. It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that whoever is in power eventually succumbs to the power themselves and think themselves invinsible. This is the time for change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.156.224 ( talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wat een kut wijf is dit zeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.188.115 ( talk) 11:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, without realising, I have reverted an edit more than three times in an attempt to remove some questionable parts of the article. There is a dispute over how much can be written about the Dutch MP being banned from the UK, so instead of reverting again, I will leave it for now, in the hope that the situation will resolve itself. If anyone would like to take a look at it, or give their opinion on the dispute, I would be grateful for that. Best wishes to all. Sky83 ( talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why has the ban on Geert Wilders been removed? It is one of the most important controversies of our time and needs mentioning in detail, if it is not re-added I will claim the article NPOV. Twobells ( talk) 12:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"She lives in South London with her sister." Yeah right. What she really does is to claim to live in the box-room of her sister's house in south London and that this ludicrous falsehood enables her to enrich herself to the tune of 25000 pounds per year. If this isn't theft from the public purse I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rush-is-right ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It works like this. It is allowed that MPs living outside of London need to spend money to support themselves while attending the Westminster Parliament. So MPs are allowed to claim the cost of their secondary residence as if it were an out of pocket expense. But what Mrs Smith has done has been to claim that the room at her sister's house in London that she dwells in from time to time is her primary residence, and this stunt enables her to render the costs relating to her real main home in Redditch refundable. So she benefits by claiming the mortgage interest payments and all the utility expenses and furnishing allowances etc. etc. from her Redditch property which in reality is her main residence. It's an obvious fraud which the Parliamentary Commissioner is investigating. Rush-is-right
She was interviewed by Marr this morning; I'm not sure how much of the content of it should be included in the article, but it should be mentioned. She claimed that she does spend more time at her sister's house than at her Redditch house. Other topics covered were immigration, using evidence obtained through torture and Guantanamo inmate Binyam Mohamed being allowed to move to the UK again. Nietzsche 2 ( talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I could not believe my ears. [1] 124.87.202.56 ( talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is very little on the Secretary's purchase of porn films and claiming the cost back from the United Kingdom taxpayers. Can this information be added to the lead? This news has been flashed around the world, I saw the news break in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. Other information would be: what films did Ms Smith watch?, has she purchased any other adult films, pornography or sex toys using UK tax collection receipts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.44.226 ( talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, she changed the rules about prostitution in UK. This was also very controversial, because prostitution is still legal but it is illegal for the customer if the "lady" was forced to do it (which is impossible to check). Isn't it worthy to mention this as well? Mrwoody ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC).
Someone added this. I would add that this is quite a controversial change (since the client doesn't know the status of a prostitute). There was an article on the economist about this few months ago. Mrwoody ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC).
In the wake of her dodgy "second home" claims, and porngate, should this not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.208.122 ( talk) 13:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In reponse to Jacqui Smith's reoccuring expense scandals, the Jury Team - an organisation aimed at getting more Independent candidates into Parliament - launched an attack ad against her on 3rd March 2009. It went on the website of the Redditch Advertiser (the local newspaper for her constituency) and on a number of internet sites. See http://www.order-order.com/2009/04/jury-finds-jacqui-guilty/, http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/jury-team-launches-attack-ad-against.html, http://www.juryteam.org/blog/?page_id=277 JuryTeam ( talk) 10:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not done for now; it's not clear that the event is notable. If you wish to proceed with this edit, please give;
Then, please re-post your request here.
Best regards, Chzz ► 08:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The characterisation of Jacqui Smith's policies as "authoritarian" does not comply with Wikipedia's requirement that biographies should adopt a neutral point of view. The term "authoritarian" is pejorative and is a matter of opinion, not fact. Matthewburchell ( talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is libellous to say that Jacqui Smith is currently under investigation for "corruption". The term corruption implies criminal wrongdoing. The complaint being investigated about her expenses relates to House of Commons rules and is not a criminal matter. Matthewburchell ( talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Matthew Burchell is an alias for Matthew Burchell.
