Talk:Change UK/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Israeli Meddling in UK politics (Shai Masot)/ inciting "take down" of Labour MP`s

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Israeli embassy staffer exposed in the Al Jazeera documentary does not have a wikipedia article, although the Alan Duncan article does mention the scandal; evidently, the "defensive" reactions by many Jewish persons in the UK was most certainly a contributory force to the antisemiticism furore that spawned the renegade group, and the article must reflect that fact. Shai Masot ACTUALLY incited a parliamentary staffer to "take down" (a) Labour MP(`s), whereas the allegations of antisemiticism blustering about the UK press statistically lack incitement. The group members record on atrocities and violations of international law (political meddling outside of the borders of the Israeli state, i.e. London, included) by the Israelis being included in the article may address the matter. If such inclusion is not forthcoming, a brief history of the pre-and-post-Chakrabarti Inquiry allegory of antisemiticism should suffice.126.243.85.139 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What has the above got to do with improving the article? Nothing that I can see. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appropriate discussion of above

Improvements are realized in the reader being able to see historical context of the subject-matter. Lets be clear, the Shai Masot affair is an undeniable element of the post-Chakrabarti Inquiry evolution of the allegory of antisemiticism in the UK. Perhaps your "closing" the discussion were premature or in vain?126.243.85.139 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@126.243.85.139: - if you want material on this matter included, then it is up to you to explain its significance, and back it up with reliable sources. I'm not against such inclusion, but at the moment I don't understand why what you are saying is either relevant or aimed at improving this article. Mjroots (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Can we please not use the likes of The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and other gutter press. There are plenty of quality sources available to use. Also, if the unreferenced "fact" is not referenced by 18:00, I will remove it. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you believe a statement has been improperly sourced or not sourced at all, remove it immediately. WP:BLP is in effect on this page. However I would suggest you first search for a corresponding mention of whatever is being asserted in more reliable newspaper sources before getting rid of the claim(s). Maswimelleu (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If I thought a BLP was adversely affected, it would have gone. It is the job of the editor adding material to ensure that it is referenced to a RS. It is not the job of any other editor to go around finding material that the original editor should have included. Both issues have now been dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Move protected

Following two moves, both of which failed to move the associated talk page, I've fixed the talk pages and move protected this article at admin level. Any further moves may be done after consensus has been gained at WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

Include Gavin Shuker's stated opposition to same-sex marriage alongside Angela Smith's comments on race which have already been added. FUnderwood (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Has that got anything to do with this grouping? Is it a policy of the group? Or do you simply happen to not like Shuker? Kevin McE (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 00:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it really notable to use a phrase that no-one in the UK media are using? No-genius (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Which phrase do you have in mind? Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We're fucked

Apparently, some in Labour think that the split will prove disastrous. One was accidentally broadcast on BBC News saying "We're fucked". Should this be included in the article? Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor language: see WP:BOWDLERIZE. We do want to expand the content in the article on reactions within Labour. Whether that's the best quotation available, I don't know. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Censorship of the word is difficult. It was originally said in full, but bowlderized by the source used. It could go in the reactions subsection, and I personally have no problem with using the word that was spoken. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a comment picked up accidentally by a microphone is problematic regardless of the language used. Better to focus on other reactions, I would suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I would avoid the quote - I think it's sensationalist to include it. Focus on direct quotations and press statements that better reflect the attitude of the Labour Party. If there's substantial primary source coverage of "we're fucked" then we could include it. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with its use, but it depends how much third party coverage it gets. The use of a comment accidentally picked up by a microphone is certainly acceptable as well, and don't forget, it's not the first time someone's comments have been accidentally overheard. This is Paul (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable in the context of the party - if there were an article on the party launch, perhaps, but I doubt this will remain in the headlines. 'Bigotgate' was notable because of who said it, but in this case it's not even known who the speaker was. TSP (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

Change "British political grouping" to "private company engaged in political activity" as the Group is not an official political party or organization (source, Guardian editor Jim Waterson). 165.230.224.44 (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "political grouping" does not imply that they are "an official political party or organization", so I don't see any problem with the current wording. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a citation for what Waterson said. I don't think it has any implications for the article lede, but it may be relevant in the Structure sub-section. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The "private company limited by guarantee" is a structure widely used by English/UK charities and community groups, so that isn't strong evidence either way. I would guess that this is an off-the-shelf company used to give them limited liability as quickly as possible. If we want to determine whether they are an "official political party", then there is a clear standard: are they registered with the Electoral Commission (EC)? They are not currently registered and new registrations are now frozen until after the May 2019 elections (though there is nothing to stop them backing candidates who run as Independents). Obviously other RS are acceptable for WP too though; we are not bound by EC decisions. Matt's talk 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Donation restrictions as a company vs as a party

I added a statement to the article: "[Their status as an independent group, supported by a private company] means that the group is not subject to the same restrictions on donations under UK law as registered political parties are." which has been marked as needing a citation. I agree that statements do need to be sourced, but I'm unsure how to do it here - this is a simple fact of UK law. Companies are just plainly not under the same restrictions on political donations as registered political parties. Eilidhmax (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eilidhmax: I'm not sure that WP:BLUE can be applied here. Hopefully a source can be found. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And lo, a source has been found. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Can an autoconfirmed editor add some information on how and who funds this political body. It apears to raise money anonymously by crowdfunding. See https://www.theindependent.group/donate/donate-1 86.148.65.166 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

See my comment in the earlier discussion: new party registrations are closed at the moment, so we should be wary of attributing too much significance to this. Matt's talk 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Scottish reactions

I added a bit about reactions in Scottish politics to the formation of the group. It was heavily culled by editor Cordyceps-Zombie in this edit. So per WP:BRD, we discuss.

Should the removed material be reinstated or not? Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My bad, it wasn't culled but moved. As you were. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved it to the Lib Dem reaction section as it seemed to fit better there Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Broadening of the `See Also` for non-renegade politician links

ATM, the see also lists other UK precedent incidents of renegade MP`s peeling off, but should not be limited to such. Early on in the article, the see also section included a very relevent (relevent to the purported purpose of resignations by the renegade resignees) link to a case of UK political intrigue, involving Israeli Meddling. That is pertanent further reading for anyone trying to suss the UK`s political status quo, and cannot but improve the article. Israeli Interference in UK Politics It was deleted by someone suggesting sources are required for see-also`s...... Shai Masot, that was.126.243.85.139 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of WP:GREATWRONGS. I propose we ignore it and keep semi-protection on. Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is apparent now that suggestions like the above are part of an antisemitic conspiracy theory that has rapidly developed around the Group's funding. We must vigilantly keep this nonsense out of the article. Instead, following the news reporting around Ruth George MP, I have added some material about the conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory. Bondegezou (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove paragraph on 'funny tinge' comments and relegate it to the specific MP's article

I think this is a better place for the information, as it does not reflect the party, but rather that individual MP. -ThatJosh (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorisation as a party?

