Jump to content

Talk:Nadine Dorries/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Internet campaigning

This section is justifiable on this article as Dorries is noted for her blog and use of Twitter (she has been referred to as the Tory equivalent of the government's 'Twitter Tsar'. The new section is clearly not original research and has been referenced. Therefore, it is wholly inappropriate to undo the section. Should anyone believe that the sources have been 'misreferenced', please make edits to the section, rather than falsely suggesting it is original research and/or undoing without further explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.69.140 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Internet campaigning" section - sources fail WP:BLOG by a mile

Particularly in the case of biographies of living people, we can only include controversial or negative material if it is reliably sourced. Mark recons is not reliable, nor is a comment left by someone at toryrascal.com. The onus is on the person who places the disputed text to prove the reliability of the source - until we have good sourcing, we can't include this section as-is. Do not re-add without resolving these issues, or I will have to take/seek administrative action under WP:BLP. – Toon 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Internet campaigning" section - sources don't fail

Reference to Tory Rascal site updated to link to original article. Dorries has linked to this article in her own Twitter stream. References to criticism linked to article itself (she has answered them in the interview and hasn't suggested they were wrongly made. This is clearly a proper link, in the same way as Conservative Home has been referenced for some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.69.140 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikpedia's policy on biographies of living people is very strict, and our verifiability policy states that: "Self-published sources [i.e. blogs] should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Which means that "Tory Rascal" cannot be used as a reference here. If you can back up the suggestions of criticism by using reliable sources, then we can include it. Otherwise, we can't. – Toon 16:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be pedantic but would you like to explain how an interview with the subject of the Wikipedia article can be claimed to be a 'third-party source'? This isn't 'Tory Rascal' writing about Nadine Dorries: it is Nadine Dorries talking about herself. The substantial independent evidence for its reliability is Dorries' own reference to the interview; did you look at it before deleting the revisions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.1.10 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's now fine to add this previous section back in? I'll wait until tomorrow just in case there is any further comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.1.10 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How can two arguments against reinsertion mean that there are no more objections? The concerns raised by the other users above remain valid and I have removed the section again. If she is so well known for internet campaigning then surely it will have been picked up by a reliable source, such as a local or national newspaper. Road Wizard (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Correction, I see that the second comment was by you, but the point you raised is a reason to remove the section not include it. Not only does it fail self-published sources as a blog but your argument suggests that it should fail as a primary source by the subject of the article. Road Wizard (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Warrington

Can someone clarify the reference to Nadine being brought up near Warrington? The entry says born Liverpool, she describes herself as a Scouser, the listed primary school is Knowsley and the listed Secondary School is Halewood - so nothing to support Warrington there. Can someone clarify please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.93.88 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Guardian

Have made a number of references from a well cited article in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/26/conservatives-health-select-committee over issues relating to her attitude to science, using quotes from Ms. Dorries herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horleye (talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal relationships

With regards to some recent edits, to describe something as being controversial in this article, there needs to be clear reliable sources which support that view. So far no reliable sources have been cited which do so. Statements such as "Dorries drew much criticism" also need to cite reliable sources to show that this is true. So far all that has been cited is Dorries' blog which clearly doesn't illustrate that "Dorries drew much criticism" or that this was a controversial issue. The coverage of this issue therefore fails to comply with the neutral point of view policy, since it is clear that what is being written is the personal opinions of the editors concerned, and the verifiability policy, since there are no sources which back up statements such as that "Dorries drew much criticism". This issue cannot be written about like this. Adambro (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

# 3.6 Criticism of Speaker Bercow

"In January 2010, she refused to honour the tradition of MPs of standing still and allowing the Speaker to pass them in the corridors of Parliament in protest to Bercow's decision not to wear the Speaker's traditional uniform.[40]" - citing a reference to her blog as the source http://blog.dorries.org/id-1548-2010_2_Backs_against_the_wall.aspx

From http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/msalter/100025687/nadine-dorries-and-her-campaign-against-the-speaker-i-know-a-bad-loser-when-i-see-one/ indicates that the information provided by Nadine is incorrect.

There is apparantly no tradition of tradition of MPs of standing still and allowing the Speaker to pass them in the corridors of Parliament.

Is sourcing information for a wikipedia entry only from the subject of the wikipedia entry correct?

I have removed the line on the grounds that it repeats an inaccuracy without correcting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.34.51 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is another instance of Dorries claims in the article without clarification that the claims made are false or misleading.

