Jump to content

Talk:Iain Duncan Smith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Shadow cabinet

Are all the shadow cabinet details necessary? Catchpole 22:50, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I propose that these should be split out into a separate article, it overwhelms the article at the moment. Any objections? Catchpole 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) >> Good idea.

Betsygate

No mention of Betsygate!? Mintguy 08:43, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC) >> Good job too. S/he never did anything wrong.

It is definitely worth a mention - it contributed to his downfall - I will put something in with sources. I agree they did nothing wrong however. The main thing to come from it was that he had enemies who were desperate to drag him down. --SandyDancer 11:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have ejected the links below frim the main article as being in violation of WP:EL. If these are refences to contents in the main article, they should be included as such, in a format acceptable to WP:FOOT. Otherwise, they should remain deleted.

Ohconfucius 14:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent activity

Anyone know what he's been up to lately? Timrollpickering 22:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He's been rush off his chainsmoking feet, scapegoating unemployed people who are being systematically moved off of benefits and moved onto 'working tax credits' by being told to lie to the inland revenue about the amount of time they devote to 'looking for work', in order to be able to show > 16 hours a week every week, even when they haven't found any - apparently 'looking for work ' is a substitute for being able to secure any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.110.203 (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"First Catholic leader of a major party"

The article states

"Duncan Smith converted to Roman Catholicism as a teenager, making him the first member of that faith to head a modern major British political party"

Does this mean the Liberal Democrats - led by the Catholic-raised Charles Kennedy from 1999 to 2006 - are not considered a major British political party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.21 (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Cherie Blair's 2007 conversion to catholosism mentioned in an article refering to the events of 2002ish? If we are going to mention events which occured after IDS was no longer tory leader surely tony blair's conversion to catholosism is more relevent than that of his wife.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.221.126 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2009 (comment moved from article to talk page)

There seem to be a lot of references in the article not only to Duncan Smith's Roman Catholicism, but to that of others as well. Are they all relevant and necessary? Ausseagull (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've now done some "trimming". Ausseagull (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Social justice work

I've updated the profile with more details of what he's done since leader. He's made a name for himself doing the Centre for Social Justice work and I think that should be recognised with a new section...Toryactivist (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Wasn't this organisation merely something he set up himself after being sacked as the least marketable Leader of the Conservative Party? Didn't he just pay a Marketing Company to award this organisation a prize, arranged by King Con -Jeffrey Archer ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.238.92 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in first paragraph

There are serious NPOV problems in the early life paragraph. I therefore removed the subjective bits and only kept the references. The mention of Greg Clark is irrelevant in IDS's early life, as is citing a commentary article as a source, as are 'curious cases of rewritten personal history' and references to 'indoctrination'. So is his job position in his adult life. Where he attended school is still unclear, so have changed it to imply he attended both and removed words such as 'officially' and 'supposedly' as they imply some form of consipiracy, so changed 'Officially Duncan Smith claims that' to 'Duncan Smith states...' The original paragraph is below. I'm not an experienced editor so any other improvements are probably needed. Officially Duncan Smith claims to have converted to Roman Catholicism as a teenager and was supposedly educated at HMS Conway, a naval training school on the isle of Anglesey, where he allegedly played rugby union in the position of fly-half alongside Clive Woodward at centre. However in truth he was educated at St. Peter's RC Secondary School, Solihull[1]. This curious case of a rewritten personal history can be seen as a reluctance to divulge his ideological motivations; A fellow conservative MP Greg Clark who was also educated at the same school does not mention that in his official biography either because he fears that "It might imply I was a Catholic MP." [2] Because Dunkan Smith often speaks controversially about the structure of families[3] in his role as chairman of the Conservative Party's social justice policy group, he may also wish to disguise his early indoctrination into Catholicism and instead present his obedience to its dogma as a logically formulated strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxotelephone (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, really. References to IDS refusing to acknowledge his Catholicism may or may not be true, but they still have no place in the early life section. The same goes for theorising about his motivations in supposedly hiding the fact that he is a Catholic MP. Opinions of other MPs are interesting but still have no place in IDS' early life. If there is confusion, writing 'IDS states that...' is a better way to say something that 'officially' or 'alledgedly' becasue the latter two imply consipracy, while the first remains neutral. No theorising about motivations in a paragraph saying where a politician went to school. It violates NPOV and is irrevelvant in the context to boot.

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/10/iain-duncan-smith-marriage-taboo

Betsygate

These worries came to a head in October 2003. Michael Crick revealed that he had compiled embarrassing evidence, this time of dubious salary claims Duncan Smith made on behalf of his wife that were paid out of the public purse from September 2001 to December 2002. The ensuing scandal, known as "Betsygate" weakened his already tenuous position.