Is there a reason why this group are being shown as having a number of MPs? As this is an informal grouping and not a political party to accredit them with having a number of MPs is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.232.215 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a formal political party, so the categories may need changing. Do any sources say otherwise? Have they registered with the Electoral Commission and do they plan to? Fences&Windows 12:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No they are not a party, they have no leader, no name or organisation etc etc yet...so this article is a bit early and lacking in clearness until the dust settles. WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNP ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not a party, but in my experience editors get very argumentative about describing non-registered groupings of councillors/MPs as parties when they aren't. I don't think there's any issue using a party template wikibox provided the group is not described as a "party" anywhere in the body. If the word party is being used to describe it directly, I will switch it to "group" or "parliamentary grouping". Maswimelleu (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Their website states "The Independent Group of MPs is supported by Gemini A Ltd a company limited by guarantee." Gemini A Ltd is a Private company limited by guarantee without share capital and was incorporated on 16 January 2019 (registration here) by Gavin Shuker. So: not really a political party or a company. EddieHugh (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Gang of Seven"

China`s CGTN news network has carried a report on the renegade MP`s in which the London correspondent has referred to the Group as the "Gang of Seven". The report was carried on live broadcast a few minutes ago. Is it enough to attribute the term to Chinese news or the correspondent thereof?126.243.85.139 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There's now 11 members, so that ship has sailed. Fences&Windows 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of breakaway tory groups in see also

Since this political grouping is no longer comprised of only former Labour MPs, and the see also list is full of former labour breakaways, there should really be some conservative former breakaway groups (if there are any) in there too. Finley jones (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Bold to denote Gang of Seven in table?

Suggestion to make the names of the founding 7 MPs in the MP table bold, with a key under the table to indicate this? Finley jones (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Denoting them with their joining date beside them is fine. You can bold them if you want, but I don't think you need to ask permission for that, other editors can see it and disagree after you've done it. I'm pretty neutral on the topic, but WP:BRD suggests you ought to make the edit first and have the discussion after. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove dates from see also

The dates next the articles linked in the See Also section look a bit out of place. Probably should get rid of that.Finley jones (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's useful to give context to See Also links. It's sometimes done on various articles. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of TV programmes as sources

Again, we have a TV programme being used as a source. IMvHO, it is very hard for WP:V to be met by the use of such a source. The reason being that current affairs programmes are very rarely rebroadcast, and due to licencing restrictions, not available outside the country they were broadcast in. Yes, there are such things as the BBC iPlayer, but such sources are not of a permanent nature and may still have restricted access. With a story such as this, it should be possible to fully source the article from other sources. The article has been generally very well referenced since creation, let's keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy against sourcing to TV programmes. WP:PUBLISHED is clear on this. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, there isn't. What I object to is a TV programme being used, then being tagged as needing something from that programme being verified, when such verification is damn near impossible to supply. This puts the article into a category such as Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from February 2019. What I'm saying is that if a better source is available, it should be used in preference to a TV programme. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest removing the unnecessary tag!

If there is a convenient, easy to access, English-language, preferably tertiary source available, sure, let's switch to it. But, forgive me, I think it is important to remind people that Wikipedia policy, like WP:V, has never required sources to be easily accessible, only that they exist. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problems with such sources being cited so long as those who cite them provide a fully attributed quote to help readers verify them. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any Wikipedia policy requiring such. Bondegezou (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Citing a TV show is a bit like citing a newspaper. With a newspaper we usually state the article title and the author, and may give a URL, to help readers if they need to verify the interpretation. Why not expect the same for cites to a TV show? As Newsnight broadcasts news and opinion from BBC reporters and from independent interviewees, it seems reasonable to expect them to be credited and for a brief quote to be provided to help readers judge its credibility. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Change the fact that it is a centrist grouping of independents from the labour party. As of this morning, 3 members left the tory party to join this as well. They are definitely not centrists either. Ummuna is a core New Labour supporter, wavering to the right wing the the socialists spectrum. Benduncanson1 (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"sit alongside"

I've seen it suggested that the three MPs who left the Conservatives are not going to actually join TIN, but to "sit alongside" it. I'm not confident enough to remove them from the page at this point, but worth keeping an eye on which direction it clarifies in. TSP (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The 3 MPs have officially resigned and are sitting in parliament right now with TIN. That's as good as joining them. Finley jones (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If the group is not an official party, how does anyone, MPs included, acutally official "join" them? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the MPs' statement was deliberately ambiguous ("We intend to sit as independents alongside the Independent Group of MPs"); but The Independent Group tweeted "Welcome to the Independent Group @heidiallen75 @Anna_Soubry and @sarahwollaston" [1] - that's good enough, I think - if they want to clarify later we can take that into account. TSP (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that a tweet from the official account of TIN is enough to confirm they have "joined". Finley jones (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - interesting, though, as my reading of the MPs' own communications is that they are carefully not saying that (their own tweets simply say they have resigned the Conservative whip, and their letter has the ambiguous statement above). I wouldn't rule out a clarification later in the day. TSP (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources note this ambiguity, then we could also note it in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think their most recent press conference where they stand behind a TIG podium and talk about the future of the group largely rules out any ambiguity. They are members of the grouping. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitic conspiracy theory around Group's funding

I realise there is a lot going on in the article right now, but if I could ask editors for their input please as Jontel and I are in disagreement. It is about the coverage of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about Israeli funding for the group that MP Ruth George appeared to support and then apologised for.

We had this version of the text:

Antisemitic conspiracy theories arose online that the Group are funded by Israel. Ruth George, a Labour MP, was asked to comment on Facebook activity by a Labour councillor that appeared to support this claim. She stated it was "possible" that the Israeli government was supporting the Group. After criticism, she withdrew her comments and apologised.

Jontel has a number of times changed this to:

Ruth George, a Labour MP, was asked to comment on Facebook activity by a Labour councillor that appeared to support a suggestion that the financial backers were "Israelis". She stated it was "possible" as the funding was unknown. After criticism, she withdrew her comments and apologised.

I feel Jontel's version ignores important context and what is said in RS. A factor in the creation of TIG was concern with anti-Semitism in Labour, so it is highly pertinent that there is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory criticising the group. George explicitly said, "I had no intention of invoking a conspiracy theory" and the first citation given has the Jewish Board of Deputies describing this as a conspiracy theory. The second citation puts "conspiracy theory" in its headline. Thus, we should be calling this a conspiracy theory, not just a Facebook comment. (We’ve even got people higher up this Talk page pushing this conspiracy theory!)

Jontel's most recent edit summary was: "Not antisemitic to say "Israelis"; not theories (plural), only one instance mentioned; indeed the use of one word is hardly a theory; it was a suggestion, not a claim and presumably a joke; "Israelis" is not the Government of Israel:; don't omit context less spin, please". This is just plain wrong. OK, I accept about "theories (plural)", but the suggestion that Israelis are the financial backers is clearly an anti-Semitic attack. Jontel's assertion it was "presumably a joke" is naïve and WP:OR.

I suggest this wording, incorporating some of Jontel's critique:

An antisemitic conspiracy theory arose online that the Group are funded from Israel. Ruth George, a Labour MP, was asked to comment on Facebook activity by a Labour councillor that appeared to support this claim. She stated it was "possible" that Israelis were supporting the Group. After criticism, she withdrew her comments and apologised.

