Talk:Jack Straw/Archive 1

Non-POV edits

I have edited an (obviously biased) tirade from the Freedom of Information act section, which was railing against the actions of Jack Straw in a very anti-government, completely non-NPOV fashion. If anyone can figure out a way to improve this - i'm no wiki-writer - that would be great. 194.66.32.1 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Old title

This is an inappropriate article title, since Mr. Straw is not known by this name. I know we're trying to dismbiguate, but perhaps Jack Straw (politician)? -- Zoe

Yes, much better. I will move. Pcb21 07:07 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Pedophile brother?

Jack Straw's brother, also called William, is a convicted pedophile.

I'm not saying its false, but I think we definetely need a reference Jackliddle 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

We also need better spelling (paedophile) and some consideration of whether this tidbit is at all relevant

His brother William was found guilty of indecent assault on a 16-year-old girl by the stipendiary magistrate at Nottingham in September 2000, according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/916179.stm In colloquial terms he groped her. I'm not sure this counts as paedophilia nor whether the story is particularly relevant to an article about Jack Straw.

Paedophilia is not a crime, it's a sexual aberration which may cause someone to commit various crimes. The term convicted pedophile is therefore tabloidese nonsense (until such time as thought crime becomes a reality!). In addition, as the age of consent in England is 16, it is extremely questionable to describe someone who sexually assaults a 16-year-old as a paedophile (even using that term in its most vague and tabloidese way). I'm therefore changing this sentence to Jack Straw's brother, also called William, is a convicted sex offender. I think that is at least factually accurate.

I too doubt this factoid is relevant to an article on Straw - at least in the context of the skimpiness of the overall article - but I dislike removing information so I'll settle for changing it. Valiantis 00:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You honestly can't see the relevance of the brother of the Home Secretary famous for his hard line on crime committing a serious crime? It happened , and it can be proved to happen. Therefore it is a fact. Not sure what a factoid is, although i am aware it is a buzzword surrounding wikipedia these days, as with most buzzwords it doesnt really mean anything.

There is no relevance - his brother wasn't Home Secretary. If he owned a cat and that cat had murdered an innocent mouse would the tabloids say "Home Secretary's Cat is a Murderer"?

There is totally no relevance. However, it is difficult to get people to give up on including tangential or trivial factoids. Metamagician3000 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm minded to delete the section in whole or in part, so I'm serving notice. If you disagree, here's a chance to say so. Metamagician3000 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. At present the only ref to his matter is the sentence, "There was further embarrassment in 2000 when Jack Straw's brother — also named William — was fined for indecently assaulting a 16 year old girl," which keeps the point failry minor. I agree that it still seems like a lot of coverage given how bare much of the rest of the article is. However this did occur and the tabloid press did try and make a lot of it. The comment is referenced. I think it is relevant to the topic of "Family Issues".

To me the question about relevance misses the point- no it doesn't affect his ability to hold Cabinet office if his brother commits an offence. No the press probably shouldn't have played on it so much. But they did and mention of the press attention this incident got seems relevant to the article. As such I would support the keeping of the sentence in the article. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Scott

I have added the paragraph about Jack Straws involvement with this case, however it may not be in the most suitable part of the page, however as the BBC has not removed or amended its article after 3 years, it does have some merits. Please feel free to move/amend the paragraph, though please consult if you wish to remove it entirely.

It's relevant enough because of Straw's subsequent career. But I would like to see some clearer delineation of fact and speculation: the facts are that Straw was able to see the file, whereas any motive for that fact must be attributed directly to the person who speculated about it. David | Talk 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we also mention that his father was imprisoned during WW2? 1) Is it relevant ( i think it is) 2)does anyone one know any more details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.238.87 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Background

Given the foreign office's involvement in the Middle-East conflict, I think some mention of Jack Straw's ethnicity needs mentioning (people can make their own mind up whether being of Jewish descent makes for bias).