I thought he was cleared on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.176.150 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm- he was , but we have to remember that the 'checks' the investigators were able to run were not anywhere near as thorough or far reaching as those which led to the most recent prosecutions - Would anything else have come to light if they had been ? Its crucial that he can rebut any allegations that he was 'screwing money out of the State', as the credibility of his 'workshy spongers to a man' approach to unemployment policies would just disintegrate if he could not.

Its as important as , for example, Edwina Curry being able to justify the size of her housing benefit claim (if indeed she has one at the moment) - as a single person, she is only entitled to £126 a week or thereabouts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.84 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Betsygate)

It has been proposed that Betsygate be merged into this article, but the proposer didn't create an area for discussion, so here it is. I support this merge - as the article itself notes, this was a 'minor political scandal', which ended with IDS being fully exonerated; it really doesn't justify a separate article. Please comment on this proposal below. Robofish (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a merge would be a good idea - the article at "Betsygate" is of some length, so if we were to simply incorporate the text into this article, it would be giving a lot of prominence within this article to this issue, which might be disproportionate. Editing it down before incorporating might help.
As an aside, I have real reservations about the article title of the "Betsygate" article - it's not at all neutral and could be read as pushing a point of view that this is a major scandal. Enchanter (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
'Oppose merge: The article is too long to be merged into the IDS article (which is already of significant length itself). The incident deserves its own article too. Peter (Talk page) 21:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
'Oppose merge: Notable enough in its own right.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
'Oppose merge: Too long to merge into IDS' article 22:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

34 deaths on compulsory 'work experience' schemes in the 1980s - no lessons learnt?

In the wake of recent abuse of 'workfare work experience' stewards at the Jubilee, it has been admitted that Health & Safety rules were 'relaxed' by Ian Smith for the employers using unemployed as unpaid labourers - for the sake of balance, the article should mention that similar compulsory work experience schemes run by the Conservatives in the 1980s led directly to the deaths of over thirty young people, who were killed whilst undertaking responsibilities for which they had inadequate health & safety training <http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1989/jan/17/yts>.

Hansard entry for Jan 17, 1989 reads:

"Mr. Nellist Is the Minister aware that in the past eight years there have been 50 fatalities in YTS? I welcome the offer that the Minister made on Wednesday night concerning Derek Cain. Following his tragic death in 1982 on a youth opportunities programme in Sheffield, his father was offered £52 compensation"

[will include links to two caused already by Workfare schemes later]80.42.237.14 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.237.14 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.237.14 (talk)

"the article should mention that similar compulsory work experience schemes run by the Conservatives in the 1980s led directly to the deaths of over thirty young people" No it shouldn't mention that

"

First off from Hansard, the reply: Mr. Cope: "Since 1983, when YTS started, there have been 34 fatalities. Incidentally, 13 were road traffic accidents" so the figure of 50 is inaccurate.
Secondly, that would be a blatant case of synthesis (see WP:SYNTH) since there are no reliable sources that make that link, only your opinion and I have told you countless times before about the rules here. Valenciano (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Hansard is reliable,but I forgot to add the number who died on YOP schemes during the same period too. Here is an article about Derek Cain -seen as the fire officers found him in an unventilated stock room (http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/youth-contract-could-lead-to-more-deaths-1-4025602) - this article states his father ' went on to mount a campaign to raise awareness of the deaths of 85 young people on the YOPs scheme and the YTS scheme that followed it and took out a successful prosecution for negligence against the government.'. He is the gentleman who was initially offered £52 compensation. So, I may have underestimated the number of teenagers who died, as the Hansard entry for 17th Jan. 1989 cited above only discusses 35 - we should include those who perished on the Youth Opportunities Programme during the same period

I agree, it is very important to use the accurate figures.80.42.224.28 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.224.28 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is asinine. Your assertion that the article should include this information is flawed. All you present is one activist afraid that something with a passing similarity to a previous scheme could result in deaths like happened with the earlier scheme. What you don't present is any evidence whatsoever that any reliable person or entity believes that the current scheme lacks protections that would prevent such occurrences. It ignores the fact that the health and safety regulations of today are significantly different from those of more than 20 years ago. From your previous interventions it is clear you despise IDS. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can vent. Wikipedia is certainly not the place for that. This is a biography of a living person, which calls for a great deal of caution in what we publish. The deaths under the old schemes has nothing to do with IDS, and has no place in this article. If you keep abusing the talk page the way you have, you will eventually find yourself blocked as the need for edits to be constructive and to adhere to WP:Biographies of living persons applies to talk pages as well as articles. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedian, not an 'activist'. In a similar vein, links to information from the BBC site are written by 'Journalists', not commies or lefties.212.139.110.175 (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.110.175 (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article could be improved by the inclusion of up to date content regarding Smith's proposed cuts to benefits,and the guidelines he issued to the DWP on how to deal with the anticipated number of suicides it would cause <http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/suic-m18.shtml>. It is, after all, Smith's 'legacy' project, and one to which he has devoted the past 20 years of his political career. As currently edited by 'Valenciano', the page quotes IDS alone, and gives the impression no one will receive under 26K per annum. The reality however has been very different - with over 13 suicides to date being attributed to the new lower level of allowances - particularly for the disabled. It gives only IDS's own quotes, and does not mention any of the real -world consequences at all.