"In October 2010, Dorries suggested that benefit claimants who made more than 35,000 postings on Twitter should be reported to the Department for Work and Pensions. On being told by the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper that one of her constituents was out of work due to ill health and had posted more than 37,000 tweets, Dorries told the newspaper that her constituent's tweeting gave housebound disabled people a bad name" for balance it should be stated that the constituent was not in fact claiming benefits otherwise this section is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.34.51 (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/nadine-dorries-vicious-and-ridiculous/ gives a viewpoint on the above and debunks a few of the MPs other claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.34.51 (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Edits such as this strip sentences of any meaningful informational content (something she said during a TV appearance that attracted controversy being replaced by the mere fact that she appeared on TV) and are attempts to place a positive spin on the article by removing potentially embarrassing information. What's particularly interesting is that the IP making that edit belongs to the Houses of Parliament. Could any of Mrs Dorries' staff who are reading this please familiarise themselves with the conflict of interest policy and refrain from making crude attempts to sanitise the public presentation of Nadine Dorries. You would think they'd have some constituency casework to be getting on with, rather than interfering with Wikipedia. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Witness to two 'botched' abortions.

There is no evidence of this in the Metro article. When dealing with a subject as rife with speculation and emotive language as this, the very strictest standards should be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuszka (talk • contribs) 07:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's three replacements: ""During my time as a nurse, I assisted on two seriously botched abortions," she says. "Of all the experiences in my life, they left the biggest impact."" Telegraph [1]; "Nadine told us how she had decided that the limit must be reduced after, as a nurse, seeing botched abortions. “The first time this happened, a little boy was aborted into a cardboard bedpan that was thrust into my arms. This little boy was gasping through mucous and amniotic fluid for his breath. And I stood with him for seven minutes while he gasped: a botched abortion which became a live birth then became a death seven minutes after. And I knew that one day I would have the opportunity to stand and defend babies like this. What I thought was, what we were committing that day was murder.”" Times [2]; "I guess I knew when watching an aborted baby lying in a bedpan struggling to breathe, that my inability to help and my complicity as a young nurse assisting in this process, would one day force me to try to alter the barbaric practice our society has become so immune to: late abortion." Telegraph [3]. Fences&Windows 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a great shame this woman doesn't campaign for easier early term abortions,and TRULY impartial counselling, in view of what she witnessed as a 'nurse'. Having had a friend who committed suicide after being deprived of a legal term abortion by a Catholic GP who felt she was 'working for God' (jeez!) in the 1970s, I do not share her childish views.

Edits of 2 September 2011 by User:Philip Cross

My fairly extensive reworking of the article probably deserves a little more explanation than those given in the edit summaries. First of all the article had a surfeit of short sections and duplicate passages (on the Abstinence for girls sex education bill). I have cut down the former and merged the later. The controversies heading seemed arbitrary becausen most of the issues discussed in what was formerly 'Parliamentary career' are treated in a contentious way also. Some sections were moved, like the Equatorial Guinea section, so that we have a roughly chronological article rather than a randomised sequence of fragments. Philip Cross (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I have removed the 'political career' heading and created two parliamentary sections. The chronolgy is no longer constantly zigzagging either side of the last election. Philip Cross (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Her religious opinions and how she states it affects her work

Ms Dorries has some very strong and rather unique views on the role of 'god' working through her as an MP which I believe would improve this article by being included.

"I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did... I am just a conduit for God."

"I try to live my faith. Some days I fail quite miserably but I constantly try to do what Jesus would do." [4]

Any comments, opinions, objections to me adding this? --Richardeast (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) The first quote is already present, see the 'In parliament' section. I avoided adding the second because it seemed to be making the same point and risked being accused of undue weight. Philip Cross (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I'm an Atheist RichardEast, I've no objection to its inclusion, as it demonstrates she's deluded, and unsuited to her role as Chair of the committee. I feel I am a conduit for Christopher Hitchens by the way...

And PS, which part of the Bible did Jesus fiddle expenses in? 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.131 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.131 (talk)

Her religious opinions and how she states it affects her work

Ms Dorries has some very strong and rather unique views on the role of 'god' working through her as an MP which I believe would improve this article by being included.

"I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did... I am just a conduit for God."

"I try to live my faith. Some days I fail quite miserably but I constantly try to do what Jesus would do." [4]

Any comments, opinions, objections to me adding this? --Richardeast (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The first quote is already present, see the 'In parliament' section. I avoided adding the second because it seemed to be making the same point and risked being accused of undue weight. Philip Cross (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm an Atheist RichardEast, I've no objection to its inclusion, as it demonstrates she's barking mad, deluded, and really ought to be dismissed from her role as Chair of the committee, as it proves she's biased from the outset. I feel that Christopher Hitchens is inside me at all times - which can be very distracting without lubrication :) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.131 (talk)

What Was She A Medical Rep For?

Can't find any trace of 'Ethicla Ltd', the firm her 2001 CV as a candidate for election says she worked for - does anyone have any details? 01:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)twl01:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.131 (talk)

Was She Really Working in Zambia?

Which organisation did she work for during this 'gap' year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.131 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Think it was her then husband's company - the 'investment' one that according to <http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/nadine-dorries-mp-how-very-could-you.html> was not regulated and lost most of the investor's money (will seek more impartial reference).

Unknown: she has given the impression that she set up and ran a school for native children, however there is no evidence this is the true or untrue. There is some suggestion that as she had zero teaching qualifications or experience at this time, she would not have been accepted by any charity, and that all she did was run a creche for white expat. executives of her husband's Zambian copper mine <http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2009/11/nuts-in-november-qs-17-22-nadine.html> .

In What Nursing Specialty Did Dorrie Actually Practice?

A Guardian 'mystery shopper' visited some of Dorrie's suggested 'impartial' counselling providers, and the bias in the information they provided was remarkable <http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/02/abortion-pregnancy-counselling-found-wanting>. Much of it would lead to a claim of Negligence if provided by an NHS practitioner. Is Dorrie's experience as a nurse as extensive as her CV claims, and just how much of it was in gynaecology and/or obstetrics? 79.70.225.131 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.225.131 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethicla Ltd - No Trace At Companies House

Dorries Con. Party CV lists 'Ethicla Ltd' as a former employer - searching for records at Companies House <webcheck at <http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk>) I could find no trace of it under 'current', 'previous' or 'dissolved' names. Can anyone clarify why?

There are 2 similar names: ETHICAL LIMITED,BRISTOL,BS49 4AS Company No. 04923347. Dissolved on 12/05/2009.

And two soundalike current firms: ETHICA HEALTH & BEAUTY LIMITED (Mail Order Retail)CHEPSTOW GWENT NP16 5DB Company No. 05608460, and

ETHICA GROUP LIMITED, BEDFORDSHIRE, MK40 3HD Company No. 07379770 (formerly ETHICA EDUCATION LTD - name change on 13/09/2011), for which no accounts have been filed.

Is this a typo on Dorries CV? 79.75.215.201 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse79.75.215.201 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance of Papal (and thus God's) Decrees AND Science

Is there an additional link to the self -contradictory statements issued by this MP: in the Daily Mail interview, she said she supports IVF treatment, but held the Ageist belief that there should be an upper age limit <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243839/Woman-60-oldest-person-given-IVF-treatment-British-clinic.html>, seemingly oblivious to the fact that most IVF treatments involve the deliberate abortion of excess foetuses after implantation. The Pope (who she says she believes speaks with the authority of God) however, believes ALL IVF is unnatural, and has ordered infertile couples to shun it (<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106392/Pope-Benedict-XVI-tells-infertile-couple-shun-arrogant-IVF-treatment-sex-husband-wife-acceptable-way-conceive.html>) as 'the only natural way for a couple to conceive is through sex'. Where this leaves Virgin Mary heaven only knows! Yet again, the Faux Catholicism of Dorries shines through - she appeared to be totally ignorant of the fact that sperm or egg donation and methods such as in vitro fertilization are banned for members of the Catholic church! 80.42.227.64 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)CVchecker?80.42.227.64 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussion of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.47.114 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Qualified as a nursery school teacher, but put in charge of the parliamentary health select committee?

Has anything further been done to remove this peculiar woman from the Health Select Committee, along with her freakish colleague Tredenick? She has claimed that an unborn foetus could punch its way out of the womb, whilst he is a supporter of astrology who once asserted that blood doesn't clot under a full moon. The inclusion of either on any select committee is worrying, but for both to have been elected to the health committee is extremely disturbing.

As detailed in an article by Martin Davies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/26/conservatives-health-select-committee> )"Dorries' primary interest in the health arena is abortion, a debate in which she has previous form. Back in 2007 Ben Goldacre wrote about dubious evidence presented to the science and technology select committee that supported Dorries' anti-abortion views. Goldacre's article prompted Dorries to issue a bizarre call for an enquiry into how select committee evidence – which is supposed to be in the public domain – got into the public domain.

Over the years, Dorries has issued a number of ill-founded claims about abortion. They include the fairytale "hand of hope" story that she helped to propagate across the web; the incorrect assertion that the NHS didn't carry out abortions after 16 weeks; the claim that charity Marie Stopes International supported her policy views; an attempt to dismiss scientific studies that disagreed with her view as "an "insult to the intelligence of the public"; and some rather dubious interpretations of opinion polls that led a frustrated Dawn Primarolo, then minister of state for public health, to exclaim that "The Honorable Lady has asserted many things to be facts that are not."

Faced with Dorries' cavalier approach to science-based policy, it's hard for the rational voter to imagine a worse candidate for a position on the health select committee, but the Conservative Party has managed it, with a second seat on the committee handed to the extraordinary character of David Tredinnick, MP for the constituency of Bosworth, and possibly Narnia." She is a nutter. 80.42.228.122 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Dr Lofthouse80.42.228.122 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussion of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.47.114 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Highly cited BBC article: "Dorries defends attack on Cameron and Osborne"

This story is trending very heavily at the moment:

--Mais oui! (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify?

