Talk:Nadine Dorries

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)

"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)

Conservative bias pushed by DeFacto

After examining DeFacto's contributions on Wikipedia, I would like to appeal to fellow editors to closely monitor his edits on this article in the upcoming days. There appears to be a noticeable conservative bias that he has consistently advocated for on Wikipedia. However, the recent modifications [1] made to the Nadine Dorries article lack validity, explanation, and have led to an escalating edit war. In addition to the evident conservative ideas and the concerns related to WP:POV, he has reverted my changes a couple of times without providing any rationale. This pattern persists - he invokes one or two different policies while reverting entire sections of text. Subsequently, if his revisions are undone, other closely affiliated editors conveniently emerge to help him. Several instances highlight [2] [3] his use of policy citations to lend credibility to his reversions in various articles. In the case of Nadine Dorries, he neglects to clarify which specific portions of the text display bias or violate WP:POV guidelines with regards to BLP. Overall, this conduct lacks subtlety and I am of the opinion that a cautious approach is warranted in this situation. Thank you. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)