The BBC's coverage of the Lord's defeat of the proposed £26K 'cap'( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16656824), when Nick Robinson argued that taxpayers did not like to hear about "..the many, many thousands of people now who - because of cuts to disability benefit and cuts to employment and support allowance and cuts to housing benefit - are now really suffering", Smith replied 'THEY ARE NOT SUFFERING . This seems an odd theological point for a practicing Catholic to make. As a Catholic, surely Mr. Smith believes these people are now roasting in Hell- so they must be suffering dreadfully? Some have left small children behind them, who are going to cost more to look after now their parents are dead, which is hardly a prudent fiscal strategy!

For political balance, you should include the following cases, in which impartial Inquest juries have attributed suicides to stresses caused by benefit cuts:

Two cases involving ex-British services personnel are poor Mr. David Sanderson of Southfield (<http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/9215292.Dad_committed_suicide_after_housing_benefit_cut/>), and Army Veteran Mark and Helen Mullins of Bedworth(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8878543/Poverty-suicide-couple-had-warned-of-hopeless-situation.html) .Then, there are the disabled suicides, like Paul Willcoxson, 33, of Corby, Northants, who according to his suicide note, was worried about benefit cuts when he hung himself in April. And Elaine Christian, 57, of Hull, who according to reports of an inquest in July, was worried about a meeting to assess her disability benefits. She was found drowned in a drain with ten self-inflicted cuts to her wrist and had taken painkillers <http://www.cloggie.org/proggold/2011/12/06/welfare-reform-kills/> . The Taxpayer's burden was further relieved in March 2010, when Vicky Harrison, a 21-year-old, took her life with a massive overdose of drugs in Darwen, Lancashire. < http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/suic-m18.shtml>. Another 10 benefit-cuts related suicides are:-

1. <http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/9095159.Jobseeker_took_own_life/> 2. <http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/no…s-leanne-chambers-72703-27003699/> 3. <http://news.scotsman.com/arts/Aut…suicide-39due-to-slash.6438473.jp> 4. & 5. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment…n/07/mother-suicide-welfare-state> 6. <http://www.thisishullandeastridin…/story-12927176-detail/story.html> 7. <http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investi…/2011/02/sick-who-gives-atos.html> 8. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politic…rnment-reform-disability-benefits> 9. <http://www.consumeractiongroup.co…elp-me-take-Atos-and-DWP-to-court> 10. <http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-…ad-family-claims-115875-23147158/> 11. Addition to Deaths 4 & 5 Above. Mother was pregnant so her unborn baby died as well. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/PRE…TO+DEATH+HOLDING+SON.-a0213434697 Plus an example of fatal Atos misdiagnosis at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/society…l/24/atos-case-study-larry-newman>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.236.47 (talk • contribs)

01/09/2012: The article's 'controversies' section might also draw attention to protests surrounding Mr. Smith during the Paralympics (sponsored by Atos), as the DWP was 'occupied' today by around 150 disabled individuals, protesting about the standard of Atos fitness for work assessments, the fact that appeals currently leave people without any money for around a year, and the large number of suicides already caused. The link is here <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19437785> - the protest comes a day after the death of Celia Burns, who, despite being terminally ill with cancer, was judged to be 'fit to work' by Atos and had her income reduced by £30 a week - the last year of her life- only to win her appeal and have her benefit reinstated just in time to pay for her funeral. "I was treated badly. I've been working since I was 17, I've paid all my stamps, all my National Insurance. The only time I was ever sick was when I was pregnant with my two sons" she can be quoted as saying in this BBC interview - <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19433535>.79.70.232.67 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Spasticus Autisticus79.70.232.67 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither of which article even mentions Ian Duncan Smith. I refer you, for the umpteenth time, to WP:SYNTH. Valenciano (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Rank

The sidebar gives his army rank as Captain but the Gazette entry linked shows him leaving with the rank of Lieutenant. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.80.96 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Unemployment

It's in the news a lot at the moment, that IDS is claiming to have lived on the "breadline" and to have claimed benefits in his life. The wiki page mentions a period in 1981 where he supposedly claimed benefits, but the supporting reference is just a passing mention of "he claimed benefits" in a tabloid news story - hardly robust. Is it possible to get something more concrete about exactly what his situation was, and what he claimed for etc. 90.194.114.171 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Would also be interested to know how long for. He mentioned in an interview that he was already married by that time - question as to whether they also received support from her monied baronet father? Anonymouse1911 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What's his name?

Is the "Duncan" part of his name a middle given name, or is it a surname? If it's a surname, why isn't it hyphenated? His father, who was a WW2 flying ace, is referred to as "Smith", rather than "Duncan Smith" by Wikipedia.[[3]] If the use of "Duncan", as a part of the surname, is an affectation by Iain Duncan Smith, should Wikipedia be referring to him as "Smith" or as "Duncan Smith"? Does what the person themselves wants to be called dictate how Wikipedia refers to that person? --Theresonator (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In a few days, I will be bold and change all instances of "Duncan Smith" to "Smith". John Gummer (now Baron Deben) is referred to as John Gummer[[4]], rather than his preferred John Selwyn Gummer, so I will be attempting to bring some consistency to the naming of politicians, unless someone convinces me that I shouldn't do so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresonator (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly shouldn't do this. The key thing here is not consistency, it is Wikipedia Guidelines. Specifically WP:COMMONNAME: "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." In English language sources, he is referred to, almost unanimously, as Iain Duncan Smith or even IDS, never as "Iain Smith." Gummer isn't a good analogy, indeed the article there specifically states: "For many years, including his period as Conservative Party Chairman, he was known as John Selwyn Gummer. He dropped the Selwyn from common usage as he entered the cabinet in the late 1980s." Valenciano (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using "Iain Duncan Smith" as the article title.

I do have a problem with calling him "Duncan Smith" throughout the article text. The article about Gummer may state that he was known as John Selwyn Gummer, but the article still refers to him as John Gummer, rather than John Selwyn Gummer. I still intend to make the change from "Duncan Smith" to "Smith" in the references within the article. My position is that I don't mind "Iain Duncan Smith", as that is what he is commonly called, but if you are using a surname, I object to "Duncan Smith" as I don't believe that is his surname. Can he just say "this is my surname" and Wikipedia supinely takes his word for it? Or does Wikipedia need some evidence that his surname really is Duncan Smith? There is evidence that his father's surname wasn't "Duncan Smith". There is evidence that Iain Duncan Smith hasn't always used the "Duncan" as a part of his surname.--Theresonator (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, WP:COMMONNAME is the guideline here, together with WP:VERIFY which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So what you or I object to really doesn't come into it. Wikipedia doesn't take his word for it, it goes by what reliable sources say. Here are some for example:
BBC:Duncan Smith faces leadership vote
Independent:Duncan Smith issues ultimatum to Tory plotters
Telegraph:"It could also see a Cabinet post for Mr Duncan Smith"
Daily Record: "Interviewed on the BBC's Newsnight last night, Mr Duncan Smith said"
That seems to be the name that he is most commonly known by. Valenciano (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are hundreds of reliable sources saying that Duncan Smith is his surname. But I think you miss my point. There are facts and there are popularly accepted assertions. Name and date of birth are facts. We know that Iain Duncan Smith's father's surname was "Smith". The popular media now call IDS Mr Duncan Smith. So "Duncan" has managed to shift from being a forename to being a part of his surname.

So has Iain Duncan Smith changed his name by deed poll so that "Duncan Smith" is his surname? Or has he just let it be known that Duncan Smith is his surname and everyone has just gone along with him because he's a powerful politician?

If Iain Duncan Smith's birth certificate has his surname as "Smith" (as I suspect it probably does), would you argue that Wikipedia should be calling him "Duncan Smith"?

