Talk:Nadine Dorries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Standing down" as an MP

Maybe I'm a pedant, but I'm in a never ending battle on Wikipedia regarding this phrase of "standing down" as an MP in the UK. It happens all the time! The wonderful and confusing constitution that is the unwritten British constitution is that MPs cannot "stand down", "resign" or "vacate" their seat once elected. Instead, the arcane procedure is to appoint said MP to a Crown office, which instantly disqualifies them from sitting in Parliament. See Resignation from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. This concept was pushed it its absolute, semantic limit with the Sinn Féin resignations in 2011 and 2013. Anyway, an MP might say "they are standing down with immediate effect" like Nadine Dorries, but nothing actually happens until they get appointed to one of the two Crown offices. That will likely happen very soon, maybe by the time I finish typing this, but our true source will be the official notice published in the The London Gazette. I suppose at the end of day MPs are elected not appointed. Seaweed (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Most of the RS news media sources say "standing down". Hardly surprising if that's what Dorries herself says she is doing. Perhaps that's the informal way of putting it before it appears in The London Gazette? 86.187.166.103 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I second your comments. 2A02:C7C:FC21:6E00:6466:AB59:D91A:21E1 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

BoJo similarly, in his 1,000-word blubber-thon, is "stepping down forthwith". 09:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.228.183 (talk)

My pedantry vindicated! "Nadine Dorries keeps party waiting on by-election". BBC News. 13 June 2023. Retrieved 14 June 2023. Seaweed (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite. While I realise that the article is about our Nads, I would suggest that the fact that two other MPs announced that they were immediately seeking to end their time as an MP AFTER she had and actually did so BEFORE she did is notable within the article. If it's not there, people from countries where there is, say, over two months between an election and the winner taking office, may not realise that this is exceptional.

We await to hear why there is such a significant delay: unable to find the 'send' button for the necessary request to be appointed to a Crown office? Wanting to cause maximum trouble for the PM? Only just realised that she'd stop being paid as an MP when she was no longer one (see article's reference to her reported reaction to the UK not having any MEPs after leaving the EU)? but.. Lovingboth (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In the narrow sense of whether an MP is still actually an MP, I think the politics isn't that relevant really. Personally speaking I'm only interested in the encyclopedic accuracy of who is the MP for Mid Bedfordshire. Nevertheless, her delay in proceeding formally is unusual and I suppose would be better documented in Resignation from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Seaweed (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Two months later and she still hasn’t resigned. And people in her constituency are belatedly noticing that their representative hasn’t actually done any representing recently. For example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66325814 Mr Larrington (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: It seems that DeFacto, who has a significant history of editing articles related to Nadine Dorries, consistently references WP:BLP and WP:ONUS to support their recent reverts.[1] In my opinion, it is necessary for others to become involved in this situation, as I can observe that their edits not only provide valuable input but also undo changes made by other editors who are attempting to include information that doesn't necessarily need consensus.[2] These aspects should be addressed in both the introduction and the body of the article. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@92.1.168.50, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important points of the article content, and as such does not generally need references citing (see WP:LEAD).

You added a big chunk of content directly into the lead (with a very subjective POV summary). I reverted that content with an explanation about the role of the lead. You then simply reverted back to your version without addressing the issues, and with a nonsense edit summary - that edit was verging on being disruptive. As this is a BLP, I again reverted, addressing your previous edit summary. You then reverted again, with more arrogant nonsense in the summary, and snide digs at me too. However, you did then add (albeit very weasely and editorialised) some related content to the article body per my original revert reasoning.

