Talk:Nadine Dorries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  • "Wikipedia edits from parliament airbrush Dorries sex abuse row". Political Scrapbook. 2011-05-20. Archived from the original on 2011-05-20. Retrieved 2011-05-20. It now appears someone using a parliamentary computer has edited Dorries’ entry on Wikipedia to airbrush the sorry affair from the record ... The alteration to the page, which was made yesterday afternoon from the parliamentary estate, removes references to comments that “we’d probably have less sex abuse” if girls were taught to “just say no”.  (details)

Her religious opinions and how she states it affects her work[edit]

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 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

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

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 <>, 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 (<>) 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! (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)CVchecker? (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Ethicla Ltd - No Trace At Companies House[edit]

Dorries Con. Party CV lists 'Ethicla Ltd' as a former employer - searching for records at Companies House <webcheck at <>) 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? (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)DrLofthouse79.75.215.201 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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 (> )"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. (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 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In What Nursing Specialty Did Dorrie Actually Practice?[edit]

A Guardian 'mystery shopper' visited some of Dorrie's suggested 'impartial' counselling providers, and the bias in the information they provided was remarkable <>. 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? (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.225.131 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet campaigning[edit]

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 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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 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[edit]

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 (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 (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 (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)

What Was She A Medical Rep For?[edit]

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 (talk)


Have made a number of references from a well cited article in The Guardian over issues relating to her attitude to science, using quotes from Ms. Dorries herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horleye (talkcontribs) 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


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 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal relationships[edit]

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[edit]

"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

From 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 (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 (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) gives a viewpoint on the above and debunks a few of the MPs other claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

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. (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Witness to two 'botched' abortions.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.

Why Does She Lie So Much?[edit]

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. (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)twl00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Another blatant one: (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits of 2 September 2011 by User:Philip Cross[edit]

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)

Her religious opinions and how she states it affects her work[edit]

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 (talk)

Was She Really Working in Zambia?[edit]

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

Think it was her then husband's company - the 'investment' one that according to <> 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 <> .


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)

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

This story is trending very heavily at the moment:

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

Can you clarify?[edit]

'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 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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


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[edit]

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)

UNDUE weight to position on same sex marriage[edit]

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)

Outraged Constituents - Reality TV and suspension[edit]

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)

Dorries, a right-wing Conservative...[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)