I'm not arguing for this change because of any party political bias. I am arguing for this change because I am fed up with politicians manipulating the media for their own ends. I am arguing that adding another name to your surname, for whatever reason. should be a step too far, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. He was born with a name and, unless he has formally changed that name by deed poll, that is the name that Wikipedia should use. Wikipedia should not be a party to any manipulation of the media by politicians. --Theresonator (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No I get your point, but I think you're missing the point that it's not Wikipedia's job to decide what is "right" or not right. Here we simply report on what existing sources say, that's why I pointed you earlier to WP:VERIFY ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.") So here we go by what media sources say. If you have reliable sources that say that he was born as simply "Iain Smith" then that can certainly be included in the article but in such a case we'd still call him Duncan Smith in the prose as that's what he's commonly called. To do otherwise is original research which is strictly prohibited. And for what it's worth I don't believe that you're operating under any party political bias but those are the rules and if you disagree with them then first you should argue for them to be changed maybe here and then, if you have consensus for such a change, come back here. Valenciano (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So, if the present British Prime Minister started calling himself David The Most Wonderful Prime Minister Britain Has Ever Had Cameron (with all but the "David" as a self-given surname) and the papers started calling him "Mr The Most Wonderful Prime Minister Britain Has Ever Had Cameron", then it would be Wikipedia's duty to go along with what the reliable sources say?

In other words, it doesn't actually matter what people's names are. It just matters what the media call them (no matter how tame that media is)?

What type of encyclopaedia puts media reports ahead of facts? An inaccurate one!

I still intend to change all the "Duncan Smith"s to "Smith" in the article text. --Theresonator (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

First things first, you haven't proven that his baptism name was "Iain Smith" to prove that you need a source. You would also need a source to say that his father wasn't called Duncan Smith and that has also to be produced first before any changes are made. Remember there are already sources which say the absolute opposite of what you're claiming. The September 1952 issue of the London Gazette (scroll to bottom) lists his father as Duncan Smith so the name seems to go back 58 years contrary to your claims that it's a recent invention. Therefore so far you haven't proven any "facts" it's simply your opinion. Changing the Duncan Smiths to Smith against all the policies I've listed above and without consensus to do that would definitely not be a wise move on your part and could potentially be considered disruptive. The better move would be to produce sources to support your claims and discuss here. Valenciano (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, to make these discussions easier for me and others to follow, could you please indent your comments? See WP:INDENT. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never managed to get indenting to work, so I've stopped trying. If it matters that much, they can put a button on the input page, like they have for italics.

Firstly, your pdf link doesn't say that Duncan Smith is IDS's father's surname. It says that his father's name is "Squadron Leader Wilfred George Gerald Duncan SMITH" (with only the "SMITH" capitalised, suggesting that they thought Smith was his surname, rather than Duncan Smith).

Next, Conservative blogger (and former Conservative party candidate) Iain Dale says[5]:

"The Tories will do anything to suck up to the Scots: not only was Iain Duncan Smith born George Smith, but even the second name on his birth certificate is spelt Ian, not the Scottish-style Iain. Duncan is his third Christian name, rather than part of his surname, and mystery surrounds when Smith became Duncan Smith. Maybe he took my mother's advice. When I was 18, she suggested that I should hyphenate my middle and surname, as it would "help me get on in life"."

So a Tory says that IDS was born as George Smith.

As for Smith's father being called "Smith" rather than "Duncan Smith", your own pdf link supports "Smith" far more than it supports "Duncan Smith". --Theresonator (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just an addition: If you search for "W. G. G. D. Smith", you get plenty of results which are obviously referring to IDS's father as a "Smith", rather than as a "Duncan Smith". To be fair, there are also plenty of results if you search for "W. G. G. Duncan Smith", but we don't know if the writer thinks that "Duncan" is a forename or a part of his surname. --Theresonator (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's better but it's still only one source and would only prove his baptismal name not his most commonly used name. Additionally the fact that his father, in 1981, published a book "Spitfire into battle" under the name W G G Duncan Smith would still seem to suggest that the double barrelled name originates with him rather than his son. By the way, to answer your point from earlier regarding what would happen if Cameron renamed himself "Mr The Most Wonderful Prime Minister Britain Has Ever Had Cameron" the answer is yes, we'd note that here if that was what the press was calling him. There are precedents: David Edward Sutch is usually known here by his chosen alternate name and that's even before we get into the plethora of rock stars like Gordon Sumner who are referred to here by their more common names rather than their baptismal names. Valenciano (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know if W G G Duncan Smith used Duncan as a forename or a surname. He could have preferred "Duncan" out of all of his forenames and used that one, much as his son has done, with his chosen forename of Iain. But we do know that when people referred to "W.G.G.D. Smith", as they did, they were clearly saying that, as far as they were concerned "Smith" was his surname and that the "D" stood for one of his forenames.

