Talk:Iain Duncan Smith

RE: your last edit

1. 'Valenciano' removed this reliably sourced and highly relevant section using an inappropriate WP: TPG tag without being willing to discuss the matter, in breach of Wiki guidelines His own user page shows he flies a 'Liberal Democrat supporters' flag (so perhaps reading through the 'Not A Censor' guidelines might be fruitful?). I feel it is highly relevant to include sections on the outcome of Mr.Smith's flagship reforms to DWP benefit entitlements - 15 suicides cited here , each attributed - by an entirely neutral Coroner's Inquest jury - to worries caused by both Atos assessments and cuts to other state benefits , particularly Housing Benefit. I feel it is of relevance to an Encyclopedia entry , since Mr. Smith himself is quoted in a reliable source (the BBC) as saying that 'no one is suffering' as a result of the cuts he has made to date. 79.75.211.228 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)twl79.75.211.228 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

DWP Guidelines on Benefit-Cut Related Suicides?

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.

I see in 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 .

Arguably, those who have already committed suicide because of cuts to their housing and other benefits (according toindependent Inquest juries) are 'not suffering', but this is exclusively because they are dead. 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! Two cases of benefit cut related suicides 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) . Another pensioner is mentioned in a later section. Then, there are the disabled suicides,such as 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>. Arguably, if such people do commit suicides, they are no longer a burden on the UK taxpayer, and the policy will indeed, be of enormous benefit to the public purse - but was this genuinely his plan? 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>. 80.42.232.214 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse80.42.232.214 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Government Statistics on Success of Welfare To Work Schemes are Dishonest

In the ongoing debate about compusory slave labour to those who find themselves without paid employment in this global recession, Smith has repeatedly claimed in the media that these schemes have a 50% - 60% success rate. This is a complete and deliberate distortion of the truth. It gives the impression that people who 'off flow' from claiming benefits and do not sign on again after attendance have all found a paid job. They have not. As explained in this Guardian article (<http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/feb/22/unemployment-work-programme-welfare<) the figure of 50% reflects claimants who simply stop signing on, rather than face more compulsory unpaid work for another employer who could afford to pay them a minimum wage. These youngsters are therefore still living at home, with no money at all, as a burden on their parents, who, one assumes, also feel strongly about slavery or sleeping rough and begging. There is therefore no evidence at all that this scheme leads anyone into employment. Has the Office of the National Statistician received any complaints about this flagrant deception by the coalition government? The statistic is being used to inform Government Policies, and massive expenditure and payments to providers like A4e. Using fake statistics to remain in a Minister's job is something one associates more with a Communist government, not the UK .

Bogus official statistics being used by Governments to inform policy can be reported to the Office of National Statistician. Email address is <nsoffice.enquiries@statistics.gov.uk> or telephone 0845 601 3034. The Code of Practice for the ONS, and a template complaint form to report breaches (e.g. dishonesty) can be downloaded at <http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/code-of-practice/index.html>.

Self-interested, hypocritical vote against EU referendum

Is there a more detailed reason than self-interest for Mr. Smith obeying the 3 line whip and voting against a referendum on membership of the EU on 26th October, 2011? In a Daily Mail interview <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053974/IDS-threat-quit-I-wont-vote-Eurosceptic-principles-warns-ex-leader.html> , his image consultant has attempted to gloss over the fact he pledged to withdraw from the EU when he stood for re-selection (yet voted against a referendum in order to retain a ministerial salary) by suggesting he 'stood up to the Tory whips and threatened to resign if he was ever put in this position again' - I wondered if he had explained his hypocritical, self-interested, irrational and unprincipled vote in any other articles or broadcasts??

Hooverville [Duncanvilles] construction plans?

With an anticipated 1/4 million housing benefit claimants in London no longer able to afford market rents in London alone due to impending cuts to Housing Benefits, there has been speculation that IDS intends to use the Police to clear any 'Hooverville' type encampments/tented communities that build up in London, particularly during the run up to the 2012 Olympics. Where, if anywhere, has the DWP designated these tents should be pitched as an alternative to the approaches to the Olympics venues. Were these prompted by the suicide of former soldier Mark Mullins and his disabled wife, reported in the Daily Mail [<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059238/Army-veteran-Mark-Mullins-wife-Helen-driven-suicide-poverty.html>] who killed themselves after 18 months of struggling to survive on the £57.50 Jobseeker's Allowance payment Mr Mullins, a 48-year-old former Army physical training instructor, was able to claim, having to walk 12 miles to eat free soup at a Salvation Army soup kitchen. Are they positioned to be nearer than 12 miles from a soup kitchen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.102.79 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ambitions to become Prime Minster?

Could you include more information on a) who put him forward as Leader of the Conservative Party in the first place, and b) the conspiracy to replace Cameron, by appealing to British Catholics and those formerly at the top of New Labour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.232.214 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse80.42.232.214 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Mafia allegations?

Shortly after Mr. Smith was accused by the Archbishop of Cantebury of re-inventing the 'undeserving poor' concept[- much favoured in Catholic circles],the Daily Mail announced (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001848/Head-Catholics-leads-furious-backlash-Archbishop-Canterburys-attack-Coalition.html#comments) that the Head of the RC Church [Archbishop Vince] in the UK was 'leading a furious backlash' against attacks on IDS. Is this tendency to policitise 'God' in any way connected to the banning of Catholics from government office for centuries? What were the historic reasons?

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

Catholicism

Are the details of a Catholic not being able to advise the Queen on appointments relevant? >> No, unless he got the PM job.

Decency and honesty

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)

External links

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.

• ePolitix.com - Iain Duncan Smith profile
• Guardian Politics Ask Aristotle - Iain Duncan Smith MP
• TheyWorkForYou.com - Iain Duncan Smith MP
• The Public Whip - Iain Duncan Smith MP voting record
• MP's rates of reply to faxes and emails from constituents, according to faxyourmp.com
• Open Directory Project - Iain Duncan Smith directory category
• BBC News - Iain Duncan Smith profile 18 October, 2002
• Duncan Smith's secret samurai past (Guardian Unlimited, September 3, 2001)
• Centre for Social Justice
• Dissatisfied Tories Pose Problem For Duncan Smith - And Themselves
• The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism

Ohconfucius 14:59, 8 May 2007 (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)

"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)

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)

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.[[1]] 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[[2]], 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[3]:

"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)

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. 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." Because Dunkan Smith often speaks controversially about the structure of families 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.

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)

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)