Thoughts, people? Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support the inclusion of that, it sounds quite reasonable and could be under a section called "reactions to formation" (or something) Alssa1 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think "conspiracy theory" are the words used by George in her apology. Sources like the BBC and Sky put it in quotation marks, but I think that's about George's use of the phrase rather than hedging. I think "funded by Israel" is better than "funded from Israel"—George's comment was about "support from the State of Israel". On a stylistic note I think "Independent Group" with capitals is appropriate but "group" on its own should be lower-case. There may be a case to include that her apology was supported by the Labour Party and she was told off by the whips, but I think that making the passage too long gives it undue weight.

I'd recommend the text: An antisemitic conspiracy theory arose online that the group were funded by Israel. Ruth George, a Labour MP, was asked to comment on Facebook activity by a Labour councillor that appeared to support this claim. She said it was "possible" that the Israeli government was supporting the group. After criticism, she withdrew her comments and apologised. Ralbegen (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

1) I thought antisemitic meant anti-Jewish? I know Israel is Jewish, but it would be wrong to call all references to Israel antisemitic. 2) The actual exchange was that someone wondered where the money came from and someone else messaged “Israelis”. Calling this a conspiracy theory without stating what actually happened is simply likely to mislead people. One word is not a theory. I suggest we avoid characterization without explanation, which is what is proposed, which is unnecessary and potentially misleading, and simply state the facts (I’ve cut this back) i.e. Ruth George, a Labour MP, was asked to comment on an endorsement by a Labour councillor of a suggestion that the financial backers were "Israelis". She stated it was "possible" as the funding was unknown. After criticism, she withdrew her comments and apologised. Jontel (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Jontel, you are applying your own WP:OR to the bits of message shown and coming to your own conclusions. That is not appropriate. We should follow what the people involved and reliable sources say. George said "conspiracy theory". The Board of Deputies said "conspiracy theory".

Also, the particular Facebook exchange was not a one off. There's been lots of this stuff, including here on this Talk page! Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think leading on an assertion that there was an antisemitic conspiracy theory is a balanced approach; and also doesn't seem at all consistent with how we've treated the Angela Smith quote, in which we don't even mention that anyone considered what she said racist. WP:RACIST is probably the most relevant guideline: the view that it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory can be included, but should be attributed, not in Wikipedia's voice. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest something like:

Labour MP Ruth George, who had been asked to comment on Facebook activity suggesting the group's funders were "Israelis", said that "Support from the State of Israel... is possible and I would not condemn those who suggest it, especially when the group’s financial backers are not being revealed". After widespread criticism of these remarks for invoking antisemitic conspiracy theories, she withdrew her comments and apologised.

(With some appropriate references.) TSP (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for comments (and keep them coming). I think we have already achieved consensus to include "conspiracy theory". The question is whether to go with Ralbegen's version or TSP's version (which are fairly close). Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, let me go further. I prefer Ralbegen's version. I am going to go change the article now to TSP's version as that's a bit more conservative in wording, so I presume broadly acceptable. If there's additional support for Ralbegen's wording, happy to change to that. If there's additional support for anything else, happy to be guided by consensus and we can make further changes. Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TSP's wording. Headhitter (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The 'First elected' column of the table

I don't have the Wikipedia skills to edit this properly but I just noticed something. It gives the date Joan Ryan was 'first elected' as 1997, although she was out of office between 2010 and 2015. However, it gives the date Chris Leslie was first elected as 2010, even though he was first elected for a different constituency in 1997 (although he was out of office between 2005 and 2010).

Depending on whether 'First elected' refers to the uninterrupted or interrupted spells as an MP, this column needs editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC21:CB00:4875:4270:836D:8599 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Changed Leslie's. Thanks for pointing that out, I think it was my mistake initially. Ralbegen (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Domain name registration/Panama falsehood

With respect to this edit in which TSP removed some content I added... Yeah, I'm not certain. It doesn't get a lot of prominence in that article, but this is another anti-TIG conspiracy theory that's been going around the 'net and Wikipedia, I feel, has a responsibility to counter such things, so that's why I came down on the side of adding it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say Wikipedia has a responsibility to counter such things? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "counter" anything, it repeats what it thinks notable from verifiable sources. 82.1.8.4 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Roughly agreeing with the two responses above - WP:NOTEVERYTHING is probably the most relevant policy. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.". Lots of things have been said about this grouping and lots more will be in the future, and any given correction may be useful to someone who happens to have picked up the opposite from somewhere; but for the average reader saying "What's the deal with this party then?", it's a bizarre distraction to suddenly be reading about where its domain name is registered. TSP (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because the Guardian says the group is 'centrist,' does that actually make it so?

Just curious. Reaper7 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No. But here we report what reliable sources say, and they say the group is centrist. See also the FT and the Independent. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Each of the outlets you just used as an example are strong remain publications. They tend to see remain as a centrist ideal. Reaper7 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

First, we say in the article that the Group are centrist and pro-Remain, so I don't see any presumption or implication that centrism automatically includes a pro-Remain position. Secondly, your argument appears to be WP:SYNTH unless you can demonstrate some reliable source support for it, or evidence that Leave-supporting publications define centrism differently or describe the Group differently. Bondegezou (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your first point is unimportant to the point. The point being that pro-remain publications usually describe pro-remain politicians as centre. I am afraid leave supporting publications see things the otherway round and it would therefore be optimal to reflect that rather than pander to the remain press which this article in its description of the group appears to be doing. For example, The Telegraph piece on the group - its headline and substance of the article are clear, this is a centre left group: This isn't a new centre party: it’s a club for old-fashioned Remainers and Blairites. If we want to be balanced and we can quote Wiki policy all day on the matter, this group appears as the very least - centre left. Reaper7 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a reference this time. That is an opinion piece rather than news reporting, so is giving less weight. However, if we have more material describing the party as centre-left -- and I do recall some other references to them being centre-left -- then we should reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Now that Conservative MPs have joined the group, the premise of this discussion is effectively contradicted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Avoiding personal attacks

Please can everyone ensure they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and in particular stop speculating on people's motives and personal politics in talk page discussions? All debates on Wikipedia must be based on the merits of the content, not the contributor.

If you feel you absolutely must take issue with someone's behaviour in a discussion, then per WP:TALK please take that to their talk page or if necessary to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - if a discussion is not directly about the article content, it should not be here. TSP (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Heidi Allen

The 'Controversies' section incorrectly refers to Heidi Allen as a former Labour MP - of course, she is a former Conservative MP! (She happens to be my MP!). Mdrb55 (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The 'Controversies' section has now disappeared! Mdrb55 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, so I restored the text to an earlier version. It's there, but moved. Bondegezou (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Dates

As we move out of the initial days and the article continues to expand, I note that the order and timing of some events described in the text is prone to getting confused. Some judicious insertion of dates for events, quotations etc. may be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know how to use Wikipedia but I wanted to point out, that Dudley MP Ian Austin has resigned from the Labour Party to join TIG. Can somebody add him?