But I bow to your argument about common names, as no matter whether I like it or not, he is known as Iain Duncan Smith, with the last two elements being considered as his surname. So, I won't change all of the "Duncan Smith"s to "Smith". But I do feel his name needs some form of explanation within the article. Why do IDS and his dad have different surnames? When did it happen? Who changed it? The problem is that I don't see the answers to the questions and I don't see any likelihood of IDS volunteering the information. --Theresonator (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a birth certificate for 'Iain George DUNCAN SMITH' : DOB as given in text of this article in Edinburgh. Nor an 'Ian George DUNCAN SMITH: DOB as in text of this article in Edinburgh. Does this mean he may have an invalid NHS and NI Number? How on earth is he going to claim benefits next time he's unemployed? 212.139.109.39 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.109.39 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I point out that if IDS was born in SCOTLAND, he does not need to change his name by deed poll, as in Scotland you can simply change your name by common usage? You can call yourself anything you want as long as it is not for fraudulent purposes. I was under the impression that the name given to a person in an article was to be that by which they are commonly known. If I want to find out about IDS, I would not try and look up some guy called Ian Smith, as I don't know anyone going by that name. If I want to know about Hulk Hogan, I don't type in Bill Lawson (which I would not know about until I read the article.) 2.221.73.136 (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Pointy "repeated breaches" section

This section is still full of original research, editorialising and synthesis.

Firstly >>Duncan Smith's misrepresentation of his education on his CV[1] represented dishonesty in public office and was a breach of The Seven Priniciples of Public Life in the Annex to the Ministerial Code where MPs "are required, by duty, to be honest in all their dealings and business."<<

Which reliable sources make that claim? Furthermore, the link is to a 2002 Newsnight programme, Smith wasn't a minister at the time, so couldn't break any ministerial code. This is therefore being removed again as original research until reliable sources explicitly making that claim can be produced. The misrepresentations of his CV are already adequately covered in the article, in the eduction section.

Next we have >>In July 2013 Duncan Smith was found by Andrew Dilnot CBE, Head of the UK Statistics Authority, to have broken the Code of Practice for Official Statistics for his and the DWP's repeated misuse of figures in support of government policies[2].<<

That seems fine, though a better source than a primary source would be needed. The same problem goes for this:

>>Dilnot also stated that, following earlier complaints about misuse of statistics by Duncan Smith's department, he had previously been told, "that senior DWP officials had reiterated to their staff the seriousness of their obligations under the Code of Practice and that departmental procedures would be reviewed" indicating that he had been misled by the DWP into thinking that this abuse of figures would not occur again.

The earlier complaint was a single complaint, so that seems to be misrepresenting what the letter said, somewhat ironic in a section accusing Smith of misrepresentation! The part in bold is pure editorialising and will therefore be removed.

>>Duncan Smith's defence of his department's misuse of figures to support policy relied on anecdote rather than statistical evidence, "We have not published evidence in this. I believe I am right [because of what I have been told when talking to people in Jobcentres]"[3].<<

The part in bold is again problematic, the primary source doesn't say "misuse" it says handling and the rest is again editorialising. The quote itself is also a problem as that is in response to "claims made by Haringey council" not the criticism of his department.

Then we have the last section....

>>The repeated breach of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and use of anecdotal evidence by Duncan Smith and his colleagues has led some, including Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, to accuse the Conservative Party of going beyond spin and the normal political practice of cherry picking of figures to the act of actually "making things up" with respect to the impact of government policy on employment and other matters.[4].<<

Again this contains original research not supported as yet by reliable sources. The "repeated breach" by Smith seems to be a single instance (which is why the pointy section title will therefore be removed) and the source to support this makes no reference to anecdote at all. Finally, the "some" is a single person. The criticism of Smith seems reasonable to include, but it will have to be reworded in a less POV way. Valenciano (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsnight2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS STATISTICS" (PDF). UK Statistics Authority.
  3. ^ "Iain Duncan Smith defends use of statistics over benefits cap". The Guardian.
  4. ^ "Conservative claims about benefits are not just spin, they're making it up". The Guardian.

Troll editing biography

The ip address 86.166.177.55 has edited the first line with swearing, and put his life date as if he has died today (12 December 2014) which according to news websites is incorrect and is just a childish attempt at trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.69.238 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo ghastly

The main pic' is a bit ghastly; would it not be wise to swap it for a cropped version of 'File:Iain Duncan Smith Nightingale 2.JPG'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalisback1 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC) It is an accurate likeness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.229.171 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be in the business of giving people a make-over - much less Altering their Image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.245.14 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected Vandalism

Unless the comma at the end of the sentence was a mistake for a stop, the first sentence of the subsection "Problems as leader" of the Conservative Party appears to have been prematurely shortened (mistake or vandalism):

In 2002, Michael Crick on the TV programme Newsnight caused some embarrassment by finding inaccuracies in the education section of Duncan Smith's curriculum vitae,