I heard a rumour that he was a member of ZOG, but then the person who told me that died of a 'heart attack'. Make of that what you will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.250.74 (talk • contribs) .

I think certainly some mention should be made of his PIVOTAL role in getting the COW to war in Iraq and his continuing efforts to secure war in Iran. These efforts have occupied almost his entire time for at least 2 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.146.131.78 (talk • contribs) .

This last is nonsense. Straw has been a consistent voice of moderation (by New Labour standards) on the Iran issue. He opposed Bush's idea of a nuclear strike on Iran's 'research facility'. [1]. His position on the Iraq war was more equivocal but he was certainly not an unconditional supporter. Greenlaner 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can all you weed-adled conspiracy theorists please step away from the computer. Bombot 11:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Going down - or up?

Everyone was expected that Clarke and Prescott might go. But Straw? There was no reason for him to be demoted.

Maybe he really wants a break, as the Guardian says (ref on main page).

But if Blair moves on and Brown moves up, there is a vacancy for Chancellor. That would round off a ministerial career with the last of the 'big three'. It would also leave him well placed to be the next leader if Brown failed. Not impossibly old (born 1946) if Brown quit after 8 or 10 years.

--GwydionM 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea but i do not know about his financial expertise. I can see him becoming Deputy Prime Minister or minister of Constitutional Affairs. In my opinion he is the most capable cabinet member at the moment. Wright123 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Childhood

Can i have some more details on his childhood. It currently states he was brought up on a council estate by a single mum but yet he went to a 10k a term private school. King Konger

Prior to the Labour Party's election victory in 1974 many of what are now Public Schools were known as Direct Grant Grammar Schools and were partly funded by their Local Education Authority. This meant that a proportion of their intake was non fee-paying. Brentwood is probably one such. Entrance to these schools was normally reserved for the most able children, although there is a suspicion that the fee-paying student did not have to attain quite such a high standard as the free place student.

Fees at Brentwood for day scholars are about 3k per term.Greenlaner 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Walter Arthur Whitaker Straw,[2] an insurance salesman and the son of Arthur Whitaker Straw, left the family and condemned them to poverty. He was educated at Staples Road School, Loughton, and then boarded at the fee-charging Brentwood School "

Can nobody see any incongruity here without further elucidation being made in the article? Some poverty if young John (soon to be Jack) was a boarder at Brentwood, which does take day-pupils. Something fishy here with the presentation...Jatrius (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons

In February 2006 Straw made some controversial comments in relation to the Jyllands-Posten Mohammad cartoons controversy. Refusing to defend freedom of speech, Straw instead condemned publication of the cartoons [2]. This was widely seen as pandering to Muslim voters, particularly in his own constituency, and led to accusations of dhimmitude.

This is negative in tone, takes a clear position against Straw's actions (he refused to defend freedom of speech and made controversial remarks) and it needs sourcing. If no one objects I'm going to reword.--Lo2u 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Right I've reworded but this needs to be properly sourced or I'm taking out the condemnation bit entirely and replacing with something like "He attracted publicity after he...". I don't like to see Wikpedia being used as a soapbox. The claims of Dhimmitude and his refusal to defend freedom of speech constitute the synthesis of original material to advance a position and have to go. --Lo2u 13:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Full-veil

Why is "full-veil" hyphenated? I'm no expert on Islam, but wouldn't "full veil" be correct English? Blaise 09:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Full-veil

"Nazreen Nawaz, a spokeswoman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Muslim group, said: "The Muslim community does not need lessons in dress from Jack Straw, any more than it needs lessons in parenting from John Reid."

Why is Hizb-ut-Tahrir the single representative quote? Surely if we wish to represent the Muslim community reaction, we should be quoting an organisation that is mainstream? John

Well, for want of a better term, I've added 'extremist' to its description. No doubt someone will come along and revert it though. --84.64.51.100 13:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That was quick. I'm adamant they do need a reference to their political standing though. --84.64.51.100 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for Straw's intervention on veils

I think we are being a little naîve. I know Blackburn, Jack Straw's town, extremely well, and veils which cover the face are extremely rare. If Jack Straw decided to make a song and dance about them, it is for a POLITICAL reason. And that political reason is that anything negative said about muslims at present WINS VOTES from people who have prejudices against muslims. Straw is being (and not for the first time) shamelessly opportunistically.