Thanks. He's resigned from Labour, but not actually joined TIG. We do have some text on him in the Reactions section. Bondegezou (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Move controversy section

The section on Angela Smith's comments belong on her article, not this one. (At least not until there is RS criticizing the Independent Group's handling of her comments.) Zekelayla (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So, we're having a similar discussion on the Brexit Party Talk page, so I'd be interested in input there. I think it comes down to whether reliable source coverage explicitly links the matter to the Independent Group or not. Bondegezou (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So despite the comments here, it has been re-inserted twice. The comment of one member of a group is not a controversy regarding the whole group: it is first day over-reaction. This is pathetic. Kevin McE (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE You are letting your own personal political opinion interfere with the neutrality of wikipedia. Exat (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Fupp off am I, you know absolutely nothing about my political opinion. You and others are forcing a 'controversy' upon a group that no source says is the responsibility of the group. Kevin McE (talk) 4:40 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Kev, don`t let the lack-of-neutrality of mainstream "Independent" media interfere with your good-faith contributions to wikipedia.126.243.85.139 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Angela Smith did herself link her comment to her leaving the Labour Party and the antisemitism row on the BBC Politics Live program. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't delete my comments, or make false denials of having done so.. Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not see your original post, its not on my history. Lets stop being personal and try keeping the discussion to the topic rather than regards other co=editors. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So no admission that you did do what you deny, and no apology. Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The comments were made during an interview with Angela Smith that was aired because of her leaving Labour and forming this new group. If she hadn't left Labour, she wouldn't have been interviewed. So, the comment is directly linked to the new group. Especially as one of the reasons the group was formed was due to their belief that Labour is institutionally anti-Semitic and therefore racist.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Not what the sources for that section say. Kevin McE (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"If she hadn't left Labour, she wouldn't have been interviewed". By that logic, we should also add these comments to, say, Magna Carta, since if not for that, she wouldn't have been interviewed. Zekelayla (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I rather agree that Angela Smith's comments belong on her own article page. It's not like she's the leader of the IG, or the IG has a history of comments like these. John Smith's (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Both citations do discuss the matter in the context of The Independent Group's formation, one specifically saying that in its headline. If reliable sources make the link, then it's appropriate for us to do so. That said, this may be a flash in the pan. IF there's no sustained coverage of the matter, then it would make sense to shrink the amount of text we have on it (possibly to nothing), be it here on her article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"one specifically saying that in its headline." Uuh no, it just describes her matter of factly as one of the Labor defectors. It is standard to mention the party a politician belongs to regardless of whether the mention of the lawmaker is pertinent to the overall party. This is just a case of that. Zekelayla (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been linked to the group in RS coverage, but it shouldn't be in a controversy section according to WP:CSECTION. Wouldn't it fit better as a brief mention in the formation section? Ralbegen (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this has been linked to the group and its launch by sources - the group is far better known than Angela Smith is, and at least one of our sources doesn't even put her name in the headline, just the group. Per WP:CSECTION there should probably be a more general section on events in the party, starting with formation. Not sure what to call it; "History" seems a bit odd for a day-old group, but I guess it prepares for the future. TSP (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Strikes me that behind alot of the arguments for it's inclusion and removal are political. Perhaps time will be the ultimate decider, but it doesn't feel like an on going controversy nor a controversy of The Independent Group. Of course it's received alot of coverage, opponents have jumped on the finances of one of its members' landlord, and fact that the website is hosted from Panama. All in all, perhaps it should be included for now, and at a later point with greater perspective we can judge in the grand scheme of things whether it's a TIG controversy, or a unfortunate gaffe by one of its members. 81.129.34.224 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like your argument for retaining it is to specifically flout WP:Recentism. That policy would seem to suggest that we omit it until it is established as being of enduring relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This section was removed, which seems to be the balance of argument here, and re-added by an editor who describes him/herself as left wing and accused me above of "letting your own personal political opinion interfere with the neutrality of wikipedia". Kevin McE (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There do seem to be RS that connect Smith's comments and the formation of TIG, saying that the situation is ironic, or had made TIG a 'laughingstock', given that Smith's words were seen to be racist and TIG claimed to be formed as a move away from institutional racism in the Labour party. I've added a couple to the section in the article. --Woofboy (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The edit I originally made about Smith's comment was removed in its entirety because it was thought to be 'overkill to have so much on it'. It may have been too much, but I think it might be worth including something of the commentary on a TIG member's comments that were deemed racist and made shortly after the founding of the group in response to racism. So I've included one sentence on it this time. I hope that's OK. --Woofboy (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Reinserted "funny tinge" info which was removed because of "no consensus" on talk page. If it's in the article and there's no consensus about if it should be in or out, consensus needs reaching before its removed. --Woofboy (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we include Angela Smith's comments?

Should we include Angela Smith's comments? I think they probably qualify as WP:NOTNEWS, and given they already appear on her own article, I don't think we should include them. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Her article is the place for information about her comments to appear. This is Paul (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is discussed at some length above. While there was a flurry of reporting about it at the time, it doesn't seem like something that's had a sustained impact, while further events of greater impact continue to grow the article. So, I am leaning towards supporting removal... but I don't feel any urgency here if other editors strongly feel it should remain. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times above. It was a well cited gaff made within only 3 hours of the official launch of the party, by one of the TIG founders who was at the time (and at the launch) was very strongly alleging (antisemitism) racism existing in the Labour as a main reason for leaving that party.....mmmm absolute ironic hypocrisy. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bodney, you want to include material about Angela Smith and not just leave it to her own article, but you don't want to include material about Ian Austin and say that should be left to his article. It seems to me that both have RS showing a connection, although whether either gets sustained coverage is something only time will tell. Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Simple: The Independent Group has only has 2 known policies or views ~ against the Brexit approach of both Parties and accusations of racism in the Labour Party. For one of the founders of the Independent Group to say on camera something that goes against one of those only 2 known views within 2 hours is totally relevant regards the TIG group.

Ian Austin has no intention of joining the Independent Group ....so his separate resignation has nothing to do with this article about the Independent Group, ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, can you stop repeatedly removing the Angela Smith section and engage with discussion here. Let's try to get consensus and avoid an WP:EDITWAR. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: never edit warred here yet -- I removed it once yesterday, and removed it once today. Right now it appears that "exclude" views are dominant. If that is not the case, of course I don't mind being reverted, that's how it works. --Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re Bodney, accusations of hypocrisy are going to cut both ways here given the history which many of us are familiar with on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn et cetera -- unwise for either side.

I also concur with @Bondegezou: and @Absolutelypuremilk: that this shouldn't really be here -- WP:NOTNEWS, and I would add that the gaffe, from fumbled speech in a comment about that was actually about how racism is bad, doesn't even compare to stuff that is being used for the alleged double standard -- i.e. 6 separate occasions of anti-Semitic hate against Berger, in addition to things of course that are an integral part of it but will not and should not actually be mentioned on the page like that time people love to forget when Ben Judah was pinned to a wall, assaulted, and slugged in the head by a horde of Galloway lads, as they shouted "Get out you dirty Jew"[[2]][[3]]. In the first day of the founding of the party, much more relevant things have come out. IF this becomes a recurrent story, THEN we can mention it, but that is in the crystalball realm at the moment. --Calthinus (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the view that WP:NOTNEWS applies here seems fair. If it turns out that the moment was consequential for the group in some way then it would make sense to include it. But there's enough to write about here without including it. Ralbegen (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Question if Smith's error is removed, should we also remove the rash responses of Ruth George? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

While there are parallels between the cases, we should consider each issue on its own merits. Both warrant inclusion on the articles of the MPs concerned. With both, whether there should be coverage here largely depends on whether, as time passes, the incidents have sustained coverage in reliable sources. With both, it appears current consensus is to include material, so we should leave material in until a clear consensus emerges to remove, and discourage edit-warring.