I am pleased to see that this has been edited, but it is still wrong. The revised wording says she is being investigated for "illegally" claiming expenses. That is not true. What is being investigated is an alleged breach of House of Commons rules, not a breach of the law. Matthewburchell ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
In October, 2008, Jacqui Smith banned certain foreign individuals from traveling to the United Kingdom. In May of 2009, she released the names of 16 banned individuals because of "certain behaviors." ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html) Included in this list were racially-motivated murderers, anti-gay activists and radio talk show host Michael Savage. Michael Savage threatened to sue Ms. Smith for defamation. Ms. Smith defended her choice of individuals. "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded." she said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakellog ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You fucking morons. TungstenCarbide IV ( talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why I should not remove sourced content. I see no reason why we should have to go into such deatail about what Smith has claimed for. We are not being so detailed for other members of Parliament, and I doubt we would for Smith if we hadn't had the affair of the Pornos. I also think claims such as 'People think she is certain to be sacked' are just mad. It seems bloody likely, but it is still opinion, and adds an undue weight of implicit criticism to her article. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The radio talk show personality banned from entering Britain goes by the stage name "Michael Savage". For encyclopedic purposes, we should be using the individual's real name, which is Michael Alan Weiner. It just seems inappropriate to be writing things like "Savage was putatively singled out for expressing on air", when this is a wholly made-up last name. Instead, the appropriate thing to do is mention "Michael Savage" as the stage name, and theretofore using his real name, so as to not lead credence to his fabrication.-- Cumbiagermen ( talk) 01:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Her husband likes to watch adult films at taxpayers expense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.123.237 ( talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Guido Fawkes blog < Not much yet, but keep an eye out. - 137.44.1.200 ( talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to be portraying Smith from a negative point of view. Accusations and controversies... It is supposed to be encyclopediac biography of a living person and not a tabloid rag mag. Any objections to a more balanced rewrite? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
I would find a comment from a minister like that a good reflection of their honesty, her career has been fine, some people don't like her and some do, its fine that you don't but I like to see a decent article and imo recent edits to this article have done little to improve it, any way the election is soon and after that people will move on and then I will give this article a fair rewrite. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. I have not read all of the above text, but I read the first few lines, and this article is very biased. I am from America, and I had never heard of this women before reading this article. It is clear that she may have been a sub-par politician, but the article seems like it was written by her political opponents, not by wikipedia editors. Maybe those editors are her opponents? Hmmm... I don't know if a complete rewrite should be done, but it does need serious work. Charles35 ( talk) 04:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
links 6 and 7 are dead and need a new link to the cited information. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) replaced. Done
15, is a cnn page not found. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) changed Done
from the article.... Smith is currently under investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for standards over accusations that she inappropriately claimed expenses for her sister's home in London
Is she still under investigation or has it all been decided now? Off2riorob ( talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking around the internet it looks like no action was taken and no charges were brought and the investigation is over....please let me know if you know anything different, ta. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to argue, but I preferred the previous infobox image. [2] The current photo is awful, she looks like she is pulling a face with her teeth.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Jacqui_Smith,_September_2009_cropped Ah, posting this and looking up this was discussed six months ago, it has been inserted again. I don't think it is very good portrayal of her but it is newer and apart from the poor portrayal closer to MOS, she is looking at the camera etc, the comment is taken surprised which is telling in itself, what do other editors think? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
She's not an MP. She has no job. She is not currently a professional politician. She is no more a politician that you or me. Etc etc. That is why her description should read 'former Labour politician'
Until she announces her new job with Labour, if she gets one, it should read former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.129.111 ( talk) 11:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of what the new editor, was saying was true, review his edits, he may have a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryhater. ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Toryhater. ( talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
11:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Mid_Worcestershire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s. Is this Jacqui Smith standing for Labour? Crooked cottage ( talk) 00:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Jacqui Smith. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jacqui Smith. 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.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05057.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacqui Smith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jacqui Smith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: the photograph with the teeth and the photoshopped grey background was and still is awful. It doesn't provide anything like a suitable image for identifying Smith and would be rejected by most news agencies. This image from a press release isn't perfect, but it is much more natural. There is a limiting factor of WP:NFCC and there are only two images of Smith on Wikimedia Commons, which is remarkable considering that she was once Home Secretary.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)