Talk:2014 Rochester and Strood by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medway news poll[edit]

http://www.maidstoneandmedwaynews.co.uk/Rochester-Strood-election-Lib-Dems-choose/story-23046428-detail/story.html

This article says that it had taken a larger poll than the Survation one and found UKIP on over 75%. Should this go in the polling box? '''tAD''' (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an unscientific voodoo poll. The Survation poll's respondents would be weighted to reflect the electorate. This newspaper poll sounds like an open access poll on its website and therefore unreliable.--Britannicus (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jools Holland?[edit]

Is it really relevant that Jools Holland lives in R&S, and who is wife is? Perhaps I'm missing something.Frinton100 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britain First[edit]

Now I don't think there's anything wrong with patriotism or supporting your own country but this party violently enters places of religious worship to disturb prayer. Britain First is a violent party. I don't think it would be breaking the NPOV policy to point out that Britain first eagerly supports violence. I wouldn't say that the evidence against them is some kind of stitch up either. They can clearly be seen on video storming into places of religious worship.

Here are some links to support my claims:

http://www.channel4.com/news/britain-first-far-right-anti-muslim-extremists-mosques http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-29858335 http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/bf/ http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2014/06/12-things-britain-first.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/21/britain-first-_n_5857250.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/first-tackling-menace-far-right--20145261213161811.html

Such a violent political party doesn't deserve to be described as anything other than violent. I deplore such violence. So I admit my bias here against this cretinous party. But I don't think that the matter should be left there. Consensus?

Senotshtooms (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Details about Britain First and their actions should go in the Britain First article; I haven't checked that article, but I hope it covers such behaviour. I would suggest material should only be included in this article if it is directly about this by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about keeping the material relevant to this by-election. It would be worrying for users to come here and not realise that what they were seeing was in fact a political party that supports violent methods. To be honest, I'm not sure as to what type of source would be acceptable to Wikipedia for proving that Britain First is a thuggish/uncivilised political party. It's beyond my ability and I don't want to start an edit war so I'll just hold back here, despite my own personal feelings on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senotshtooms (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Senotshtooms: I agree with Bondegezou, plus I would point out that the issue about Royal Mail's non-delivery of their literature appears in the article - this is of course completely relevant to the election. Frinton100 (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency profile[edit]

We seem to have a bit of disagreement over the inclusion of some of the detail in the intro section. Personally I think we should just keep it brief and leave it as "The constituency comprises a mix of the ancient city of Rochester and parts of the commuter-belt conurbation of Medway as well as rural areas."

As has already been pointed out, all of the detail of the constituency is included in the constituency article - Rochester and Strood (UK Parliament constituency). This article is about an election, so really I think it should be kept to details of the candidates, campaign, polling and eventually results and aftermath.

The article does include a map at the top of the page. Anyone who is unable to locate the constituency using the map is unlikely to be able to do so with a few village names added in the intro.Frinton100 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelina, you say 'let's not war'. Good idea. Come here. Let's all sit down with a cup of puer tea and discuss what's the matter. It's obvious that you're keen to contribute to the encyclopaedia and make it better for everyone. Senotshtooms (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frinton100: constituency details are covered in the constituency article. There is no point covering them in the lede of this article. If there is some particular reason why one of these villages is significant, that can be covered -- with a reliable source citation -- in the campaign section. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not having seen this discussion. The compromise is acceptable- though I do prefer not to put facts in the lead that aren't in the article- but each to his own. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate accused of hypocrisy by satirical newspaper[edit]

Funny? No. Relevant? Yes.

From Private Eye:

"How Mr Very Reckless changed his tune Rochester and Strood, Issue 1378

BIRD BRAINS: A nightingale and Ukip candidate Mark Reckless A KEY issue in November’s Rochester and Strood by-election – the plan to build 5,000 homes on Ministry of Defence land – has certainly given Ukip’s Mark Reckless plenty to sing about.

Reckless alleged that there had been a “Tory stitch-up on Lodge Hill” after Conservative-controlled Medway council approved plans for what he called a new town “in the middle of a bird sanctuary”.

Lodge Hill is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and home to Britain’s largest colony of nightingales. These will be relocated to Essex under plans by developer Land Securities. “If that goes ahead, where will it stop?” Reckless asked in his dramatic post-defection speech to the recent Ukip conference. “I promised to protect our rural Hoo Peninsula. I cannot keep that promise as a Conservative. I can keep it as Ukip.”

Champion of the nightingale The SSSI was only declared by Natural England in March 2013 and came as a blow to what the council sees as one of the key regeneration projects in Medway. At the time the local Conservative MP attacked the non-elected government agency for delaying the scheme.

“The reason for this, we are told by Natural England, is that a study of some description has discovered that 84 nightingales might use the site,” he said. “The comparison to be drawn is between those 84 nightingales and homes for 12,000 people and jobs for a further 5,000 people. We are told by the Prime Minister that we are in a global race, but it is not clear that that message has yet filtered through to bodies such as Natural England.”