At least one can't say that he has got worse as his career developed. I knew him in the mid seventies, he was the same Johncmullen1960 19:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dead-end link about tinnitus

Just a small thing, but the link to the article about Jack Straw's tinnitus does not lead to a valid article. Can we remove it? Lickamaloin 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move October 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Andrewa 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Straw (politician)→ Jack Straw– He is clearly the most notable "Jack Straw" Philip Stevens 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose I think the other uses have enough significance that it's best to leave the dab page there. -- Beardo 01:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The other Jack Straw (the rebel leader) is a thousand times more significant. In twenty years everyone will have forgotten this one Johncmullen1960 19:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is more than one Jack Straw, then there should exist a disambiguation page--NPswimdude500 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Johncmullen1960 --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There can be a disambiguation page at Jack Straw (disambiguation). —  AjaxSmack  00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. If moved, add link to dab page on top.--Húsönd 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Jakke Straw is unlikely to increase in importance anytime soon. —  AjaxSmack  00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Philip Stevens 05:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Kirjtc2 18:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Hera1187 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Catchpole 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment, the link is already there. Also, I'm not suggesting deleting or removing the disambiguation page, just the moving of this page; the disambiguation page will be unaffected. Beardo and NPswimdude500's comments show a lack of understanding of the request and should be ignored. No offence. Philip Stevens 14:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your request. The dab page should be at Jack Straw, not this one. -- Beardo 01:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• But the fast majority of pages linked to "Jack Straw" are for "John Whitaker Straw", so it would be best to have the disambiguation somewhere else and a link placed at the top of this page. Philip Stevens 07:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment one could likely be looking at an article on A "jackstraw", an effigy stuffed with straw; a man of straw; a man without property, worth or influence 70.51.8.97 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not good

Hmmm, the move was done by the proposer despite the lack of consensus, but the entry wasn't removed from requested moves nor was the poll closed. I've now done those two things, and there's a possible edit war shaping up over the resulting redirect.

Not good. Andrewa 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Veil Issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_debate_over_veils

Early career

This is almost entirely unsourced, and therefore should be drastically pruned as per: WP:BLP. MikeHobday 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor/Justice Secretary

Should we mention that he is being talked about for this position, or just wait until tomorrow? john k 03:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Position

Jack Straw is now the Secretary of State for Justice, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and First Secretary of State. Perhaps the article should be updated?

Article location

What is the point of having this article at Jack Straw (politician) when Jack Straw redirects here? Either the redirect is wrong or the article should be at Jack Straw. Timrollpickering 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was 'Move.--Húsönd 00:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack Straw (politician) → Jack Straw — Jack Straw redirects here anyway and he is the best known "Jack Straw". --Philip Stevens 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) —Philip Stevens 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per nom, notability, and prior discussion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, the disambiguation tag is completely unnecessary. Timrollpickering 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per previous discussion. Catchpole 18:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- primary use of name. Saikokira 19:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Per reasons given Reginmund 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - disambiguator is redundant. Will ^(talk) 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the English-speaking world at large, Jack Straw (rebel leader) is a more significant figure than any current English politician, however senior. The move of the disambiguation should be reversed. Andrewa 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by "the English-speaking world at large" in this case, because while the politican is well-known outside of Britain, I am unaware of the rebel leader. Can you elaborate? Dekimasuよ! 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The disambiguator on the current Jack Straw (politician) article is redundant because of the primary topic redirect. It wouldn't be the case if we chose to use the politician's middle name, but in this case, our acknowledgement of the politician as the primary topic of "Jack Straw" and our choice to name his article precisely that combine to indicate that his article doesn't need a parenthetical. This is akin to the reasoning used to pull disambiguation pages to the plain title when there is no clear primary topic and the redirect points to them. Dekimasuよ! 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The comment above that the disambiguator is redundant puzzles me. Jack Straw (rebel leader) was a key figure in the Peasants' Revolt and is mentioned (line 3394) in Chaucer. There's also a song Jack Straw by the Grateful Dead, side two track one on Europe '72, about Jack Straw from Wichita, probably unrelated to either of the others, and a play by W. Somerset Maugham. So there's plenty to disambiguate.