Cloptonson (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: This is the revision that added it (found via WikiBlame). --Pokechu22 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for illustrating your intended revision. I have corrected the punctuation at the end to a full stop. I also note with satisfaction the discussion of the inaccuracies earlier in the page.Cloptonson (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Admiral Duncan

Does anyone know if it is actually true that Duncan Smith is descended from Admiral Duncan? Looking at Cracoft's peerage, I can't see how it would be possible. Southdevonian (User talk:Southdevonian) 23:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Southdevonian: Only just seen this. Whilst I assume that any politician of any party would be scrupulously accurate about his background, and would speak up if anyone got it wrong, IDS is well known as a very quiet man. We can't research it here, -see wp:OR however the Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/ I'm sure would be interested in your findings ..& FWIW so am I. JRPG (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I am assuming that Iain Duncan Smith traces his ancestry back to the Admiral via his grandmother who was a Miss Duncan before she married Mr Smith. Her father was a George Duncan who would have been born in the mid-19th century. There doesn't however appear to be a suitable George amongst the Admiral's descendants. The fourth earl of Camperdown (the Admiral's greatgrandson) was a George born at about the right time, but he didn't marry until long after IDS's grandmother was born so can be ruled out. Southdevonian (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing the DT response ..though they're probably busy working on Jeremy! JRPG (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of statistics section

Only the first sentence in the last paragraph of this section actually applies to IDS, the rest is political discussion of food banks. I would advocate removing the rest of the paragraph and merging it with the previous one. Alternatively, I will add balancing sources if other editors feel that general discussion of UK hunger is relevant on this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Decency, Honesty and Fitness For Work

The article says no one questioned his decency and honesty, yet the paragraph above records that he was at least economical with the truth on his CV. Also as a leader of the Eurosceptics he was disloyal to Major, voting against the Maastricht treaty. He must be among Major's 'Bastards' as he called them. Shurely Major is questioning his decency?

  • Removed - was an unsourced point, and surely his general election defeat AND his removal as party leader prove that his deceny and honesty were questioned. Also, the above comment about a partly untrue CV and disloyalty to Major clash with the original statement.

"Few doubted Duncan Smith's decency and honesty" NPOV?--JK the unwise 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of his constituents and I damn well doubt his decency and honesty. I've met the man. Yes, NPOV. Darkmind1970 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, IDS never had to take - or pass - a Fitness For (government) Work test. That said, what Smith lacks in brains or honesty, he makes up for in cold-heartlessness. So perhaps Agent Smith is the idea Tory Minster after all?

Major may possibly have questioned his parentage but we cannot. If you find a wp:Suggested sources#current news article that's relevant, you can add a neutral summary. I can help you -if you find one. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheap liar allegations?

Your article states "In 2002, Michael Crick on the TV programme Newsnight caused some embarrassment when probing Smith's curriculum vitae, which had been in circulation for years, for example, being reproduced in the authoritative annual Dod's Parliamentary Companion for the previous ten years. The CV claimed that he had attended the University of Perugia when he had in fact attended the Università per Stranieri, which did not grant any degrees at that time, and a claim that he had attended the prestigious-sounding Dunchurch College of Management turned out to refer to some weekend courses at GEC Marconi's staff college.[8][9]"

Some extrapolated from this that IDS was a liar - could someone post a link to his response to the allegations please - it must have been soundly refuted at the time ? Was anyone charged over the defamation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.84 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been hanging around for years. English libel law is draconian and the BBC would have been very careful to check their facts before making an allegation against a clearly identifiable individual. I believe any lawyer looking at this would have advised IDS not to proceed as it was fair comment. JRPG (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2016

He is no longer the Secretary of State 82.2.59.192 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Peking and Beijing

These two are the Wade-Giles and Modern versions of the same Chinese name for the city. It was also officially known as Peiping / Beiping from 1928 to 1949, but that would be much later than the man's great-grandmother. --GwydionM (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iain Duncan 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).

  • 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) 12:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iain Duncan 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).