'In January 2011, Dorries stated that, since December 2010, she had been in a relationship with John Butler, a married man who, she claimed, had separated from his wife shortly before. According to the Mail on Sunday, the couple split up in Summer 2011.'

Which couple split up in Summer 2011? Dorries and Butler? Or Butler and his wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.122.42 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Butler and Dorries split up. Now sorted out. Philip Cross (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

nickname

I think that to justify having mention of "Mad Mad" as a nickname in text we need more than a few columnists using that epithet: we'd want someone talking about that as a nickname. Thoughts anyone? Morwen (Talk) 17:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No trace of marriage cert or divorce record

The Daily Mail states[5] it is unable to locate a marriage certificate or divorce record for Dorries in official records. Divorce records for England & Wales are held in a central database, so this is pretty surprising. Ordinarily I am pretty reticent about using the Daily Mail as a WP:RS, but this is a simple factual check, so unlikely they got this wrong. Should we qualify the article claims of marriage/divorce somehow with this info? Or we could wait a while to see if matters are clarified by Dorries - perhaps the marriage was abroad. Rwendland (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Best completely avoided on WP:BLP grounds as it makes untested allegations about Dorries and people close to her. The article, with cited reliable sources, already implies that Dorries own accounts are not to be trusted. Philip Cross (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This Mail article from 21 January 2007 article says Dorries married her former husband in Africa. Left hand, right hand. Philip Cross (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This Mail piece from only three weeks ago (16 November) apparently reveals Dorries first marriage, aged 20, to one Raymond Hughes (in 1978 one Nadine V. Bargery from Cheshire did marry according to Genes Reunited.) This piece also forgets Nadine Bargery and Paul Dorries reportedly married in Africa. Obviously we need better third party sources, but will have to wait. Philip Cross (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
the Mail is not suitable for any remotely contestable content about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Quite so. A month on, this story has not been covered elsewhere it would seem, except in reference to the piece already referred to. Philip Cross (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely that even the Daily Mail could get its fact-checking wrong on this, but it definitely needs a second source. Incidentally, she's not shy of having having her lawyers step in if she sees something that she doesn't like. Shritwod (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Outraged Constituents - Reality TV and suspension

It seems to me that the statement "Other Conservatives and her constituents were reportedly outraged by the announcement..." is not correctly referenced - there appear to be no references to "constituents" in this article. Other Conservatives may well be outraged, of course. I live in the constituency, and the overwhelming feeling is of amusement - no detectable "outrage" anywhere. The use of "reportedly" is pretty bad for a factual article too. I'm going to make a couple of minor amendments to this section, if no-one else objects. Plingsby (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In The Independent article cited, Andy McSmith writes: "The reaction from Twitter users and from Ms Dorries’s constituents, interviewed by BBC Three Counties Radio, was overwhelmingly negative. One voter told the BBC that it was “tacky” and that she did not want to see her MP in the jungle in her underwear." I used "reportedly" to acknowledge that there might be other opinions, and that the evidence (an impression of the situation) did not amount to certainty. I have substituted a direct quote ("overwhelmingly negative") and toned down the interpretation ("outraged" => "objected") to be more neutral. Editors have to cite reliable sources to meet Verifiability and avoid original research. As I recall, articles in the local Bedfordshire press did not present a different view of Dorries behaviour to the national media. "Mad Nad", which you have removed, has been by numerous sources. Philip Cross (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There's an interesting "Mad Nad" reference here that I find quite amusing. A Google News search for "Mad Nad" Dorries comes up with several other references. There's lots of coverage about constituent's reactions (for example). Although to be honest, I am also a constituent and am I think "bemused" seems to be how I would sum up most people's reactions! Shritwod (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't remove "Mad Nad" altogether, merely removed the repeated (and identical) sentence from the Personal life section. It still exists at the start of the article, a much more appropriate place to be.Plingsby (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

UNDUE weight to position on same sex marriage

It does not seem that the issue is one that she is widely known for nor is it sourced to a mainstream publication covering it. It appears that it is UNDUE emphasis to something that is really irrel to her notability or accomplishments. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You were quite right to query the inclusion of the passage as it stood, but Dorries has made quite a few comments on this subject in the last year or so. I hope my rewrite demonstrates this passage belongs in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dorries, a right-wing Conservative...