The disambiguator appears redundant only because the unqualified name has been inappropriately redirected. Andrewa 03:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The question you have to ask is how many of the pages that link to Jack Straw are for the politician and how are for the rebel leader. Jack Straw (rebel leader) may be a more important figure historical but on Wikipedia you have to ask what's best for Wikipedia, and from the length and amount of edits of the two articles, I'd say that when someone searches for 'Jack Straw' the odds are they're looking for Jack Straw MP. --Philip Stevens 06:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the article Jack Straw (rebel leader) is barely more than a stub. Catchpole 08:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this article is barely more than a stub is (unfortunately) a very unreliable indicator of the importance of the subject... Just as the fact that we have comprehensive articles on many rock bands, local schools, even politicians (;-> is an equally poor indicator of their importance. Andrewa 11:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The name of an article on Wikipedia is not determined by a person's importance but their notability, and given the amount of edits to both Jack Straws, John Whitaker Straw is the more notable of the two. --Philip Stevens 14:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the name is determined by WP:NC, MoS:NAMES and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions, and no, the number of edits to an article is not a good indicator of the notability of the subject in any case.

Note the introduction to Wikipedia:Naming conventions: This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. So while linking is a consideration, the more important consideration is what readers would recognise. That is, readers, rather than contributors, take priority.

And there's a particular skew with some newsworthy articles, such as active politicians. Note the activepol = yes in the header to this talk page. Their followers tend to be active in updating Wikipedia. Andrewa 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vigilante cabinet secretary!

Woah, check this out, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7015502.stm :

Mr Straw has intervened four times to stop criminals, including three times when he managed to detain the offender.

In 1980 he overheard a burglar breaking into a members club in his Blackburn constituency, chased them down the street and detained them until police arrived.

In the mid 1980s at Oval Tube station in south London he came across an 11-year-old boy who had just been robbed by a man and detained the offender.

At the same tube station in the early 1990s he chased a man who had attacked a woman, but did not catch him.

Then in 1996 he chased a man who had robbed a member of the public and detained the suspect until police arrived.

If that can not be included in the article, then I weep for Wikipedia. ←Ben^B4 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic / religious identity

This article categorises Jack Straw as Jewish without any explanation - newspaper articles suggest that he has jewish ancestory, but that doesn't mean that he necessarily identifies ethnically or religiously as Jewish. I have a feeling he is an practising Anglican - but cannot lay my hand on a reference at present.

Should the category labels be removed until someone finds evidence to verify this description? 62.239.159.6 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Short

Straw seems to have practiced as a barrister for only one or two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.253.210 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Those planning a political career often study law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Loss of cabinet position

I read in a paper this morning that eight cabinet ministers are to lose their positions, Straw included. Could somebody put this down? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is speculation based on one poll. It says that Straw and others may lose their seats at the next election. In itself, this doesn't mean that much for an election that will probably not happen for almost two years. It may be relevant in a discussion of his role in the current leadership debate. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish roots

Jack Straw is of Polish Jewish origin so his father couldn't have been a Nazi.Being a Jew,he cannot be classified as a white man.Never mind his blond hair and blue eyes.There are scores of muslims with blond and blue eye features(bosnians and Albanians to mention a few).More often than not,jews try to act more white than the white themselves but they are neither nordic,nor causasian nor Slavic but thoroughbreeds.Forgive me if have been offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.30.239 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

