Talk:Endorsements in the July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Endorsements in the July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (39 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	654	654
Members of Parliament	28	89,055
Kemi Badenoch	5,016	5,016
Suella Braverman	3,541	3,541
Jeremy Hunt	2,547	2,547
Sajid Javid	1,925	1,925
Penny Mordaunt	9,028	9,028
Grant Shapps	3,013	3,013
Rishi Sunak	23,728	23,728
Liz Truss	32,066	32,066
Tom Tugendhat	6,033	6,033
Nadhim Zahawi	2,130	2,130
Former MPs	78	2,104
Rishi Sunak	1,454	1,454
Penny Mordaunt	426	426
Liz Truss	146	146
Peers	10	7,914
Kemi Badenoch	2,079	2,079
Liz Truss	2,214	2,214
Penny Mordaunt	576	576
Rishi Sunak	3,035	3,035
Members of devolved legislatures	37	6,030
Rishi Sunak	3,062	3,062
Liz Truss	2,047	2,047
Tom Tugendhat	884	884
Directly elected mayors	28	1,853
Jeremy Hunt	484	484
Rishi Sunak	637	637
Liz Truss	704	704
Individuals	16	14,484
Kemi Badenoch	7,444	7,444
Suella Braverman	632	632
Sajid Javid	602	602
Penny Mordaunt	1,793	1,793
Rishi Sunak	1,875	1,875
Liz Truss	1,586	1,586
Tom Tugendhat	536	536
Publications	3,934	3,934
References	375	375
Total	126,403	126,403

Accuracy of Endorsements[edit]

In The Rest Is Politics Podcasts on the episode 7/12/2022 [15:03 - 15:35] Rory Stewart claimed that this Wikipedia article "less accurate with some terrible information, somebody tried to claim that Greg Clark that's very very much from the more moderate center part of the party, they've tried to put him down as a Priti Patel endorser, which I can absoutely tell you, he is not".

I'm not sure how he came to this conclusion as Patel didn't stand and have any endorsement as far as I was aware Scorchgider (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Members of devolved legislatures[edit]

Is it worth noting that Stephen Kerr, as well as being an MSP, is also a former MP (and as such a former colleague of Tom Tugendhat)? Dunarc (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be added as a footnote. This is Paul (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENDORSE[edit]

Wikipedia has a content guideline for articles on political endorsements at WP:ENDORSE. The three principles there are: (1) Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people. (2) Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources. (3) Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

We should not include endorsements based merely on tweets or other social media. We should not rely on non-reliable sources. We do not want articles that are flooded by entries trawled from Twitter by editors supporting one candidate or another. Editors should not be doing original research. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, MotorsportFan2012, this edit relies purely on a tweet by the endorser. This does not demonstrate that the endorsement is notable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would council leaders be notable in this article ? Bondegezou

E.g https://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/people/bucks-council-leader-endorses-rishi-sunak-for-prime-minister-after-waddesdon-visit-3802747 Encyloedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so he would not appear to be a notable individual, so he would fail WP:ENDORSE. You could make a case for an exception. You could start an article on this person if you think he is actually notable. Bondegezou (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezouthanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyloedit (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publications endorsements[edit]

Hi,

I am still quite new to Wikipedia and it’s rules and just wanted some clarification on the links part of the publications section. From what I understood it was to link to the article that contains the endorsement as it can provide a greater understating to interested readers as is the case on the list of ministerial resignations in the United Kingdom Government crisis 2022 page which links to each ministers resignation letters

So in this case would it not be useful and acceptable to link to Daily Mail as it is not being used as a source???Paging David Gerard

Encyloedit (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also doesn’t the Wikipedia policy state

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author. Encyloedit (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The actual link should definitely be consistent with the others on the page, to the actual endorsement. If editors feel an additional, reliable source should be included as a citation, that would be fine, but based on how that part of the page is formatted the link comment should be the actual endorsement.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's arguably needed here though are independent sources for each of the other publications as well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENDORSE requires RSes. Press Gazette is one - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard we are now not suggesting the Daily Mail be used as a source but that a link included to the editorial that contains the endorsement as is the case with other pages mentioned above. The press gazette is now being used a source Encyloedit (talk)

Yeah -- right now, none of them have independent sources, the column is just being for links to the primary source. As the warning when a Daily Mail link is added states: "Note: There are limited exceptions to this rule (such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed)". I've added a source for the Daily Mail.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publications: The Evening Standard[edit]

The two sources relied on for The Evening Standard endorsing Liz Truss were:

Clark, Elsie (2022-08-10). "Conservative leadership election: Do newspapers support Truss or Sunak?". Press Gazette. Retrieved 2022-08-11.
Evening Standard Comment, 10 August 2022

The second includes:

So far, she has made the stronger case to be the better PM for London... Given the enormous challenges Britain faces, we wish whoever wins the race to be our next Prime Minister well.

I do not see any clear statement of support for either candidate, but the Comment does seem to be foreseeing a Truss victory. The words “So far” seem to mean that who has made the stronger case could change. So I have boldly taken out the Standard and brought the question here. What do others think? Moonraker (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do agree the comment piece by the Evening Standard is pretty unclear as to if it is an endorsement. However, source number one which is the Press Gazette does state that the ES is “pro-truss” and treats the comment piece linked as the endorsement. Furthermore, the Truss campaign has also treated it as an endorsement as can be seen on her Twitter page https://mobile.twitter.com/trussliz/status/1557354346316177408 Encyloedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Encyloedit, the Press Gazette does conclude that, but it does it by quoting selectively from the Comment piece on the same day which we have linked. And we can’t take a tweet from the Truss campaign as speaking for The Evening Standard! The other papers have made clear statements which endorse Truss, but this one is playing with words. Moonraker (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]