Talk:David Mills financial allegations

message: This article was moved from a separate article entitled Jowellgate - which is now just a redirect to the Tessa Jowell page Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This paragraph is not on the flow of funds. It starts by saying that no-one has explained the flow of funds, and then launches into a completely speculative and POV list of entirely predictable newspaper reaction. It adds nothing. The only possibly salvageable part is the first sentence. David | Talk 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on 'flow of funds' 

message: In the heading there is a dispute as to whether the following:
The word 'sleaze' has come into use to refer to inherent corruption in large sums of money being in the world of politics and politicians, and the case of Tessa Jowell has been cited as an example. 
is preferable to the simpler The connection between large sums of money and politics & politicians has become synonymous with sleaze.
I think the first is clumsy and not strictly grammatically accurate.
Is it possible to canvas opinion so as to avoid reversions or a suggested alternative?leaky_caldron 11:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'synonym' is where the same concept is described by two different words or phrases. This is not the case here. You don't identify the grammatical problems you see with the other wording. David | Talk 13:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  check this out and explain why I'm wrong leaky_caldron 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What concept are you saying is synonymous with sleaze? Politics itself, or political donations, or any large amount of money near a politician? David | Talk 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A very good question!! Personally all three (regardless of which party)!! In this context however the large amount of money near a politician (in Cash for Peerages it would be donations).leaky_caldron 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the wikipedia article for sleaze, it's not merely synonymous with with money/politics/politicians.  This use of sleaze in this article needs to be consistent with the sleaze wikipedia article. --Oscarthecat 19:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a poor comparison to take. Sleaze redirects to Political corruption, but that has a cleanup tag on it. I suspect you mean Political Sleaze (UK Politics) which is where the Tessa Jowell financial allegations links, although that is somewhat behind the times as it starts off by implying the term only relates to the Conservatives. Wikipedia does not have to be consistent, incidentally. David | Talk 08:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does not have to be consistent, incidentally.  - of course, but having complete contradictory articles would not make for a very encyclopaedic source. --Oscarthecat 08:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: good news. On a diferent subject, although the {neutrality} flag was applied at the same time, is there any remaining issue with the remainder of the article that prevents the removal of the flag now? I'm content with the substantive article. How aboutOscarthecat  ?leaky_caldron 10:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. David | Talk 10:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No objection here either. --Oscarthecat 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: description of sleaze

message: I'm sorry, I'm fully aware of the Wikipedia rules on 'citations' etc. But everybody who's paying attention and following British politics knows that Tessa Jowell is lying when she says she has split from her husband. She's doing this so that the Berlusconi scandal cannot be connected to the British government through her. She's still wearing the damn ring on her finger! --81.105.251.160 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still married! 

message: I just cut a pile of stuff from this article, including a huge section that was completely uncited. Every allegation and quote needs a cite. I've tagged a pile that definitely needs an inline cite. The old material is still in the history if people can find cites for it. This needs serious going over - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Culled yet more garbage sourcing and blatant WP:COATRACKing of unrelated incidents. This is a news story that happened, but it needs vastly better citing than the old version - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severe BLP cull 

message: This isn't actually allegations about Tessa Jowell but about David Mills. Should be there? Or Jowellgate? Or better place? - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so moving - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Mills financial allegations. 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/20080113072727/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C200-2058985%2C00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C200-2058985%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050827095936/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aTiXT_FbBkuI&refer=uk
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) 07:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified