Talk:Cash-for-questions affair

message: This piece is poorly written. It's not until the very end the reader is told what 'cash for questions' means. There is no introduction, no treatment of topic, only haphazard facts assembled willy-nilly. Someone needs to look at this and when rewriting must assume the reader is not acquainted with the story and wants to know.
I am doubtful that the Tim Smith mentioned here is the same Tim Smith that is the target of the link (American, Libertarian candidate for Congress)... TomH 05:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It has since been corrected at some point. PeterEastern (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite?

message: What were the actual questions asked in the Commons?
: Anyone? Phyte (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This definitely needs to be in the article. Turkeyphant 15:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual question 

message: No mention of backbenchers David Tredinnick and Graham Riddick, though both of their individual pages state their involvement. Separate incident to the infamous Hamilton example as I recall, but needs clarifying. Bentley Banana 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riddick and Tredinnick 

message: Serious allegations such as these need very good references for every repetition of the claims. I am adding fact tags to the main places where these are needed.PeterEastern (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Better references needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cash-for-questions affair. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109215123/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960031_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960031_en_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cash-for-questions affair. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950421/ai_n13978206
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605021756/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-04-20/Debate-4.html to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-04-20/Debate-4.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960031_en_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: In its current form, the article is pretty useless as it does not explain
(A) Why, in general, would anyone pay money to have questions asked in parliament? (People engaging in corrupt dealings usually seek to keep a low profile rather than laying them out for anyone to see)
(B) What questions were actually asked in this case?
(C) What was the motive for having these questions asked and paying for them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonaldPlate (talk • contribs) 10:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless article - does not explain the heart of the matter 

message: Removed 2 in-text links from the following sentence (currently in the "Riddick and Treddinick" section):
"The two were suspended from parliament for 10 and 20 days respectively, Mr Riddick receiving a shorter 'sentence' due to his apparent decision to apologise quickly and return his cheque bribe."
*Linking the word "apologise" to "non-apology apology" article is POV pushing and likely also OR. Such cunning jokes are probably better placed in a political blog than in Wikipedia.
*"Bribe" is an everyday word and it's not even a first appearance of the word in the article, so why put a link here? The phrase "return his cheque bribe" does not strike me as particularly neat, but I'd leave that for others to judge.
158.75.101.195 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed dubious in-text links