There does appear to be some instances of partisan editing going on, that we should also strongly discourage. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If I've followed correctly, I agree with @TSP:, @Bodney:, @Localzuk:, and @Exat: (and two IP signed editors) that Smith's comments should be included. To reiterate: while TIG doesn't yet have a manifesto or policies, two of the issues that triggered the split were the handling of Brexit and racism within the Labour party. Within the first few hours after TIG's formation, one of the original MPs to breakaway from the Labour party, while mentioning one of those two founding issues (i.e., racism), made a comment widely deemed as racist. This has been commented on by RS. --Woofboy (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Austin's warning to Labour

I re-added Austin's warning to Labour made before he left the party, as I think it gives greater context to his subsequent decision to quit. As it has been removed again, I'm raising for discussion. Should the sentence be restored to the article or not? Mjroots (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A number of other MPs and all media have said that more MPs could leave. That is so obvious that I don’t think that such an opinion needs stating. If he provided any detail, evidence or was in a position to know more than other MPs, there might be a case for including it. If he was predicting his own departure, I don’t see the point of including it. I do not think it adds anything as it stands. Please explain further if you wish. Jontel (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian Austin

Separating this from the above discussion, and replying to Bodney's comment of 11:35, 22 February 2019:-

That's not exactly what sources are saying, Bodney. Prior to your removal, the position was clear. Austin left because he couldn't support Corbyn. He had not ruled out joining TIG at some point, but wasn't joining them immediately. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"He had not ruled out joining TIG at some point, but wasn't joining them immediately" = he is not currently joining TIG, so before adding him to the TIG page, we should wait and see. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

He's definitely not a member of TIG so we can't include him. There are of course lots of other former Labour MPs who are now independents and not members of TIG. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bodney, you kind of give the impression that you think the thing that is embarrassing to TIG should be highlighted, and the thing that is embarrassing to Corbyn should be hidden away. Remember, on Wikipedia, we follow what RS do. RS clearly link Austin's resignation with TIG. He was long rumoured to be leaving to join TIG. He's talked about TIG. TIG have talked about him and welcome his leaving Labour. RS clearly say he's leaving Labour for similar reasons to the Tiggers. His departure is a reaction to TIG, and thus should be in the article. Angela Smith's gaffe was also covered by RS in the context of TIG, so I've been OK with it being included as well. However, in both cases, WP:UNDUE/WP:BALANCE requires we give due weight to incidents. If something is just a flash in the pan, we can drop it, and that does seem to be the case with Angela Smith. If future coverage of Austin dies away quickly and stops making a link with TIG, then we can revise the decision in that light.

Maswimelleu, no other former Labour MPs who is now an independent has been talked about by RS in the context of TIG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

His departure is not a reaction to TIG. He maybe leaving for similar reasons as TIG but he is not joining the group atm, that is what the sources are saying, to say otherwise is WP:SYNTH. Rumours are irrelevant. As for WP:BALANCE the article already has whole paragraphs regards rash tweets by Ruth George and Young Labour. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Woodcock has been on record discussing TIG and whether he will join. The Guardian also explored whether Ivan Lewis was another possible member but the group has been evasive over whether they will admit people suspected of sexual misconduct. If there's a discussion of Austin then I would argue that a discussion of Woodcock and Lewis would also be warranted for similar reasons. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

One article in a local paper isn't much coverage, but if there's more, then, yes, that would support content on Woodcock. Generally, this article hasn't gone down the road of lengthy speculation about possible future defections, and I think that's appropriate. So coverage of whether Woodcock or Lewis might join isn't top of my to-do list. In contrast, Austin has definitely done something, and done it in the context of and in reaction to TIG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

While he's not connected to TIG I think inclusion could incorrectly imply a relationship. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not SYNTH if we're following what reliable sources say, as we are. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not saying he's connected to TIG, they just happen to mention him in the context of leaving the Labour Party. To imply a conclusion (a relationship) from that is SYNTH. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not what WP:SYNTH is about. WP:SYNTH says don't combine multiple sources to make a connection that is not made in the sources. That's not the situation here - Austin has been mentioned in connection with TIG in a number of sources; personally I think sufficiently widely to justify a single line somewhere in the history section along the lines of "Ian Austin's departure from the Labour Party on 22 February was linked in the press to the defections of the The Independent Group MPs, but he did not apply to join the group." (Referenced to, for example, [4]) TSP (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary right now. Our role here is to describe The Independent Group rather than chronicle current events or to discuss the future of British politics. Perhaps if TIG itself invites him to join and he responds to them, it would warrant inclusion. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@TSP: WP:SYNTH also says "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" - which is what adding him here would, effectively, be doing. His resignation was compared to the resignations of other MPs (who happened to join TIG) but his wasn't described as being related to TIG itself. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I refer people to WP:SYNTH possibly more than any other policy, but I really think you're stretching it here. This is not combining anything. It is stating a simple fact drawn from one place in any one of many sources: Austin's departure from Labour was linked by commentators to the TIG departures.

I'm fine with a decision being made here that Austin isn't sufficiently relevant to TIG to mention, but there's no synthesis going on. TSP (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of news reports about Austin's departure put the news in the context of TIG, and many of the reports are about how he left for very similar reasons and whether he'll join TIG now, or later, or why he won't, or what the Tiggers have said about him, or what have they said to him and vice versa, etc. We are not "reach[ing] or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". We are stating a connection that is explicitly stated and discussed at length in multiple sources. Bondegezou (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

They put it in the context of other resignations from Labour, and not of TIG. We don't need the speculation, just the facts, so if he joins TIG, then that will be the time to mention him here. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That is simply not true. The vast majority of articles about Austin's departure explicitly put it in the context of TIG. I just did a check: I typed "ian austin" into Google and looked at the first 10 reliable source, non-paywalled Google News search articles. 8/10 talk about TIG. We follow what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. RSs may mention TIG in passing, to make it clear (because of its current high profile in the news) that he is not joining them. That doesn't mean they are saying his resignation is related to TIG in any way. When the history of TIG is written, I'm sure Austin's resignation will not feature in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That is also simply not true. RSs are not mentioning TIG "in passing". It is often a central part of their reporting about Austin. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at coverage of him from the BBC, the Guardian, the Times, the Independent, the Telegraph, and the New Statesman. Of those that do mention TIG, it is not mentioned other than to confirm he isn't joining it, or as the group that fellow Labour resignees joined. I'd characterise that as "in passing", as none of it is reason enough to link him to TIG in the TIG article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's just take the first of those you mention, which you describe as mentioning TIG only "in passing". Paragraph 3 says he is not joining TIG. But then there is a section headed 'Analysis' that reads:

Another MP resigns, pouring scathing criticism on their leader at the end of a watershed week at Westminster.