There seem to be two main problems with the above unfortunate choice of wording. 1) At the risk of stating the obvious, it is a slightly idiotic tautology that contributes nothing to furthering the reader's understanding of Dorries's political position. Are editors trying to express that she is on the right of the conservative party? If so, it would be better to express it thus, and properly sourced. The wording seems to have been taken verbatim from The Independent, a RS of course, but nevertheless the description is redundant. 2) The way it is phrased presents the information as being incontrovertible fact – it would be much better to use hedging-type language along the lines of "according to some commentators..." etc. Jprw (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

An article in need of attention; three issues identified

Overall there seem to be three main problems with this article. 1) It is generally poorly written and structured and numerous sub-sections are in too much detail; 2) The lead is certainly too long and detailed – a précis needs to be performed, and details should be migrated over to the main body of the article, including I would suggest the problematic, derogatory "Mad Nad" references (to a "public image / media reputation type" section, perhaps – after all, this is a BLP); 3) The subject of the article is a figure of contempt for many across the political spectrum, and this also seems to be reflected in the article, in the form of a derogatory, mocking tone, and with excessive attention being paid to the controversial aspects of her career. Thus the sacrosanct WP tenet of neutrality appears to have been compromised.

Given the article's size, it will take a concerted effort on the part of two-to-three editors to rectify these issues. Nevertheless, it would be healthy if this defect was at least acknowledged by other editors and appropriate efforts made. Jprw (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the article is unnecessary. The section "Visit to Equatorial Guinea with other MPs" could be cut entirely, or merged into another section, as it has gained little subsequent comment. An article should be structured to allow for subsequent additional sections, while also preventing the degeneration of an article into a disordered mess. One way to do this is to use the level two headings as a means of blocking the random placement of sections. As a thematic arrangement would zig-zag across a decade, with such a mess a distinct possibility, a chronological approach is surely necessary, and the two parliaments since Dorries was first elected are as good an arrangement as any.
On the issue of the 'Mad Nad' comment. This strong comment is balanced by no fewer than three positive citations about Dorries, and the summary also mentions two awards she has gained. Much "attention being paid to the controversial aspects of her career" is inevitable because the media concentrate on what they think is newsworthy, and the article can only reflect it. As the most frequent editor of this article, it is quite possible some non-neutral words about Dorries have crept into my edits, and I do not object to you attempting rectification. Philip Cross (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Marital affair

This article is incredibly detailed but I find it odd that there is ot even a passing mention to reports ofher marital affair with a neighbour. While I accept we don't want to be in the business here o prying into people's private lifes. Nevertheless I believe it has some importance because there was a great deal of media coverage on the issue a little while back. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you must mean her reported relationship with John Butler. This was previously included, but was removed in this edit. It is a rather trivial issue, and although I suspect it was me who contributed the removed passage, User:TheRedPenOfDoom was quite right to delete it. Philip Cross (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally I would agree that things like his are trivial, and not what an encyclopaedia should cover. But in Dorries' case I think it's a bit different - because she is an active spokesperson on issues relating to marriage. So I think it's inclusion is relevant and useful. I would also argue that it's no less trivial than a lot of the minor detail already included in his article. I call for the restoration of the previous text. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
But is it really the role of an encyclopaedia to uncover hypocrisy? I'm minded to agree that it is relevant though, but I can certainly see the argument that it shouldn't be included. Hmmm.. --Shritwod (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Redux? Redux! re: ducks

Yes, ducks, you have the word "redux" used in this article. So, ducks, what do you think? In my opinion, it's not a very commonly used word - surely, ducks, don't you think a different word could be used? Comments below, ducks ... Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Philip Cross for changing this word! Francis Hannaway (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Why Does She Lie So Much?

She made several allegations against Diane Abbott MP this evening on Newsnight which were strongly rebutted. According to the content of this page, this woman does seem to have a habit of lying her way out of a tight spot, and of plucking completely fictious 'statistics' from the air and presenting them as Official Statistics. There have been attempts to remove her as an MP by other people within the Conservative Party- you should perhaps include links to reports of these.79.70.225.131 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)twl00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Another blatant one: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/10/nadine-dorries-accused-of-making-false-claims-about-opponent-during-election 83.254.154.164 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadine Dorries. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadine Dorries. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nadine Dorries. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary password issue

Just putting these here for now:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

EU Custom Union & Brexit

I came to this article because I heard that Dorries had been debating Brexit and her government's decision to leave the customs union but later asked a forum of fellow conservative MPs why the customs union meant that the UK could not negotiate free trade deals. That indicates a huge level of ignorance and IMHO it should be in the Wikipedia article. But it is silent. Has this been the subject of some WP dispute, or should I just add what I found via Google which is from a reliable source? It seems far more relevant than her support of Boris Johnson which has been added recently. --82.128.239.250 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have today reduced in length some of the long content and editorialising in the section about the EU Customs Union. Some of this content, in my view, was not in a neutral encyclopedic tone. It was in a journalistic newspaper style. I have not removed all of the section, but trimmed it for a more neutral encyclopedic tone.

