Talk:2014 Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election/archive

Candidate Box[edit]

Since the first candidate has been officially confirmed we need a candidate box. This is standard practice as with previous byelections. It is quite normal for there to be an election box with one or two candidates and for other candidates to be added as and when they have been confirmed/announced. User:Bondegezou pointed out that the template I attempted to use was incorrect, could someone please put up the right template with the confirmed candidates in it. Many Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I often find these templates very fiddly! But I'll see if I can get the right one going. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're an angle :-) Owl In The House (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the results are in, we can then switch back to a compact box later. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's been some to and fro :) What usually happens User:Owl In The House is that prior to polling day the traditional results box is used, and then after polling day it's converted into the compact one. Maybe User:Bondegezou remembers the time when the compact box was first created, it was intended to replace the traditional box across the entire project, but as I think most people find straight away, it's pretty much useless until the results are known. Were I being ultra-sensitive, I'd suggest we only create a box at all when there's two candidates, rather than just the one, but by the looks of things, we're going to see a lot more chosen in the coming days. Here's to another busy few weeks! doktorb _words^deeds 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have I done something wrong? I might not be as experienced in editing as you but my edit was constructive and I have always been polite. Besides, I'm sure I've seen byelection articles where there's only one candidate in the box in the very early stages before. I don't see why it's going to be a busy few weeks, there's not much to do on the article and it's not hard to keep it up to date. I hope there are no hard feelings, I'm getting the sense my presence would be less than welcome if Wikipedia didn't belong to all of us. Owl In The House (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Owl In The House, that was not my intention at all! I think you've read something from my post I didn't write. Sorry if that's how it comes across. My personal preference is for election boxes to be created only when there's a minimum of two candidates, and I've deleted/hidden some recently where there's just one, but that's mostly from personal taste. By-election articles tend to get busy as and when certain kinds of editors, usually anonymous IPs, try to 'ramp' their candidates, or as polling day approaches and the Candidates section slowly becomes a Candidates and Not Always Notable Campaign Highlights section. If there's a lot of candidates, that tends to keep things busy too. I am genuinely sorry that you thought I was having a dig, maybe I could have phrased a few things differently, but I'm really not criticising you, I was just setting out the background as I saw it. I look forward to seeing your future edits. doktorb _words^deeds 08:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, given edits over the past few hours re LibDem & Labour candidates I take your point about time taken for policing the page, as you've pointed out that is Vandalism and I realise you weren't pointing the finger at me, so no hard feelings doktorb :-) . Like I say, I'm only here to constructively edit. Cheers :-) Owl In The House (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent[edit]

An Independent candidate will announce by 23.00 GMT today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.229.224 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Goggins. Independent. Twitter @CiaronGoggins Wordpress http://www.goggzilla.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.169.58 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised Ciaran that Wikipedia usually expects an independent or secondary source, and until the SOPN is published, it might be best to hide his edit on the article doktorb _words^deeds

Here is the secondary source you requested. http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/2-candidates-declared-so-far-for.html?spref=tw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.236.162 (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced that that constitutes a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. WP:BLOGS is the relevant guidance here. If someone would like to make a case that ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk does qualify under that, let's hear it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is on UKIP's site http://www.ukipdaily.com/wythenshawe-meet-ukip-candidate/#.UuJTtBBFDIU

That is a UKIP-supporting blog, rather than an official UKIP site: see here. So, again, I think it comes under WP:BLOGS. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:BLOGS to understand Wikipedia policy here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note, as has happened with previous by-election articles, that the supposed independent candidate was not formally nominated. This, if I might say so, demonstrates, again, the wisdom of the approach laid out above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is no Independent candidate on the statement of persons nominated. This is a clear reason why we do not bow to news speculation and why we stick to reliable sources. Owl In The House (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Candidate[edit]

Daniel Critchlow has been nominated by the Tories (Twitter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.181.126 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing whether Critchlow is or isn't the candidate but is Twitter a reliable source under wikipedia policy? I don't think it is. I will not revert the edit for now, I will simply hide it, until a suitable source can be found. If a suitable source can't be found, we will have to wait until the statement of persons nominated is published. Owl In The House (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a comment from an official Twitter account constitutes a reliable source, although a primary one rather than a secondary one. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point but the Twitter (Tory) account is an official one. By your rationale any Twitter account can be hacked. If it is a fast moving story Twitter ought to be acceotable. Oh and I'd like to see the sole Independent on the list of contenders!

