Talk:Ann Widdecombe

Source needed

"She remarked "there is something of the night about him", a comment assumed to be a racist reference to Dracula, as he is of Transylvanian descent, and also served to remind people that his parents were Jewish immigrants from Romania. "

Do you have a source for this? IOW, who assumed it? I think people just assumed she meant he was a creepy sort of guy. It resonated with the public because they shared the opinion. Dr Zen 01:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---In Christmas of 2005 Widdecome caused some controversy by turning up to Bob Geldorf's annual Christmas lunch crucified to a 12 foot inverted crucifix demanding to ingest the souls of Geldorf's children

Her corpse made an appearence on Question Time on the 21st September 2006.

---Yes, I heard that, too.

I thought she (jokingly?) corrected what she claimed was a misunderstanding saying that what she meant was that there was something of "the knight" about him. I have removed the description of Section 28 as the promotion of homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality, because it is not true. Section 28 sought to ban the promotion of homosexuality in schools and the promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative to the heterosexual family.85.18.201.170 13:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Did she in fact say "There is something of the right about him."? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

Or "something not quite right" about him? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly "something of the night" and seemed deliberately to play on the fact that he is Jewish I suspect (ie commenting on his racial looks). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What? He's Jewish is he!? How does the remark have anything to do with him being Jewish? How is it supposed to remind people of it?Dannman (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Its a long time since this was brought up, but I think it still needs further analysis. I just about remember her making the "something of the night" remark, but I don't remember any claims at the time that this was anti-semitic, or in any way a reference to his Jewish heritage (that doesn't mean no-one did so, of course, but it was only recently that I saw such a claim being made, and a very brief search hasn't turned up much previously, just vague insinuations). Nor am I aware of any "Jews look like Dracula" stereotype. Furthermore, the cited source doesn't make much of an argument, just a throwaway comment in the course of a discussion about Disraeli:

• While it piqued [Disraeli] to give the impression of being armed with quasi-supernatural powers, his conceits lent credence to the fear that there was, as Ann Widdicome would come to say about the then leader of her own political party Michael Howard, 'something of the night' about him. Mr Howard happened to be a liberal Jew, as well as a QC, with no known nocturnal peculiarities.

(This is also the first time I've seen "liberal" used to describe Michael Howard). Iapetus (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ann Widdecombe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110809231624/http://www.pipnjay.org/people/history/341-tribute-to-malcolm-widdecombe to http://www.pipnjay.org/people/history/341-tribute-to-malcolm-widdecombe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150227005100/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ann-widdecombe-mp--an-unlikely-agony-aunt-754932.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ann-widdecombe-mp--an-unlikely-agony-aunt-754932.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110607074724/http://www.newstatesman.com/200407120003 to http://www.newstatesman.com/200407120003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120626053333/http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk:80/article/23rd-october-2009/1/atheist-duo-convince-crowd-that-the-church-is-not- to http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/23rd-october-2009/1/atheist-duo-convince-crowd-that-the-church-is-not-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

... alarm clock? ... controls for the heart of the sun? ... dogs on the Jehovah's Witnesses again? 1, 3 and 4 seem to work. But not 2. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Media appearances

My edits to this section were reverted by User:Xxanthippe. I really dislike “also in 2002...” etc grammatically, and just find this section doesn’t read very well in terms of dates. — TrottieTrue (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

An Act of Treachery?

Is An Act of Treachery (Orion, 2003) really "set during the Holocaust"? I have not read it, but all of the online reviews I've seen suggest it is set in Paris, between 1941 and 1944? Here's a link to the book online. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fringe views

[1] I repeat my edit commentary here: "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence". Unless we can quote reliable sources having called her out for holding those stupid opinions, we should not give those ideas more air than they deserve

@User:Xxanthippe: So you disagree with what the guideline WP:FRINGEBLP says? Then you should try to get it changed. Until you succeed, we have to follow it. "She holds these views" is not a reason for us to repeat them. What I said on Talk:Thomas Sowell holds here too:

The problem is that without reliable sources drawing attention to Sowell's ignorance and the demonstrable falsity of his remarks, we cannot call him out since that would be WP:OR. Adding the science position from sources that do not mention Sowell would be WP:SYNTH. And letting his remarks stand without refutation would violate WP:FRINGE. Also, WP:PRIMARY would not like it. So, I cannot see any solution except: keep it out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with that as the content stands; as you say, unless you can cite reliable sources discussing this, then her views shouldn't be given undue prominence. The National has a very brief section discussing Widdecombe and other Brexit Party MPs for climate change denial ([2]) which may be helpful, and it is worth noting that groups such as DeSmog ([3]) and Carbon Brief ([4]) have written pieces also calling out Ann Widdecombe's denialist views, so it considered notable to these groups. But I don't know whether that is enough to include in this article. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)