Page content - trivial items

This is a very long article for a backbench MP and I am unconvinced all the items mentioned are significant enough for inclusion here. Could we try to develop some consensus as to how to gauge what items should/should not be included? For politicians in particular it's extremely important that we don't allow pages to become cluttered with relatively trivial information that, while being entirely correct and verifiable, nevertheless results in a particular (biased) opinion of Dorries to be unreasonably emphasised. This edit for instance added a lot of detail about something that has not received much coverage, and so I would argue isn't obviously significant enough for inclusion, but which creates a negative impression of her competence and (IMO) potentially compromises the neutrality of the article. BubbleEngineer (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply

1. Is there too much information?

I have to admit that until recently I had never heard of Nadine Dorries. I live outide the country so that is not surprising. But her constituents do deserve to know about her. Of the sections, there are two I would suugest you could delete. "Damian McBride email affair" which appears to have been false rumour and which Wikipedia ought not to repeat, and "Visit to Equatorial Guinea with other MPs" which only tells of the kind of foreign visit that most MPs do and is unremarkable IMHO. Everything else seems proper. She seems to attract of lot of media attention because she puts herself out there and seemingly often gets into trouble* (*something I just noticed by Google search and does not come from the article). WP has no limit on article length and long articles can be split if they are too long. This is not one of them.

Buzzfeed called her "one of the best-known and most outspoken members of the ERG" so it is OK for the article to have some length. https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/heres-a-leaked-whatsapp-chat-showing-tory-leavers-confusion

2. Trivial ?

My edit was deleted on the grounds that it was trivial. I beg to differ. I agree that in normal times, a statement about the EU Customs Union, even if erroneous or suggestive of ignorance, would not attract much attention. But she is a leading Brexit supporter in parliament who regularly talks to the media. The depth of her knowledge on the topic is critically important.

And Brexit is perhaps the most consequential political decision of the last 50 years in the UK and Customs arrangements are a key part of this. Negotiations with the EU on the future relationship have yet to start and the government is clearly itself divided on the matter. How you can regard this as "trivial" is beyond my comprehension. In time it may become so and the section can then be shortened. But right now it needs to be in the article because her constituents and others need to know.

Nor is Dorries a trivial player. Theresa May has a wafer thin majority and the ERG to which she belongs wield enormous influence because it is bigger than the parliamentary majority. She and her group, by her own admission, nearly caused the overnment to collapse over the issue of customs arrangements agreed to by the cabinet but rejected by the ERG. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/990637/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Theresa-May-Conservative-Party-European-Union-general-election So this is far from trivial.

There are dozens of stories I could have used above to illustrate her influence and presence in the media. This happened in October 2017 and it is still being talked about now, in the summer of 2018.


3. Neutrality

James O'Brien, a political journalist who has worked for The Daily Express and presented BBC Newsnight, and now presents a daily 3 hour programme on national news radio, recently referred to her as "the patron saint political stupidity" and said that "she thinks we ought to leave the Customs Union even though she is not intelligent enough to know what it is". https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-criticises-nadine-dorries/ That is hyperbole though clearly based on the story I referenced in my edit which you reverted. I did not include the LBC article and his comments. But as I read WP policy it is only WP edits that need to be NPOV. Referring to significant POV positions of journalists and others would not per se be disallowed. You could add references praising Dorries on her knowledge of the Customs Union if you know of any.

I propose to revert the edit. It was in fairly neutral terms compared to some of the offensive comments about Dorries I have heared on social media.82.128.239.250 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, it was not so much that edit in particular (that was merely the edit that drew my attention to the article), but that the article in general is in dire need of much better coherence over what should and should not be included. It (and other similar articles) is at great risk of becoming full of well referenced, accurate, individually neutral statements that, based purely on which statements people choose to include, create a biased perspective, as undue weight is given to particular types of stories that portray her negatively. The fact that there is now an entire section solely about her comments on another backbencher's comments is totally silly and an excellent example of WP:UNDUE. Are we really going to just list everything she says about everything? BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this article should be structured much more like the Jacob Rees-Mogg article (general section about activities in parliament, with a separate section elaborating on political ideologies for which they are best known). I really dislike having so many headings about very specific things. Happy to make this change is there were consensus for it, but given it's quite drastic I'd rather get other opinions first. BubbleEngineer (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns of BubbleEngineer. I have today reduced in length some of the long content and editorialising in the section about the EU Customs Union. Some of this content, in my view, was not in a neutral encyclopedic tone. It was in a journalistic newspaper style. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: article content and structure

