Talk:Jacqui Smith

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

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

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)[reply]

Photo[edit]

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)[reply]

Unsourced 'facts'[edit]

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)[reply]

Not making any claims about bias in the article as a whole, but the "widely acknowledged fact" is now given a specific source.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Public records that include personal details[edit]

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)[reply]

Any further comments about WP:WELLKNOWN before I apply the policy and remove the information? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, applying the policy and deleting this. It's duplicated lower down (in less detail) by material cited from the subject's own web page so there's no loss.
My addition of her sons' locations of births is valid, and did not breach Wikipedia guidelines. I did not add anyone's DOB; the months and years of their births were already stated on the article, having been added by someone else but have now been removed. When and where a notable person's children were born is basic biographical information, and is present on many other Wikipedia biographies. In addition, the sons' ages are stated in the article, but they are two years out of date, with no indication that they are not current. Smith's own website, in EL, states that both sons were born in Redditch, which the birth index shows is untrue (only one was born in Redditch) - proving a high-ranking elected politician to have stated something untrue is very important. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses[edit]

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)[reply]

Kut wijf[edit]

Wat een kut wijf is dit zeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.188.115 (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translate the above, please. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with the first speaker. Someone who goes voluntarily on her red knees to invite the most dubious beards of hatred (as our rich Dutch language calls them) to speech in the UK while refusing to let a member of parliament of a neighbouring country to show his copy-and-paste movie in the House of Lords is not only a dhimmi but moreover a filthy hypocrite. Add the corruption, the declarations on porn movies and you will stand amazed of what a country that once ruled the waves is letting happen. 62.143.126.174 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch MP row[edit]

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)[reply]

The "doing a Chamberlain" version insisted upon by User:Dutch91310 is unencyclopedic and not acceptable. Indeed, the whole story is probably too recentist for inclusion in any form.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, and I tried to explain that, but it didn't go down well really. I personally feel that this story will be a 'nothing' when you look back at Smith's career, and is barely notable now. I don't think User:Dutch91310 entirely realised what the bias was, but it was dripping in it, so that section definitely couldn't stay as it was, even if it was determined to be notable. The Chamberlain comment and the personal opinion as to why Wilders was banned was completely unacceptable and must be prevented from appearing in the article. I personally feel we'd be better off here just cutting the section entirely. Sky83 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the previous versions were not appropriate, but I'm sure the issue itself is easily notable enough - it just need to be written properly. The story is significant for a number of reasons - Wilders hasn't been convicted of anything, is democratically elected and his film doesn't contain any hate speech either. It would appear he has been barred because of how people will react to him - i.e. because of them rather than because of anything he has done. There are also issues as to whether the same would apply to critics of other religions.
Thus the issue is a very significant precedent , it also fits in well with other controversies and general critcisms of her overall approach to the job. --Shakehandsman (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To assist, a cut-and paste from WP:RECENT: "Established articles may be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens...and the relative emphasis on timeless facets of a subject which Wikipedia consensus had previously recognized may be muddled by this practice." Sums it up nicely, doesn't it? Geert Wilders has his own article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real objection to the information being included, just that the facts are the only things displayed. He was officially barred entry because he was considered a security risk. Now, whether or not we agree with that (and personally I feel that you are probably right in saying it was an anticipation of public reaction that was the driving force behind the ban), all that can go into the article is actually what happened. People have been introducing information with a shocking bias and have a clear agenda to go along with it. My, and others, objections have been hijacked into some kind of geographical whitewashing of history, when the opposite is plainly true. Information yes, opinion no. Sky83 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information belongs here as well as on the Wilder's article as it was of course Smith who was responsible for the ban. Obviously I agree we shouldn't have opinions (unless they are quotes) and you were of course completely correct to delete the information as it stood because of the terrible way in which it was written.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wilders issue should be mentioned in this article - a paragraph, perhaps a section, is justified. The issue received considerable coverage by the mainstream British and Dutch media. It should not be removed as recentism - it is an important part of her tenure as Home Secretary. Readers of this article should be able to find out here what exactly her involvement was. Was it her idea to prevent Wilders entering the UK? Was it her decision alone? It is not usual practice to bar entry to a current, democratically elected MP. He was not intending to do anything illegal, nor 'disrupt the peace in any way. Considering the large number of terrorists and other serious criminals who have entered the UK (whether as visitors or immigrants), it is undemocratic to completely bar entry to an MP of another EU country. EU citizens are usuallly allowed to go to other EU countries whenever they wish. Barring Wilders is against the spirit of the EU, which Smith and New Labour claim to be strongly in favour of. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the ban was overturned, the case for including this subject in the article is now even stronger than was previously the case.

She lives in South London with her sister?[edit]

"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)[reply]

Good point - will try to make that sentence more neutral.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should mention the facts of what is, for the purposes of the rules, the definition of 'main residence' and 'second home'. Is it correct that if she had stated Redditch as her main home and London as her second, that she would not have been able to claim the £116,000? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Andrew Marr Show[edit]

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)[reply]

Anti-social behaviour "action squad"[edit]

I could not believe my ears. [1] 124.87.202.56 (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase of Pornography Expenses Scandal[edit]

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)[reply]

It was Smith's husband who watched the porn films while his wife was in London, but Smith who then claimed expenses for them, quite innocently it would appear. The second home expenses issue is more important frankly. Philip Cross (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it's quite necessary to go into such detail (such as naming the films) in the header - I've moved this further down. Whole business is daft, very reminiscent of Bangkok Chick Boys. Jw2035 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it can be claimed that this is 'daft' or that the expenses issue is more important! I don't care what films he watched (after all they were legal and available on a tv service so the nature of the film isn't important) however the fact that they were claimed for does count, as they were claimed for under the expenses system, which more or less means they are part of the debate on that system. In addition, in light of Jacqui Smith's views on pornography, and the sex industry in general, the whole question of what films are being used in her home may be important - having said that I have to stress again, these films were legal and personally I think the story should be about ALL the films (including then non-adult films). EoinBach (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution[edit]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

Mounting pressure for her to resign as Home Secretary[edit]

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)[reply]

Journalism speak, not that Smith is in a strong position, or that her successor would be any less authoritarian. Philip Cross (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jury team release attack ad against Smith over expenses[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

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)[reply]

Not done for now; it's not clear that the event is notable. If you wish to proceed with this edit, please give;

  • b) A clearer explanation of the changes to the article you are requesting - preferably the exact text, of course with the appropriate references.