Hmmm... The Twitter account given in the citation Owl and I removed is the personal account of an individual Salford Conservative councillor. It is not, say, the official Twitter account of the Conservative Party or some regional branch of the Conservative party. So, I think it is, at best, borderline whether it would ever constitute a reliable source. Given Wikipedia policy on primary sources, given we now have good secondary sources for the information, I certainly don't see any need to use it as a citation in the article now.

As for the possible independent candidate, this has not been reported by anything that looks like a reliable source to me. With previous by-elections and by-election articles, we've sometimes seen various claims by potential independent candidates who fail to get themselves nominated, which goes to show the wisdom of Wikipedia's core WP:RS policy.

If this independent is a real and serious candidate, I'm sure a reliable source citation will turn up in due course. When it does, they can be added to the article. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news site. We don't rush to be the first with news; we follow what others have reported. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that UKIP have now recognised an Independent candidate add the person to your list. If not who is your boss? Looks like Wiki bias?

I refer you to my comments in the previous section. UKIP have not recognised an independent candidate; a UKIP-supporting blog has. Wikipedia does not have a boss in the sense you mean: I suggest you take a look at some of the help pages that describe how Wikipedia works: WP:V, WP:ABOUT, WP:FAQ.

As before, Wikipedia is not a news site (see WP:NOT). Wikipedia follows what others have reported in reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My tuppence worth. This is where Wikipedia policy and reality stare at each other bewildered and confused. It's pretty much 'common' now for Twitter accounts, verified or not, to be used as citations by an eager media to confirm or deny something is happening. Over here, such knee-jerk confirmation is discouraged, and even disallowed, and I can see the logic of that. I do wonder if we could be a little flexible in cases where there is reasonable assumption of truth? Of course I am acutely aware of the problems we have with this particular can of worms, as I would not support self-promotion or conflict of interest edits. I think, given the tight timetable, and how Wikipedia is not a news broadcaster or election promotion service, we could do well by just leaving any uncertain nominations until the publication of the SOPN doktorb _words^deeds 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what doktorb is saying. I think there are challenges with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, but it is a central plank of Wikipedia and we do better to work within it. That said, I think some editors can be overly strict in their interpretation of the rules. Wikipedia does allow us to use modern social media in appropriate circumstances. As I say above, a tweet from an official party account seems to me to be acceptable under guidelines. In other words, we can be a little flexible.

But the central message to those seeking to promote particular candidates or campaigns is, as always, do not try to do so through Wikipedia. Focus your efforts on the regular media, and Wikipedia edits will follow media coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, do we not require 3rd party sources when we cover party policy? Yes, we do. We need a 3rd party source....we now have one from politicshome. Issue resolved.Owl In The House (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BNP Candidate[edit]

Not sure who's posted this?:

"BNP Eddy O'Sullivan just declared."

Good for them, have we a reliable source? I don't seem to remember such sourcing issues with previous by-elections.Owl In The House (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have hidden BNP candidate until a reliable source can be provided, just as with the Independent candidate and the Conservative candidates before them. Facebook has never been considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia, nor has Twitter. If we are to start using it for candidate announcements, then we need to start using it for things like party membership figures. The arguments for both are the same, we need to be consistent in application of policy.Owl In The House (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that an announcement on an official social media account (Facebook, Twitter) of a candidacy does constitute a reliable source, but that an announcement of party membership figures from the same source is not. My interpretation is based on Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources#You_are_allowed_to_use_primary_sources..._carefully, an essay that supports WP:PRIMARY, which says, "An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective comparison claims ("OurCo is the oldest widget business in Smallville" or "OurCo sells more widgets than anyone else in New Zealand"). It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women")."

Thus, I feel the announcement of a candidacy comes under "information about what the [political party] says about itself" and as a "basic fact" about "its [...] products, employees". However, membership figures are more often disputed with frequent claims that parties exaggerate numbers, thus I feel membership figures are too contentious to be sourced in this way.