There is a clear consensus that parts of the article are undue weight and focus too much on unimportant events. Editors recommended reducing the number of separate sections about each time she has been in the news. A significant number of editors found the question in the RfC too general for them to provide helpful feedback in the RfC.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can we ensure the article as a whole is not biased by placing undue weight on specific events, and is the article currently structured in an appropriate way to facilitate NPOV? BubbleEngineer (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is too general a question for an RFC, which is normally something more like "Should this specific content be included, yes or no". I do think that the article places too much weight on trivial items, and in particular the "Brexit confusion" section should be trimmed down. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This is too broad a question for a RFC to fully resolve, but in general I would say UNDUE and bias is handled by just following the cites. And in the article as currently structured, no. Right off, drop the LEAD going beyond the guideline of four paragraphs and just delete the last one voicing not-notable gossip about ‘envy’. Follow through by deleting most of the trivial items of a proposal not passed, or an objection to some remark by someone that has no further effect or significance. Unless you can find it in multiple papers, it probably is UNDUE for here. Simply looks like far too much detail here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

BubbleEngineer made a really puzzling comment in the previous section on this Talk page. "I really dislike having so many headings about very specific things". Ignoring the strange reference to the editor's personal preference, the very essence of headings in Wikipedia is to enable navigation to specific sub topics. This being a biographic article about a politician, it is entirely appropriate that sections should be dedicated to what the person has said. The article Enoch Powell has a section regarding his "rivers of blood" speech. I have come across several independent references to Nadine Dorries and this incident and it was relatively easy to find out about it via Google. There are references that are from reliable sources (meeting verifiability) but others are on social media like YouTube and Facebook (establishing notoriety). But the problem with Google is that you do not get the entire picture unless you read all the links. Had Dorries refuted the authenticity? Did she clarify somewhere why she was confused? This was why I turned to her Wikipedia article. Finding it silent on the matter I felt obliged to add reference to her misunderstanding of customs unions and in particular the customs union of the European Union. I will strongly object if the section on this topic is removed entirely.82.128.239.250 (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Placing something under a sub-heading is saying THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING ABOUT HER. An appropriate sub heading for instance would be 'Political positions', or perhaps 'Controversies' as in many, many other politicians' articles. Not 'Here's a thing she said that someone wrote an article about', unless that thing had major coverage and she became very well known for it. I'm not saying this matter should be totally excised from the page, but that, based on the amount of coverage it has received, which is a reasonable indication of how much weight we ought to give it, it should form a sentence or two in a paragraph on her views on Europe. BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked at another article where the politician has got into difficulties because of things he has said or done (this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Hamilton_(politician)) and I really don't see much difference. The headings just point to particular incidents. The Manual of Style points out that the headings form the Table of Contents making it easier to navigate the content. And as I point out Nadine Dorries has become rather famous for this leak.82.128.239.250 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Please can you provide evidence to show this has gained significant coverage (ie: several news articles). As it is, we're putting a huge amount of emphasis on a single article. I would strongly disagree with the idea that she has become famous for this, given that Buzzfeed article is the only coverage I can see about this topic. We are here to reflect what public consensus deems to be significant, not to draw attention to things that we think are important but haven't got much attention. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - What specific events? Where's the undue weight? What's the issue with the current structure of the article? Isaidnoway (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with above comments, this question is too general for an RfC. Seraphim System (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This RFC is as useful as a fifth leg on a goat. While such a leg can be interesting it serves no purpose. The answer, Do not place undue weight into the article. This is not a helpful answer because its so broad.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a request for comment As such, it can certainly ask questions for which comments are desired. The BLP is horridly written, using "prior names" in parenthetical comments, and treating every time she has been in the news as separately worthy of a "full section". In addition, Wikipedia voice is used in several places in an argumentative manner. Roughly 60% of the length is bootless verbiage, and not of "encyclopedic value" which is what we are supposed to use as a criterion. Where several incidents are related in any way, stuff them into a single section. Collect (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Collect. All those separate sections created for every time she was in the news can be pooled. With so many references, the article has a huge potential towards something better. Robertgombos (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is way too long given the subjects notability, focusing in large on many un-noteable and/or un-sourced occurrences. The second paragraph, for example could be reduced down to one sentence, given how little of it is notable and that none of it is sourced. AlanStalk 08:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quoting the Daily Mail

The paragraph about Dorries' advocacy of sexual abstinence for schoolgirls state that she has accused her opponents of behaving as though she were advocating "the compulsory wearing of chastity belts for all teenage girls." This line is currently tagged as lacking a citation. I assume that it comes from this piece which she wrote for the Daily Mail. While I'm aware that the publication is, in general, an egregiously unreliable source, the article in question is an op-ed written by Dorries herself. Do other editors feel it would be safe to replace the [citation needed] tag with this reference (possibly qualified with [better source needed])? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If she said it in the DM that's at best equivalent to an SPS. Was the specific line noted elsewhere? If not, it might not be worth noting. It's not load-bearing in the article - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Rm "pro-choice" from "Dorries said she had received death threats from pro-choice activists and ..."