Then, please re-post your request here.

Best regards,  Chzz  ►  08:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

order-order.com is the blog of independent journalist Paul Staines, as far as blogs go it's one of the most reliable sources out there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8002304.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.59.177 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Authoritarian" policies[edit]

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)[reply]

I have added "it is argued", for the purpose of NPOV, but someone more credible than Littlejohn would be a better source. Philip Cross (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found something better from Simon Jenkins, which helps sustain the 'authoritarian' tag. Philip Cross (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Corruption"[edit]

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)[reply]

It is clear that she is not under investigation by the police from the context, but "corruption" in this context is tabloidese, so I have removed it. Philip Cross (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Matthew Burchell an alias for Richard Timney by any chance?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

Travel Ban controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

Pornographic films - why is this in the introduction?[edit]

You fucking morons. TungstenCarbide IV (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it. Please remember WP:CIVIL. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou TungstenCarbide IV (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of expenses detail...[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes there was too much detail. Might be good if the patio heater could be added elsewhere given the item is very much non essential and controversial due to how environmentally damaging such items are (many retailers have banned them)--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't here to pass moral judgement on all this expenses stuff, BTW Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Savage vs Weiner[edit]

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)[reply]

Michael Savage is now linked to the right page and anyone interested can get the information by one click. In the interests of WP:Writing better articles#Stay on topic, too much detail here seems out of place. Furthermore, the wikipedia convention is to use the most easily recognized name.
To take the point of stay on topic further: the six mentions of Savage in this one piece dealing with Smith's whole life and career is excessive: an egregious example of WP:RECENT that needs a drastic trim or even complete removal in the interests of a balanced article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree that the article has some WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE issues regarding the ban on Michael Savage. This is definitely notable enough for the article, but could be trimmed, especially the two quotes, which could be given as citations instead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud hearing[edit]

Guido Fawkes blog < Not much yet, but keep an eye out. - 137.44.1.200 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a rewrite[edit]

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))[reply]

Not from me. Unlike with Flint, there's a self-evident problem with her claims, viz calling her sister's home hers, and so it's right to report that allegation. She said today that she is going to stand down, which suggests to me she is going to be found to be on the fiddle. The security expenses seem to me irrelevant. The porn vids are only worth a sentence, as a novelty item. The main problem is that the section's too long, not only disproportionate but padded. I think one or two paragraphs on expenses would do, though more will need adding when findings are published. qp10qp (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the article is bound to be somewhat negative - that's the nature of Smith's career at least in terms of her work as a Minister. She's admitted herself she wasn't really up to the job of Home Secretary.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My point is that she's been an awful home secretary (certainly in terms of competence and civil liberties) and on top of that is unpopular due to her expense claims so it's inevitable that there are going to be many negative aspects to the article - these aren't my opinions, they are well known facts. Yes it's great she's at least sometimes honest as you suggest, though even this isn't really one of her regular qualities as seen by the expenses scandal. There is no need for a rewite whatsoever. Also please use shorter sentences, it's very hard to read your comments when the sentences are so incredibly long.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Check links[edit]

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[reply]

15, is a cnn page not found. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) changed  Done[reply]

Expense investigation[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

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)[reply]

I also prefered the other photo, this one is newer but is an awful shot. Off2riorob (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Free images of living persons are hard to come by on Wikipedia, and this photo of Jacqui Smith seems to have caught her in an unguarded moment. The grey background is not very attractive either. I have put back the old image for the time being. See also this New York Times article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newer pic[edit]

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)[reply]

"We must have the newest picture" is a common argument. However, an infobox image is so prominent that it must meet a minimum technical and artistic standard, which this image does not. Smith's face looks awful, and the grey background (almost certainly a photoshop-style effect) is also naff. So this image should stay on Commons. The other image is not perfect, but works considerably better.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting again Ian, I agree with your comments. Pictures that reflect the subject negatively have BLP issues. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Off2riorob too. We need a photo that is a good representative likeness, and the older one looks much more like her in real life - the newer one is so bad it doesn't even look like her. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployed & 'former'[edit]

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)[reply]

She is still a member of the Labour Party, but no longer an MP, so the wording now reflects this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request from Toryhater., 22 February 2011[edit]

{{edit protected}}

Toryhater. (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Worcestershire[edit]

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)[reply]

I think so. Is so close to Redditch. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was being sleepy, it definitely is. See http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc9293/hc06/0603/0603.pdf page 54. I'll update both the Jacqui Smith and the Mid Worcestershire article. Crooked cottage (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

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)[reply]

Jack Straw doesn't have this problem. It's amazing that Jacqui Smith has no copyright free official portrait that is of a decent quality. In any case, Smith has lost a lot of weight since the 2009 teeth photo was taken. Her Twitter page has an up to date image. If this continues, I'm tempted to contact Smith and ask if she can provide an up to date photo of herself. I'm pretty sure she would hate the teeth photo in the infobox as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacqui_Smith&oldid=1208236557"