So it seems all that we need to do now is to ensure that the added article body content is policy compliant WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. and then agree a succinct WP:LEAD-compliant summary of it to replace the controversial content you keep pushing back there. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PS, please stick to commenting on the article content and not on the editor contributing. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there are numerous references to various policies, to the extent that one might infer an intention to divert editors' attention away from contributing to Wikipedia. Naturally, I responded in a similar manner to the way you responded to me (by reverting you), and you continue to undo the changes made by others when their input challenges your conservative bias. If you're deeply engaged with conservative politics, I suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:POV. Best regards. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PS. Stick to the facts, pal. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: the IP 92.1.168.50 was blocked by Girth Summit on the 25th August for block evasion. A smart kitten (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Quote request

@Apache287, just to be clear, can you quote the part(s) of the cited ref(s) that support the reneged on her promise, instead saying that she would not proceed with her resignation until... part of your restore here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in subsection "Return to the back benches (2022–2023)":

" On 14 June 2023 she said that she had submitted a subject access request to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) and was waiting to resign until she had received all unredacted "WhatsApps, text messages, all emails and minutes of meetings" related to why she was denied a peerage."(cited by sources 115 and 116 in main article).

If it's sourced in the actual article itself it doesn't need to be sourced again for the lede. Apache287 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Also just checked to make sure, it's also literally mentioned in the very first source on the page:

"Despite saying in June that she would quit with immediate effect, Ms Dorries subsequently said she wanted to find out why she was refused a seat in the House of Lords." Apache287 (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, that sounds like she was delaying it for a specific reason and had not reneged on her promise then. Either way, your editorialization and use of loaded wording contravenes WP:BLP. Removed per WP:BLPRESTORE. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that is reneging on her prior promise/statement given that the first statement was to resign "with immediate effect" and then within days instead claimed she would be no longer doing so. Any basic reading of that is that it's a notable change of position. Also it's not "loaded wording", the dictionary definition of "renege" is "to fail to keep a promise or an agreement". Also I very much take umbridge at you describing it as "editorialisation" when the change of position was noted by at least three sources on the page and a fourth I added after you insisted it be sourced. Apache287 (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

So hold on @DeFacto, first you're here removing additions that are potentially negative for Nadine Dorries under the claim "oh, they're not sourced so should be supported", and now you're removing thosr repeatedly sourced statements in the lede and claiming the lede shouldn't be sourced... while very conveniently not removing other parts of the lede that are sourced but are more positive towards her (and detrimental towards other factions in the Conservative Party)[1].

And if an article literally titled "Pressure mounts on Nadine Dorries as second council calls for her to quit as MP" and other sources in the article detailing other public criticism of her isn't evidence of "mounting public pressure" then what exactly is?

Quite frankly at this point given your very heavy editing to topics associated with Boris Johnson and his allies and prior interactions with you on the article for Huw Edwards (where you kept trying to claim "COI" against any inclusion of criticism of how the recent allegations were reported by The Sun (United Kingdom)) I'm struggling to consider any further edits you make in any British political articles as good faith rather than using civility and rules when it's convenient to provide authority behind edits that are essentially pushing your positive personal view on these people. Apache287 (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, which of those sources supports saying that she resigned after mounting public pressure? Sure two of the three give the opinion that she was being put under pressure (she never says it) by being criticised by various opposition MPs, constituent party people, etc., but none say she was under "public pressure", let alone implying that it led to her resignation. And, btw, news article headlines or sub-headlines can never be considered to be reliable sources for anything (per WP:HEADLINES).

And why didn't you add it to the body of the article anyway, rather than directly into the lead?

PS, I've apparently edited 5,600 pages, including a few about politicians of more than one party, yes, and plenty about other people too who have been in the headlines at the time. So what? WP:BLP insists that articles about living people are written to the highest standards of verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research, and when I see egregious contraventions I try to correct them. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Except you didn't try to correct them, you first just removed it for not being sourced (despite sources pre-existing in the main body demonstrating public pressure on her to resign) then later by your own edit summary deleted the sources I'd added for the lede by now saying you shouldn't have sources in the lede, even though WP:LEAD explicitly leaves open having sourcing in the lede (As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. ... The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.). Even a generous interpretation of that would still be that's a rather contradictory position to hold.