I removed "pro-choice" from the phrase above. Dorries herself is pro-choice, so if left in the phrase is here misleading, as though she were not pro-choice. The alternative is a long-winded explanation and clarification, which would likely be confusing. Unfortunately the ref is not, afaik, available online. Springnuts (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "She is considered to be on the political right of the Conservative Party"

The source is an article in The Independent, it does not specifically say the subject is on the right-wing of the conservatives party and since I can find no other sources to back this up I have removed it for now.

In any case I don't feel that a politically motivated left-wing newspaper should be a RS for an oppositions political stance especially when the wording here makes it seem as it the subject holds far-right beliefs. SuperiorWalrus(talk)(contribs) 18:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

On hungry children

In the section Criticism of Cameron, Clegg and Osborne, I feel it's particularly notable, in light of the quote to the Financial Times, to include the fact that she then proceeded to vote against a motion to provide free school meals to starving children during the initial height of the Covid-19 pandemic. --90.253.93.112 (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The section is about her 2012 criticisms of Cameron, Clegg and Osborne. If an independent source makes a connection between her October 2020 vote and her statements in 2012, it might be relevant; otherwise, it's inappropriate synthesis. Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned by media

The media article linked at the top of this talk page doesn't appear to be available any more. Regardless, I can find nothing relating to it in the main page whatsoever. That seems incredibly notable and something that should be mentioned in the main page as well, that someone in the government attempted to whitewash this page of a horrible comment from Dorries. --90.253.71.87 (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dorries' father was Irish, not just of Irish descent as stated in this article. Dorries herself states so in this interview article - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/06/nadine-dorries-my-family-values. This means this MP is entitled to an Irish passport, and therefore ongoing citizenship of the European Union. This should be corrected in the article, so as to render it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nellywraps (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Anglican or Catholic

In the first section, we read that her father was Catholic, but her mother was Anglican "and she was raised as such". Later, in the section about being an author, it's mentioned that she was brought up as an Irish Catholic in Liverpool (or words to that effect). I don't think both can be correct. Francis Hannaway (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Marriage

Despite the claim she married Paul Dorries in 1984, there is no evidence whatsoever that she did, at least in this country.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Company Kids Ltd

Does anyone have any insight into "Company Kids Ltd" - there is no record at Companies House of a company of that name, nor of any director named Nadine Dorries being a director of any such company Marlarkey (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's here, under 'Previous company names';
[6]
Obscurasky (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I will remove the additonal cn tags now this has been clarified - it continues to have a solid secondary source within the article as well. SamWilson989 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

the correct term is "Plastic Scouser" for somebody who grew up in Halewood or Runcorn even if they were born in Liverpool as many are because of the closeness of the hospital 82.16.57.30 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

George Bargery

According to the excellent evertonresults.com website, which amongst other things lists every player to ever represent the Club, neither George nor any other Bargery appears on the listing of previous & current Everton players. Gwladys24 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

You may be right, but alas that's OR which always gets trumped by RSs. The Daily Telegraph source here even gives a direct quote from Dorries: " My great-grandfather was one of the founders of Everton, so football had already been done, and, let's face it, I was never going to be a nun, so politics it eventually was." Why would she invent this? The other source, from the Liverpool Daily Post, now gives a 404 error, but the content is reproduced here and it gives quite a few details. Maybe the exact spelling of the surname is important? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm merely raising the query, I am not suggesting that the claim was an invention. After further research, I've come to the conclusion that the claim is valid, but don't know whether any of the information would be deemed sufficiently "encyclopedic". For what it's worth: https://www.evertonfc.com/news/2152553/the-history-of-the-black-watch "GEORGE BARGERY (9 apps, 0 goals) - George Bargery kept six clean sheets in the nine games records show he played for Everton in the 1881/82 season. Earlier in his career, he was between the sticks when Everton played their first ever competitive game – a Lancashire Senior Cup tie against Great Lever in 1880. Everton lost 2-0 but later protested that the referee hadn’t been fair and the Lancashire FA ordered a replay, which Great Lever won 8-1." ; also information at http://efcheritagesociety.com/ & efcstatto.com, apparently indicating that George Bargery may well be the first Everton player to have been recorded as having scored an own goal. Gwladys24 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

Change the reference [62] at "In 2012, she was voted best MP on Twitter by the politics.co.uk website.[62]" from https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/05/15/the-ten-best-mps-on-twitter-one-nadine-dorries to https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/05/15/the-ten-best-mps-on-twitter-1-nadine-dorries/. The old link is now dead. NotEvenDreams (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nadine_Dorries/Archive_1&oldid=1172444855"