  • 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) 18:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Father's surname

As it points out in the article W. G. G. Duncan Smith, his father adopted the middle name Duncan as part of his surname. I know this edit [6] was reverted as it was a bit POV ("oddly" and "affectation") it is interesting that his father changed his surname to something a bit less common than just "Smith" and seems worthy of a mention. It is hard to find much discussion of this in reliable sources, for example I would not want to imply that it is social elevation or a pretension without a suitable source. On the other hand I notice the article later says that he was descended from a more aristocratic Duncan, so there seems to be a bit more to this than simply wanting to have such a common (I meant that in the literal sense of frequently occurring) name.Billlion (talk)

For info, the article for his father says currently says this:
"Duncan Smith was given his mother's maiden name (Duncan) as a middle name—a fairly conventional practice of the Edwardian period—but his father's name was "Smith", not "Duncan Smith" and, in Second World War RAF records, Duncan Smith himself is always listed as W. G. G. D. Smith, not W.G.G. Duncan Smith. It is not known precisely when he started using his mother's maiden name as part of his surname but he decided to pass the name to his children. Whether this makes the current family surname "Duncan Smith" or still "Smith" is a moot point." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Nickname

Coined by Private Eye, the nickname "Iain Duncan cough" has appeared in a number of widely-read publicatons, including the Daily Mail, New Statesman, VoxPolitical and the Financial Times. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It's even mentioned in the de:wiki article Iain Duncan Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sir

I think that Sir should be kept in the name, as in other British politician and, indeed, civil servants or diplomats articles. Plandu has pointed out the title is not a name, but what I would gently say it is my view that a consensus on a change to the category of articles has to be first reached before making changes to any article of that category. I would like to reiterate that it is a matter of convention but not necessarily an explicit matter on "if sir should be included or not". NYKTNE (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s fair. I was unaware of the convention (I don’t do a lot of editing of British political figures), and am sorry for what I guess in this case could be described as (inadvertent) disruptive editing. I would obviously argue for Sir being included in the honorific prefix section, as it seems to fall squarely within that definition, but as the convention is well-established, I know that making such a change will take time, and is unlikely. I appreciate the explanation here. Plandu (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Plandu: Thank you, very much appreciated! NYKTNE (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Iain Duncan Smith did not lead the Conservative Party into a general election

I have restored the bit that Duncan Smith became the first Conservative leader who did not lead his party into a general election since Neville Chamberlain.

I ask this fact remains and not get removed again.

If it gets removed again, I will come back here to list the Conservative leaders between Chamberlain and Duncan Smith and list the elections they have fought. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:BLP, we must be careful to cite reliable sources.Billlion (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't needed for well established facts.

In this case you are asking to provide sources for something that didn't happened.

I mean are there any pictures of Chamberlain and Duncan Smith campaigning as Conservative Party leaders at general elections. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Per WP:BLP. Alex (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I’ve re-added this, with a source. It took less than 30 seconds to find one from an academic website, which is what should have been done before it was removed, tagged and deleted again. - 109.249.185.101 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to break it to you but if you're going to add content to Wikipedia, it's up to you to provide the source, not anyone else. It's simple as that. Alex (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not the person who added it in the first place, I just saw the removal, know it to be true, and wondered why no-one could be bothered to check. It’s not about playing games of pointing to WP:BURDEN (yes, I know the requirements), it’s about helping people who don’t know the rules to add something to the encyclopedia. I’ve now wasted more time writing on the talk page (and explaining what should be an obvious courtesy) than it took me to find the source in the first place. 109.249.185.101 (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point the requirements out and got a bit confused between different IP addresses. So yeah, all good, no one's playing games, we're all on the same team here.Alex (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I too did not put in the Chamberlain bit. I just happen to agree with it and don't agree with Alex B4's reasoning in all this.49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Also thank you 109.249.185.101. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

2001 general election

The defeat of '97 was the worst defeat in 150 years. The defeat of 2001 was the second worst and was marked by one of the most disasterous single issue campaigns ever fought, which failed to arouse the interest of the electorate. I think debacle is a fair word for this. Mintguy 17:20, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Japanese ancestry

"Iain Duncan Smith is therefore one eighth Japanese." If his grandmother was Japanese that should read "one quarter", shouldn't it? Kosebamse 14:26, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's his great-grandmother who was Japanese, so one-eighth is correct. Adam

Corruption is missing

There's nothing in this article about https://www.google.com/search?q=iain+duncan+smith+hand+sanitiser 2600:8804:8C40:401:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Case going to the supreme court to reverse acquittal of those who called him "Tory Scum"

I'm not familiar enough with WP's policies to edit this in directly, but shouldn't there be a reference to the fact his case has been appealed as far as the Supreme Court?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/31/dpp-supreme-court-appeal-protesters-tory-scum-iain-duncan-smith Basiclife (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting case. If or when we get a decision from the Supreme Court it might be worth including in IDS's biography but even then probably only a sentence or two. There's probably an article on the point of law (it sounds like the Public Order Act but the grauniad doesn't specify) and if Supreme Court hear the case, it's probably worth an article of its own. The DPP appealing from a mags court to the Supreme Court on a point of law on a fairly minor offence is unusual and definitely deserves to be documented somewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iain_Duncan_Smith/Archive_1&oldid=1237573983"