Sure two of the three give the opinion that she was being put under pressure (she never says it) by being criticised by various opposition MPs, constituent party people, etc., but none say she was under "public pressure"

That's quite literally "public pressure". If direct public criticism and calling for her to resign from their own party, their own party leader, opposition parties, own bodies within her constituency (and all reliably sourced) and then during this period they resign doesn't support the inclusion of the phrase "following public pressure" or any set of words of that effect because "she didn't say it" then you are establishing a standard of inclusion so ridiculously high that basically the only content we could include in an article on a living person would be only word for word statements made by the subject that happened to be recorded by a secondary reliable source.

We're not exactly talking about an edit where I linked yesterday's horoscope for her star sign to her decision are we?

So what?

Because when you keep finding a new attempted justification to remove what would quite simply be considered a non-controversial and reliably-evidenced statement each time a prior justification is resolved, and a cursory look at your recent edit history shows a frequent period of you taking issue with the inclusion of content critical of the Conservative Party or certain figures associated with them, then it begins to read less like genuine worries about breaching Wiki standards and instead that you're just hoping to find enough authoritative-sounding statements to tire out anyone adding content you simply don't like. Apache287 (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, your interpretation of those sources was not neutral. It was exaggerated/loaded/editorialised/undue/OR, take your pick. Neutral doesn't mean putting the worst spin on it that you can manage. I'm not saying no-one criticised her, but what you wrote doesn't stop at that. Now please, and per WP:ONUS, bring a more neutral version here, and see if it gains consensus. Remember too what WP:BLPREMOVE says about such additions. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No, because you are at this point quite deliberately trying to manufacture claims of "non-neutrality". There isn't a "lack of consensus", there's you not liking it. So maybe instead of getting upset with the linear nature of time itself (there was a period of mounting public pressure on her to resign, following this period she resigned) and vaguely attempting to get another editor on my case by suggesting I'm a different insidious user (that you don't name, because then that'd be an actual accusation that could be properly scrutinised) you just stop.

And if you don't like me saying "following mounting pressure", well here's LBC. Apache287 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, there is still one problem outstanding (with this part of the article, at least).

• It started when you added this directly into the lead.
• As neither the .. reneged on her promise, instead saying... or Dorries finally published her resignation ... after mounting public pressure.. were supported as assertions of fact anywhere in the article, I reverted it.
• You then you restored it without change, claiming it was supported in the article.
• You then added a source to it, still in the lead.
• As it was still unsupported, even by the newly added source, I reverted again].
• You then rearranged the end of the lead, and re-added ... after mounting public pressure (but omitted the reneged on her promise phrase), and added three sources to it.
• As the assertion about after mounting public pressure was still unsupported, despite the three extra sources, I removed just that and the useless sources from the end of the sentence.
• You then reverted that.
• And then later, you [added yet another source which did not help. In fact, such overciting is a red flag, suggesting the cherry-picking of sources when trying to push a particular POV.

So although we have got rid of some of the disputed content, we still need a solution for those last four words of the sentence, which I think fail NPOV and are a WP:SYNTH not supported by the consensus of the sources, but a home-made conclusion based on one source telling of some criticisms and others telling of others. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Lol. You really are just so blatantly inventing stuff now. Demand I find sources, decide adding sources is now bad, decide to pretend that someone resigning immediately after widespread calls to resign can't be stated unless a source uses that exact wording, now adding a source with that exact wording ("It follows mounting pressure") you're demanding be word for word used by a source before it can be included is "using too many sources and is a red flag".

Can't wait until your next obvious fake issue you come up with. I don't know, maybe next it'll be that on the fourth Sunday of the month you can only edit positive things. Apache287 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, not at all. We cannot just cherry-pick a source that gives the spin we want, and use it as support for applying that spin. Per WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV), we need to agree what the consensus amongst all quality reliable sources is. [[WP:OVERCITE|Piling sources on the end is a red flag that something doesn't add up.

PS, please concentrate on the article content and do not make unsubstantiated allegations about contributors. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SEALION Apache287 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, another, even if thinly veiled, personal attack. That'll do now. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SEALION Apache287 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

Double early life, one is empty 84.64.2.42 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)