Ian Austin's decision not to join his former colleagues in the new Independent Group is telling.

It shows that he felt strongly enough about the problem of anti-Semitism within Labour to quit the party he has been a member of for 45 years on that basis alone.

But it also suggests that Parliament's newest group may be seen above all for what, in the absence of any policies, unites them.

That is support for a further referendum on leaving the EU, something Ian Austin would not sign up to.

Later in the article, we get:

He admitted the leadership let down Jewish MP Luciana Berger, who described the party as "institutionally anti-Semitic" when leaving to join the Independent Group.

There was not enough support for Ms Berger, "not enough action", Mr McDonnell said, before pledging to "sort it".

There's then a graphic about The Independent Group. Then, at the end, there's another three paragraphs about TIG. That is not a mere, "in passing" reference. That is a sustained analysis connecting Austin's actions to TIG. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating it a bit, I don't see "a graphic about The Independent Group" or "another three paragraphs about TIG". I see a graphic showing the number of MPs in each group in parliament, of which TIG is one, and one sentence, the third from the bottom, mentioning that Austin won't be joining "the group". Where are you looking? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The graphic has an arrow pointing to the Independent Group; no other group gets an arrow. Of course it's "a graphic about The Independent Group". The three paragraphs at the end read:

He said he "agreed" with the eight MPs who left Labour to form the Independent Group earlier this week that things "have got to change".

However, he wants a Brexit deal concluded, rather than a further referendum on EU membership.

While Mr Austin did not rule out joining the group, he told BBC Radio 5 Live he was "not anticipating doing that any time soon".

And I presume you accept the other content about TIG I pointed out.

Your ridiculousness is straining my AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The arrow is pointing out the new group, because it's new, not because of anything to do with Austin. Two of the last three sentences and the other few sentences you mentioned above are confirming what I said, that there are passing references about the other resignees' group and Austin saying he isn't joining them. None of this is enough to justify associating Austin with TIG in this article. If you still disagree, and especially if you are losing patience with my questioning of your interpretation, then I will leave it there. Let's see what others think. And it will be interesting to see if history ever does associate Austin with the formation and development of TIG. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just noting the conversation at the bottom of the page - an anonymous came along specifically to say we needed to add Ian Austin, because they believed he had joined TIG. Chris Williamson MP also tweeted to say Austin had joined TIG, before having to issue a correction.

This encourages me in thinking that this is valuable context that should have a (very brief) mention. His departure has been widely connected to TIG in the press, and is presented by sources as part of the same chain of events that led to TIG - several articles refer to him as the "ninth Labour MP to quit", specifically grouping him with the TIG MPs and not with previous MPs who have left Labour. TSP (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To throw another tuppence in here, I'd agree with TSP - we probably should have a line or two that explains that there is TIG, and there are another set of independents who sit individually (for various reasons) and aren't part of it. Even without any speculation on individuals, it's a confusing situation to have an Independent Group and "ungrouped independents", and it's reasonable to make the situation clear to readers. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

change colour [grey]] to grey, currently displayed as white 86.168.212.146 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a source for this colour? If not we shouldn't list it at all. Obviously we need to define a colour internally for graphs and the like, and their website does suggest a black/white/grey colour scheme, but it shouldn't be listed as official in the infobox without a source. TSP (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (no consensus either way). The policy-based opposition -- that the The is part of the name of this topic and this topic is a unique use of this title and the The is sufficient differentiation from other uses of "Independent Group" -- is too strong to find consensus in favor of moving at this time. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 18:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The Independent Group → The Independent Group (United Kingdom) – the current title is highly ambiguous. Any of the groups listed at Independent Group (disambiguation) may be referred to as "The Independent Group". Placing this as the primary topic smacks of WP:RECENTISM and/or a UK-centric view. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree totally i.e. Support. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ... the or not to the