Can Ukip’s new champion of the nightingale and the Tory runner in the global race by any chance be related? They surely can!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senotshtooms (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's helpful to add some extra links here of what's going on in the by-election. It might help an editor to add something that will improve the article. Feel free to add more links here that are relevant to the by-election. I won't be adding much content myself because I'm a bit too biased politically, especially against Britain First. Cheers. BTW are there any tasks for the article that anyone needs help with? Gathering sources or collecting opinion polls? What major tasks are outstanding for improving the article?
http://order-order.com/2014/11/07/cchq-throwing-kitchen-sink-at-reckless/
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/tories-in-mud-slinging-attack-on-26638/

Senotshtooms (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of picture[edit]

I'll jump in with a comment about a disagreement about relevance of a picture (I don't actually myself have a strong opinion either way, neither inserted nor deleted any picture, and am totally disinterested). The article as it stood had two pictures; one of the MP resigning, crossing the floor, and re-standing, and one of another candidate. The picture of the other candidate has been deleted (without significant summary) and reinstated with "... [please] use the talk page to explain your POV re unnecessary". I'd suggest that the picture of the MP at the centre of this is justified; but I don't see any point in including a picture of one other candidate, no more notable than any other. Pol098 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Mark Reckless is not only the incumbent, but the person responsible for this by-election taking place due to resigning. Of the rest of the candidates, none of them have been notable enough for their own Wikipedia article and thus none can realistically justify being included alone in this article, unless they are elected of course. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the image of Naushabah Khan, and correctly placed it against the mini biography. Mr Reckless is a former MP not the incumbent, and during the election period- one of the candidates and must be given no special privileges- it is our duty to treat all candidates fairly. Were Ms Tollhurst of Geoff Juby to have provided CC-BY of PD images we could include them as they too are candidates. I fail to see how improving the visual presentation of the article can be unnecessary. I think we need policies here not opinions.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions so far: 3 against (including the original deleter, who has deleted twice but hasn't commented), one in favour. Any more? Why should a candidate, who is arguably notable, not be treated as such ("special privileges" is a bit POV; it's simple notability)? "it is our duty to treat all candidates fairly." No it isn't; it is our duty to follow criteria of notability, relevance, non-POV, etc. etc. (which is actually effectively the same as "fairly", but less subjective). "Were Ms Tollhurst of Geoff Juby to have provided CC-BY of PD images we could include them as they too are candidates." Let's include all the candidates. "I think we need policies here not opinions." We're agreed on this: WP:NOTABILITY, etc. etc. Pol098 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with "Were Ms Tollhurst of Geoff Juby to have provided CC-BY of PD images we could include them as they too are candidates" (although given opinion polling, whether there is a picture of Clive Gregory that meets the licensing criteria would be more relevant than Geoff Juby). The problem is they didn't provided such pictures. But given that they haven't, we have a situation where there is a danger of giving undue prominence to one particular candidate. Then again, if it isn't there, the undue prominence for Mark Reckless becomes even greater. So, on balance, I would say keep the picture, and hope to find/obtain suitably licensed pictures of other candidates. DrArsenal (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Notability vs. Undue prominence: I've just made two Google searches: "Mark Reckless" 286,000; "Naushabah Khan" 3,970. If the problem is photograph copyright, I'm sure that all candidates would be delighted to supply a copyright-free picture if it would appear on Wikipedia. So somebody could ask for these, and we can have pictures of all candidates! I repeat that I have no position other than Wikipedia guidelines, and no particular wish to gaze on either Reckless or Khan; notability and undue prominence are the only issues (assuming NPOV etc.) Pol098 (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't see WP:NOTABILITY as relevant: just read the first sentence "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." We aren't discussing whether Ms Khan should have her own article. Further, WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline, while WP:NPOV is a fundamental principal. If the two are pushing in opposite directions, WP:NPOV is far more important to get right. Agree it is worth trying to contact other candidates. DrArsenal (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the image as it there is no need for it! SleepCovo (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably a worse idea but why not have the images set up the same as the 2010 General Election ? - I personally don't see any problem with there being images on here (if anyone does want to rv i have no issues with that.) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010 - I have no idea what part of the United Kingdom general election, 2010 page you are referring to. DrArsenal (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry I meant having them the same way as the infobox so basically the images could look something like these. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Caption 1
Caption 2
Caption 3
Caption 1
Caption 2
Caption 3
We should follow relevant Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTABILITY says nothing about who should be pictured: it is about who should have an article. The relevant guideline is MOS:IMAGES, which says, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." A picture of one of the significant candidates in the election is clearly "significantly and directly related to the article's topic". The article otherwise has only one image, so "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images [...] rather than favoring their removal". It would be nice to have some other images, like of the Conservative candidate, but WP:IMPERFECT is clear that "Perfection is not required". That suggests we don't need to wait for the Tory image to be available before adding the Labour image. However, the counter argument is in WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE: picturing two candidates and not a third could be considered undue and not neutral. WP:UNDUE specifically says that it "applies not only to article text, but to images". I previously reverted the removal of the article, but I'm not going to edit war over this and, with the election on Thursday, I'm happy to err on the side of WP:NPOV for now. Come the close of poll, I think I'd err on the side of MOS:IMAGES and re-include the picture. I am happy to keep Reckless's picture: he is the incumbent, he triggered the by-election, he is clearly the most significant person in the sta ory. I am of course also happy to abide by consensus. I also figure this issue must have come up before, so I wonder if we can find any precedent. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now taken a image of Geoff Juby for inclusion, I have no intention of edit warring- but also have no intention to see Wikimedia Uk end up defending a court case for breeching Electoral Law by promoting one candidate. It is factually incorrect to describe Mr Reckless as the incumbent, he is a former MP and currently a candidate with the same status as Mr Goldsbrough or Mike Barker MBE.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be using "incumbent" in a different way to most people! Anyway, the election is over. Electoral law is no longer relevant (and I can't see how we were ever in danger of breaching it). As per MOS:IMAGES, I would like to see pictures for as many of the top 5 candidates as we can. Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

Would this article benefit from a "reactions" section, given the result? Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Electoral Commission has to refused to investigate the expenses overspend using disputed out of time reason, and Kent Police have refused to investigate at all, this story has a long way to run. Tories deny 57K overspend Police request

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage of the expenses dispute would seem appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

I have removed Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election in individual constituencies from see also as they are no longer of direct relevance to this article since the constituency has been contested twice since this by-election. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Rochester_and_Strood_by-election&oldid=1196669670"