German Jewish roots

Here's a story from The Independent that refers to his maternal grandfather being German Jewish immigrant. [3]

Walter Straw WWII jailing

Should Walter's conscientious objector jailing be put in the "early life" section rather than "Personal life"? Andjam (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that Jack Straw's father was a Nazi? (92.4.73.223 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

I think the fact that Straw's father was a vocal Nazi should be mentioned. (92.14.244.41 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

Why? Is his father notable? Is Straw notbale for having a Nazi father? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the article mentions his father was imprisoned during World War II we should also mention his Nazi views. Nick Griffin mentioned Straw's father on Question Time last year. (92.14.244.41 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

The conscientious objector is in the article, that was what he was imprisoned for, your vocal nazi assertion is not in the citation, I also think it is not true and uncitable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is true. Straw's father was a vocal supporter of Adolf Hitler and was strongly opposed to going to war with Nazi Germany. (92.14.244.41 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

Stop repeating it here, it is not true and it is uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I beleive it may be true but the day Nick Griffin becomes reliable source, I'll retire from WP. Besides, Wikipedia works on verfiability not truth. If you can find a source of the utmost reliability to show his father was a Nazi supporter, then maybe we can discuss including it but, unitl such a time, this conversation is best left because we shouldn;t be discussing (hypothetically or otherwise) discussing Naziism in a biography of a living person wihtout sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw's father was a Nazi sympathiser just like Lloyd George, the Duke of Windsor and many other people in the 1930s. It is absolutely relevant to the article. (92.14.244.41 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

Your saying it doesn't make it true (nor does Nigel Griffith's). You have been challenged on accuracy, and have failed utterly to provide meaningful support for your position. Either provide it or drop it. Only once you've done that is it even worth discussing whether the article should mention it. -Rrius (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would much sooner question if there was a real alternative to both military service and to being slammed in. If alternatives did exist, he would be interested to take that option(s). If options exist, and you still say no, then one is so much better than everyone else, and a prison term is in order. --83.108.31.191 (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Guile and low cunning

I added a bit about the memorable phrase "guile and low cunning", as it seems to come up most places on the web about him. I thought it showed that the phrase was meant possibly as a joke and that Castle also thought highly of him. It was removed as it was unconstructive??? The bit I'd put in is below.Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Castle remembers Straw for his competence and unfailing diligence, but was the originator of the comment that he was employed for his guile and low cunning.

Yes, it could be mistaken as POV you see. Although you did use the edit summary, just make it clear that you are inserting a quote, and that the quote is necessary, and that the point of view is only kept within the confines of the person who originally said it. Many apologies for branding your edit as unconstructive. Orphan Wiki 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The comment is not notable and opinionated in an editorial. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/profile-right-man-for-blair-hand-jack-straw-1303664.html actually it is also a primary citation for that content Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the whole lot is uncited...

During his time as political adviser, Straw was asked by Castle to examine the social security file of Norman Scott, who had claimed that the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe was behind an attempt to murder him. Castle had been asked by Harold Wilson to investigate Scott's file to see if it contained any evidence that he was involved in a security conspiracy against Thorpe. Straw informed Castle that when he went to examine Scott's file, he found it was missing. The journalist Barrie Penrose has alleged that Straw subsequently leaked details from the file to the media. Straw remains silent on that matter. He has denied allegations by Joe Haines, Wilson's press secretary, that Wilson asked for Scott's file to be viewed for party political purposes, in the hopes of gaining information that could be used to damage Thorpe if he attempted to form a coalition government with Edward Heath. By the time he was asked to view the file, Heath had ceased to be leader of the Conservative Party. At the time of the scandal, the general view, promoted in particular by Private Eye, was that Wilson was using his influence to help and protect Thorpe and certainly not to smear him. Thorpe was cleared of any involvement in the attempt on Scott's life.