But it makes a pleasant change from being US-centric! ;-) ;-) Just Chilling (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This group is the only one which is both current and a nationwide party (as far as I can see, the Solomons Island grouping no longer exists, or at least is no longer being written about). It is clearly the primary topic here. If the group disbands or otherwise fails, we can think about changing it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(: its not really a party yet. I do think we are being UK-centric. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree a move is a good idea. We could even drop the The per WP:THE and have Independent Group (United Kingdom). This is Paul (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to keep the "The" as it is part of the groups offical title, and appears on their logo. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Mjroots, not necessarily. Please check out WP:OFFICIAL. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, from what I've seen so far. The official name of the group appears to be "The Independent Group" (compare The Coca-Cola Company, The New York Times) so my reading of WP:THE is that it should be included. If that's the case, then per WP:NATURALDIS, using "natural disambiguation" is the preferred means of disambiguation, distinguishing "The Independent Group" from other "Independent Group"s - parentheticals should only be used when there is no natural option. TSP (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TSP and oppose the move - there is a distinction between "Independent Group", which is where the disambiguation page currently is, and "The Independent Group", which is the full title of this grouping. I don't believe users looking for the other groups would use the leading "The", and if they do, there is a disambiguation note at the top of the page for a reason. Eilidhmax (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Objection: several of the articles linked from the disambiguation page begin with the word “The” before the name. —ajf (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom, with or without the "The". The art movement have "The" as part of their name on their website so that's not going to cut it in terms of disambiguation. PC78 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There's been long discussion at Brexit Party about whether that should be The Brexit Party, and there is Wikipedia policy here, WP:THE. That would suggest there is some argument that this should be Independent Group (United Kingdom) (as indeed it was for a while). Bondegezou (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • PS: I support "(UK)" over "(United Kingdom)" as per comments below. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: "The Independent Group" is the only group with a "The" and therefore its official name is unique. EverythingGeography (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, similarly to Independent Group (Kenya) (who actual title begins 'The' as well). The new group of UK MPs certainly don't have a unique claim to the title. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, the whole thing was done overly hurriedly yesterday and this seems more than reasonable. We could remove the The at the same time, it wasn't really intentional, there were 2 articles, I redirected one to the other in a hurry because we can't have two competing articles and got it wrong. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. per nominator. Very much an open and shut case of WP:Recentism here. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't see a problem with the current title. However, if it is moved, it should be The Independent Group (UK) as per WP:THE: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name." Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as "Independent Group (United Kingdom)" "Independent Group (UK)". I think the definite article is a decent disambiguation in the current title, but the country is a better one. Reliable source coverage seems to lean towards "the Independent Group" rather than "The Independent Group" (See Sky, Guardian). Ralbegen (talk) Edited to take account of what lots of people have pointed out: (UK) is the disambiguator used for other parties, and is more suitable by concision. Ralbegen (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Lots of news outlets do not use the completely official names for organisations. Take UKIP for example, most news outlets put "Ukip". Using what news outlets describe organisations is not a sufficient justification for changing a page title. EverythingGeography (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And Wikipedia has clear policy that prefers the name that reliable sources use over the the official name. Bondegezou (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Sionk and Ralbegen. Harfarhs (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support without "the", as per Ralbegen. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - since the 'The' is part of the official title it should obviously be retained. Since there is no other page called 'The Independent Group' there is no need for disambiguation and we should avoid unnecessary disambiguation. Just Chilling (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The current title passes the tests of recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. The "The" per WP:THE provides natural disambiguation (per WP:NATURALDIS) where the addition of "(United Kingdom)" would make the title longer than necessary, thus breaking WP:CONCISE. As this is clearly the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary term, without a parenthetical disambiguator should be used. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per DeFacto and others. —Legoless (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - there seems to be two naming issues here; firstly whether the title should be disambiguated in parenthesis and secondly whether the title should start with 'The'. I think, for clarity, we should split these questions. Just Chilling (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – It is worth noting the pages for the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have it as "(UK)", not "(United Kingdom)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.245.173.217 (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• SupportZekelayla (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect (and possible mischief-making?!) An actual and present political grouping in the United Kingdom, albeit recently founded (whether they are actually called a 'party' or are registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party in the UK is neither here nor there (see Socialist Workers Party (UK); they are not registered either!)) with legislators (Members of Parliaments) in the British House of Commons, does I think automatically trump and take precedence over the 1950s' art group, defunct groups and some grouping in Solomon Islands or in Benalmádena in Spain; this should be obvious ... are activities with the #GTTO hashtag or a red rose emoji on Twitter or otherwise following PeoplesMomentum, Rachael_Swindon, Skwawkbox, Zelo_street, OwenJones84, AyoCaesar, Novaramedia, AaronBastani or Georgegalloway, 'all the usual suspects', coming here to 'vote' en masse, 'against the evil pro-Iraq-War Blairite splitists'?! -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The current name works well enough and the proposed alternative is not an improvement because other cases such as Independent Group (art movement) were in the UK too. The situation is fluid and likely to change as and when the new grouping becomes a full political party or merges with others. Better to wait and see how this develops. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Retain 'The', it is a clear part of the name. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Other political parties listed on Independent Group (disambiguation) are all inactive and none as notable as The Independent Group. The title The Independent Group (United Kingdom) is unnecessarily long and may be confused with Independent Group (art movement).Andysmith248 (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • And as noted above, the current title is also ambiguous with the art movement... PC78 (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just be clear enough with disambiguations, and we're all good. No need to overcompensate. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 10:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Suggest alternative move to The Independent Group (UK politics). Have withdrawn my support above for the proposed title because it is still ambiguous with the art movement and the standard disambiguation appears to be "UK" rather than "United Kingdom". However, I still believe the current title is inadequate. It would be a shocking display of WP:RECENTISM to have this as the primary topic when they have only existed for all of two days (so far). PC78 (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move for the time being. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per DeFacto, Just Chilling and others. —Paul1337 (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per several arguments, notably Andrew D's slam-dunk that the proposed target is totally inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. They have clearly named themselves The Independent Group, and the other entries in the disamb page are defunct or relatively obscure. Simonjon (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Whether to use “The” in the page titles seems to be a matter of stylistic choice on Wikipedia editors' part and not a real difference between the various groups, several of which's articles (heh) begin with “The”. We should be consistent and drop it for all of them. —ajf (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment There is also the article for The Independent Party, in Kenya, which adds some confusion, for readers thinking the new British group ends in Party and not Group. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It's very early days and this is unlikely to cause any confusion with any other similar 'groups' given that it says British right in the lead. The group may change name quite quickly if it picks up more members and a political party could form quite soon. --Dafyddt (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Seems unnecessary at this point in time. Alssa1 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support would bring it into lime with other articles. While we’re at it, the other parties which have (UK) in their names should be changed to the full name (United Kingdom). ElshadK (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to The Independent Group (United Kingdom) — 'The' seems part of the name, but it should be dab'd from other Independent Groups (including by The Independent Group pointing to Independent Group). DBD 17:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per clarity.142.165.85.98 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a good idea. Buster Reynolds (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support but with United Kingdom abbreviated to UK as is the case for other British political parties and groups Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to The Independent Group (United Kingdom) — Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should see how the media reports them, but being an English language encyclopaedia this is necessarily going to prioritise English language organisation titles. None of the other Independent Groups come anywhere near as notable as this. It is hard for any organisation with the same name to be more notable than a parliamentary group in the United Kingdom with current MPs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support either (United Kingdom) or (UK) for distinctiveness, but without "The", which should not be capitalized unless the group formally calls itself that. It is not capitalized in the Guardian. Zaslav (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to The Independent Group (United Kingdom) — 'The' is part of the name (for example, when it's abbreviated, the group is TIG) so should be included following WP:THE. Should be included in disambiguation page with Independent Groups. I think DBD's right to say The Independent Group should point to the disambiguation page Independent Group. --Woofboy (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Independent Group (United Kingdom) - On further reflection, I'm not sure 'the' is an integral part of the name (e.g., 'Independent Group: Three MPs quit Tory party to join', so WP:THE probably doesn't apply. --Woofboy (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think journalistic laziness can be used to justify deleting 'The'. Firebrace (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 18:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment only: it's probably relevant to note that the group is often referred to as "TIG", not "IG" or "the IG". I don't have an opinion as such on the article name. Pol098 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, if they're using the acronym TIG obviously the The is an important part of the brand. Therefore there's a difference between The Independent Group and the Independent Group. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no other The Independent Group which it needs to be disambiguated from, and "The" is an integral part of the name as the abbreviation is TIG. BabelStone (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Concur with others opposed to the change: it is "The" Independent Group, of which there is only one; and I don't think it conflicts with the disambiguation page. · | (talk - contributions) 19:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support- I concur with Zaslav. Also, this is not the only group of independent politicians in the world. See ISG. There are other independents. Mgasparin (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Andrew_Davidson. The specific target of the proposed move actually creates more ambiguity with Independent Group (art movement) than the current hatnote-supported situation. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support however, ideally the article should be placed at Indepedent Group (UK) without the definitive article (precedent: we have the article named [[Labour Party (UK)]] rather than [[The Labour Party (UK)]], despite the organisation's legal name having a definitive article).--Autospark (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose TSP and Andrew Davidson make convincing arguments. feminist (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Local councillors

Thanks Cordyceps-Zombie for the Brighton & Hove update. I was a bit uncertain about it. I wasn't certain whether the ex-Labour councillors involved are formally connected to The Independent Group or just want to be. The article implies the former, but it's not 100% clear to me.

