Talk:Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn

Useful article?

This hatchet-job of an opinion piece by Quentin Letts might be a useful source for referencing the "controversy" section, if required. DWaterson 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Very useful, thank you, as the article itself seems not to convey the magnitude of the controversy surrounding his initial appointmentJatrius (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches

There was a dispatches programme called Nice work if you can get it It detailed the inner workings of MPs expenses and all the corruption behind it and it ultimately placed the finger on Michael Martin because he blocked the setting up of an independent body to regualte Mps expenses. Unfortunatley I have forgotten the details of this programme. Can anyone else remember these things? http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/nice+work+if+you+can+get+it/839262 Lordy Why Have You Foresaken Me (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Party Affiliation

The speaker has no official party affiliation. I've changed it to 'None (pre-speakership Labour)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.243.54 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect, he is still a Labour MP when he stands in the general election. 195.157.52.65 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it he runs as "Mr Speaker seeking re-election", not "Labour Party", though he is the endorsed candidate of the relevant Constituency Labour Party. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally, I think that other parties have not put up a candidate against the incumbent Speaker at a general election: is that not right? Even so, that doesn't alter his (previous/current) party affiliation, and in any case at the last general election, although the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats did not contest Michael Martin's seat, other parties did. Ondewelle (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Riding roughshod over democracy

Perhaps someone would like to update this article to mention he allowed police to enter the House of Commons when MPs were away. I'm sure this will develop over the next few days. 195.157.52.65 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

picture

what a god awful picture! He looks like a bond villain! We so need a better one. I'm no good with images, so I'll leave it for someone else to do (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

There are some photos like this, but we can't use them because they're not freely licensed. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV????

This article is totally biased. You can read who and why -without giving details at all- these MPs want him sacked. We don't even know the Speaker's attitude to this issue. This article is not being handled respecting NPOV protocol. There is not a balance between appraisals and criticisms. If the editors can't follow NPOV, I think the neutrality of this article should be assessed by other members of Wikipedia project.--Merliomar (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem biased to me, yes it contains more criticism that praise of Speaker Martin, but that is purely because there is a hell of a lot of criticism out there, and very little (if any) praise, adding this information in is not in violation of NPOV. Both sides should be represented, however we do not have to have equal praise and criticism in an article as there will always be differing amounts of each, it is highly likely that it will contain more criticism as it appears that on Monday he will become the first speaker to voted down in 314 years, though knowing his arrogance he will probably refuse to resign (losing a vote of no confidence will not automatically remove him, there isn’t in fact a current way to get rid of him if he refuses to leave), the only way to get rid of him if he refuses to go may be to dissolve parliament or for him to be arrested for treason. MattUK (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Deeply Troubled

I have removed reference in the article to the Queen being said to be deeply troubled, because it is indefensible on every level. The citation was a Daily Mail article which does not give its own source of a famously private audience between Queen and Prime Minister, and in any case reported the Queen as being deeply troubled with the likelihood of extremist party representation in the EU, not with the Michael Martin issue. Neither does the citation of Nick Clegg's call for the Speaker to step down make any reference to the Queen, which had been suggested in the Wikipedia article. Encyclopaedias are for reporting facts, not for badly representing reports of tittle-tattle.

As listed below, it is a requirement of Wikipedia that badly sourced material in biography articles on living people are to be removed immediately, hence no advance discussion. Tsuchan (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail doesn’t need to give a source, it in itself is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we do not ask every media organisation to cite it's source in it’s material, indeed that would go against a lot of journalistic principals to have to disclose every source. MattUK (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I've moved this to the bottom if the page, where it should be, not stuck above the info area. MattUK (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for moving this section to the bottom of the page.
• About sourcing material, like I say, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. The Daily Mail is reputed as a trashy tabloid with journalistic standards to match. It's completely untenable to say that being a newspaper ipso facto makes it a reliable source and therefore extreme discretion should be used at any time before quoting it. Wikipedia's "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" test is assessed with reference to "the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments". The only grounds on which the Daily Mail really passes muster is the legal scrutiny basis, and this carries weight only in articles for which there is a likely legal consequence of transgression. (Doesn't apply to a non-attributable claim about a secret meeting where neither party have a realistic possibility of legal recourse on the basis of accuracy.)
• But given that - as I said - the Daily Mail article didn't even say what was being quoted, so the reference had to be removed.

Tsuchan (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)