In other words, we should only be using primary sources for very safe information and we can be confident that a party has no reason to lie about who its candidate will be, but there is reason for a party to exaggerate party membership figures (and attested cases of that happening). An approach of accepting a source as reliable on some issues but not on others is standard in Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is something that hasn't been done before, like what was said about the Independent candidate, it is self promotion....this isn't a case of lieing about candidacy or not, its about applying sourcing rules fairly.

As far as party membership figures go, these are things that have to be officially declared to the electoral commission and are indeed a statement of fact, just as candidacy is. Party's are not allowed to Dr their figures, to do so involves lieing to the electoral commission (a criminal offence). This is why party membership figures are treated as a statement of fact, even by Newspapers. If we are to use Twitter and Facebook pages as reliable sources, then we open up ourselves to do so for more than just declaring candidates. I am not the "boss" of Wikipedia and do not claim to make the decision wither way, what I am saying is we need to be consistent in application of the rules. The scenario you have outlined above is inconsistent as both examples must be regarded as statements of fact.Owl In The House (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BNP source is adequate. It's their official Facebook group, and it links to their official campaign site. Where we have to be careful is unofficial sites or blogs. doktorb _words^deeds 19:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party[edit]

Added extra information from source as candidacy seems to be conditional on raising the fundsOwl In The House (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the situation now? It's past their deadline. JASpencer (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong chance that the Greens will field a candidate. The Election box on the main page should read Lab Con Lib UKIP BNP Green TUSC All are going to put forward nominations which close 5 pm (?) Tuesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.229.224 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed your comment for you Ciaran, could you please sign your comments by typing ~ 4times, it is above the shift key on most computers. ThankyouOwl In The House (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations close on Wednesday at 5. I don't want to influence your decision Ciaran but being in a party means that you will appear in a reliable source earlier. As soon as a reliable source is available we can put you in the box, if not we will have to wait until the statement of persons nominated is published and see if you appear on it. Owl In The House (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC[edit]

TUSC in talks to endorse Goggins. Breaking news. Possibility of Independent changing to Socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.245.85 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this is not your blog. Whilst I understand that there is some excitement about the forthcoming election, I would stress, with respect, that articles require verifiable sources. Exhaustive single line updates are not enough doktorb _words^deeds 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Talk Page and from what appears above a Very Partizan One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.191.84 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Partisan at all, if you can provide reliable sources there might be a case to site it but "talks" are just that...talk. Give us something concrete and reliably sourced, that way we know what were dealing with. doktorbuk is absolutely right to state that Wikipedia, is not news, it is encyclopedic, we deal in facts, not hearsay and thats what "talks" amounts to at this stage.Owl In The House (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC has just decided NOT to run in Wythenshawe. 194.46.181.89 (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Ciaran.[reply]

Liberal Democrats[edit]

Mary Di Mauro selected as LibDem candidate. 194.46.241.111 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Ciaran[reply]

Source?Owl In The House (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberal Party. 194.46.241.111 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Ciaran.[reply]

Monster Raving Loony[edit]

"Captain Chaplington-Smythe" nominated by MRL. Their own website and Twitter feed. 194.46.241.111 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Ciaran.[reply]

Candidate descriptions[edit]

I'm concerned about the different amounts of description we're giving to the various candidates. This isn't necessarily deliberate bias by anyone as in some cases it may be hard to find information about a candidate, but the differences are striking. Labour 66 words; Conservative 16; LibDem 14; BNP 42; UKIP 89; Green 15; Loony 17. It would be ridiculous to have each description exactly the same length, but I wonder if they could/should be made more equal. What do you think? --Wavehunter (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see more detail about many of the candidates, but the problem is sometimes finding the detail in reliable source citations. I'd certainly like basic biographical detail about all of them. Information about other candidates for the candidacy seems useful too. Some short quotes and/or description of their campaign themes would be good. The longest entries (Labour, UKIP) are because we have those details. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... but see what you think of my edit trimming the BNP and UKIP entries. Bondegezou (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]