Is there any citations to assert notability on this issue? Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea about the Norman Scott stuff. Regarding the guile and cunning bit it is a quote from Barbara Castle not the Independent, the ref to the Independent is only used to verify the quote? The quote might be a reference to Machiavelli, so presumably she saw that as his function, which would be a significant pointer to his role and more useful than lists of achievements in encapsulating him? Perhaps it is too loaded ... Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And notability about the Norman Scott affair, ... just look up Jeremy Thorpe. I'll add the wiki link to Jeremy Thorpe.Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Castle, perhaps it is a issue of two castles, the article is written by Stephen castle and I took it that the Castle being quoted was him, these castles are confusing indeed. Who is stephen castle? Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the thorpe affair was notable but Straws alleged involvement imo was not and the issue seems a bit coatracked here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw is an important man and this occurred when he was in a minor job, but it is (was) an important affair, so I think it probably belongs here. I mean on Jeremy Thorpe's page there's a whole section on Jeremy Thorpe#Possible involvement of Jack Straw. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read that content and the supporting citations, the content there is also not very good and requires attributing correctly. IMO straws involvement was minimal and was being given excessive weight here in his life story. If you want to add a comment about it, why not present it here with the supporting citations for discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Will Straw

"Will Straw" redirects to this page. It seems to me that Will Straw is becoming notable enough to deserve his own article. 188.222.188.169 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he is close...but perhaps no cigar...I saw him on TV being interviewed during the election. Will Straw , Wikipedia:Article_wizard_2.0 Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

He was president of the Oxford Studant Union, his dad was the president of the national studant union (I think) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/will-straw-rising-son-746657.html Lots of hits on google and google news.Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Order

So why should the Order of Precedence not be followed? I don't think for certain editors here to refer to it as irrelevant is ridiculous. For them to say that a certain office is more "substantive" is ridiculous, the fact is that the office of Lord Chancellor is one even above that of Prime Minister in terms of its standing, and this should be reflected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be? The office of Leader of the House of Commons is a substantive office with real duties. Lord Privy Council is a sinecure used to make the holder a member of the Government. As for Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the former has more responsibilities, but a reasonable case could be made for putting Lord Chancellor first. It doesn't even make sense to use order of precedence for Leader of the House because that role isn't in the order of precedence. More importantly, again, there is no reason for listing the roles according to order of precedence. That order is for official functions, not for listing titles in Wikipedia infoboxes. Putting "Leader of the House of Commons" above its sinecure has been the dominant method, presumably for the reason I stated. Likewise, it was obvious to editors to put "Secretary of State for Justice" above "Lord Chancellor" for both people for whom it is appropriate to list the offices together. (Lord Falconer of course held the offices for different time periods, so it would not have been appropriate to pub them together.) Now, instead of leaving messages on peoples' talk pages petulantly deigning to discuss their "arrogant assumptions", why don't you do what you have failed to so repeatedly: attempt to persuade, rather than alienate, editors who disagree with you? -Rrius (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Deputy Prime Minister

I'm removing Shadow Deputy Prime Minister from the main page. There is no such office. Just because Jack Straw has been nominated as the person to face the DPM in DPMQs doesn't mean he's a shadow Deputy Prime Minister. The Labour party shadow cabinet page lists him as 'Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice'. Unless someone can find a more respectable source than the man's own party's page, it should not be listed as an office he holds. Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Parliament.uk lists him as both "Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice" and "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". Road Wizard (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV anyone?

Our neutral point of view policy says among other things that articles should be written "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". I do not think this article currently conforms to this and I have tagged it as such. I would be happy to give more detailed feedback if required. I would like experienced editors to try to help neutralize the article. Thanks, --John (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Death penalty

I have changed the wording from "abolished the death penalty" to "[finalised] the de jure abolition of the death penalty". It's a stretch to say he abolished it, considering that the UK was already bound by the ECHR before the introduction of the HRA (which only served to move responsibility for enforcing the ECHR from Strasbourg to the UK courts) and that there had been no executions since 1964. GideonF (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)