More generally, there have been multiple Labour councillors resigning from the party to sit as independents, often citing TIG and/or being congratulated on Twitter by TIG MPs, but without a formal structure apparent to affiliate them with TIG. This seems notable, but hard to describe clearly. Input on how best to handle welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

At some point, one of the national papers will publish a review of defecting councillors around the country, probably including their status. One approach would be to leave the sub topic until this happens. Jontel (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason I added it is because the source states that they have formed a formal group - "This morning, with Cllr Michael Inkpin-Leissner, I formally constituted @TheIndGroup on @BrightonHoveCC - possibly the first foothold in local government for the new group established in Parliament a week ago." - If you think it is still premature to add this information, then I can remove it or open a discussion about it. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would've thought the information should only be added to an article about TIG if the councillors join TIG. --Woofboy (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If lots of councillors leave Labour because of TIG, that is notable even if they don't join TIG. (And while TIG is not (yet) a party, it's somewhat unclear what joining TIG means.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is describing TIG as a grouping of MPs rather than a party or organisation that you can join. I don't see how a Parliamentary grouping could have local councillors, even if one of the MPs happened to be an independent councillor too. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a good New Statesman piece today on the topic. This has the Brighton group as aligned with but not actually part of TIG. I have edited the article accordingly. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted tweet

User:Bondegezou

When Joan Ryan MP resigned from the Labour party, the official account of Young Labour sent a tweet which read Joan Ryan Gone - Palestine Lives. This referenced Ryan’s role as an advocate of Israel, particularly as Chair of Labour Friends of Israel. The tweet was condemned by the chair of Young Labour and then deleted, showing that it did not have the support of the Young Labour Executive Committee. The only authored response I can find is a tweet from journalist Jane Merrick who has a record of being anti-Corbyn and called it “hateful nonsense”. This was not covered in the quality press.

I think that including the original tweet is WP:UNDUE as it is the action of perhaps one anonymous individual who is not particularly senior and who was overruled by his colleagues. I think that including Merrick’s response is WP:UNDUE as she is partisan without being significant, hers was the only authored criticism and it is more emotional than anything.

I would like to suggest that we delete both as lacking in significance and invite others’ views. Jontel (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This has not attracted as much attention as other matters. I would not object to both sentences being deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There is some third party RS coverage of this response, but I think it's more about Young Labour than about the Independent Group, really. It was covered in the Jewish Chronicle, ITV, the Telegraph and i news, so I'd understand an argument for its inclusion. However, the story seems to more be about Young Labour not having control of its Twitter output rather than actually giving us any insight into the group's response to the formation of the Independent Group. I think both sentences can be deleted from this article. Ralbegen (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There is material in the Young Labour article, which seems appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A procedural note: please wait (a lot) longer than 22 hours before concluding that there's a consensus. EddieHugh (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Members of Parliament" section

Presumably when this group become a fully-fledged party this section will have its own article similar to Liberal Democrats (UK)#Current elected MPs which links to List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2017–). For now I've taken the pics of the MPs out as it is overkill I think. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored the pictures as they assist readers' understanding. For example, there is coverage of the Brexit debates and so these pictures help in recognising members of the group when they speak The article does not otherwise have any pictures and could also use a group photo as the lead image. Andrew D. (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How to select reactions to TIG?

I genuinely need some help here, @Bondegezou:. I've been reading through the sources that are referenced in this TIG article to see what reactions political parties have had about TIG, and I've been including things as I go along. A number of my edits have been removed and I'm trying to learn why that might be so, so that I can be better at contributing to Wikipedia. For example, an edit of mine was seen as not 'really adding anything', and another, where I completed a quote from a Labour politician was reverted because the shorter form of the quote was deemed better because 'we don't need the full thing'. OK, so something shouldn't be included and something should -- I get that (esp. as we're 'aiming to be encyclopaedic'), but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to know why some specific things pass as suitable and some as not. The second of those edits mentioned above, where I completed the quote but my edit was removed because 'we don't need the full thing' is confusing: when I included a quote from another Labour politician (with which I tried to helpful by not including the full thing [I was learning! Or so I thought]), it was seen as 'selective' because I had not included the last sentence and was removed. I don't understand why different criteria is being used at different times. A similar thing happened when I tried to make sense of one politician's comment that the MPs leaving the Labour party had let the Conservatives "off the hook". Now, to me, that doesn't mean anything (how does the MPs leaving Labour let the Conservatives off the hook - and off the hook about what?), so I tried to add to the context, but then the full thing was removed again. This is hard (and kind of demoralising, to be honest). Other edits of mine were changed because they were seen to be 'selectively picking out the critical ones' when, really, my edits were made in good faith following the sources - I didn't selectively pick out the ones critical of TIG: the more conciliatory or non-critical ones had already been mentioned in the Wikipeida TIG article; the critical ones I included had not been mentioned. --Woofboy (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We are meant to be writing an encyclopaedia article. Go find an old copy of Encyclopaedia Britannica or something and look up how it describes, say, the Liberal Unionist Party of 1886. I'm guessing it won't have a long list of quotations by politicians in the Liberal Party decrying the splitters. Or just look at our own article at Liberal Unionist Party. There's one pithy two-word phrase quoted by Gladstone, but that's it.

Now, Wikipedia does cover more recent events and we do skew a bit more towards news reporting in these circumstances, but we don't want this article to be a quote farm, a long list of soundbites. It adds nothing to the reader's knowledge to have numerous quotations from a party's political opponents saying they don't like them. Of course they're saying that. Let's try to summarise the key messages, use secondary and tertiary reporting, and focus on what the most important people (Corbyn or Watson vs. random MP) say.

Beyond these style issues, everything you added in the last few days has been critical of TIG, which threatens WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. With respect to the Miliband tweet, you omit the final sentence, which strikes a tone much closer to Tom Watson's. Your wording makes Miliband sound as critical as Corbyn, when he was actually much softer. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Bondegezou. I do hope you take my edits in good faith. As I said above, as I've been reading the sources, the more conciliatory responses mentioned in those sources had already been included in the article: I'm not hunting out critical things, just comparing the sources with what's already in this article and adding what's missing. Like I said, I now get that trying to be encyclopaedic means not including everything, of which I was at fault. The style issues weren't my concern above. My concerns above were that different criteria seem to be used to at different times, like when it's deemed we don't need the full thing in a couple of instances but do in another (which you read as 'closer to Tom Watson's' and I read as probably 'not really adding anything). It's genuinely difficult at times to know what to do; I feel a little like I have to try to guess what's in your head. I've just added some info about Labour reactions after Conservative MPs joined TIG and I found myself asking things like "Will Bondegezou remove these (the words of a Labour spokesperson and an MP's assessment of TIG members' policies in comparison to Labour's) because they are critical of TIG? Will a Labour spokesperson be an important enough voice for Bondegezou?" --Woofboy (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To add something, I don't see some/many of my edits as being simply 'numerous quotations from a party's political opponents saying they don't like them', which are therefore redundant because 'Of course they're saying that'. I think that some of my edits have explained why people have responded in the way they have, which helps readers understand what happened and the positions of various actors involved. --Woofboy (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just seen that, sadly, a Labour spokesperson and Danielle Rowley didn't pass muster. The edits were see as 'multiple quotes from less important figures saying the same things over and over', whereas I think there was variation in what they said that added to a more complete picture of the opinion of some in Labour. If anything, Angela Rayner's comments are the ones that this time 'don't really add anything', and yet they were the ones that were left. --Woofboy (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope other editors will input here. We could do with more opinions.

I would, ceteris paribus, favour a quotation from Rayner over one from Rowley because Rayner has more seniority in Labour. That was my reasoning there. Of course, that isn't necessarily the only criterion that matters.

There is a balance to be found as to when it is appropriate to cut down or summarise, and when you need more detail to explain or do justice to nuance and subtleties. In the case of the Miliband quote, it seems to me pretty obvious that his last sentence, that you omitted -- "Labour must and will continue to be a broad church as it has always been." -- is an acknowledgement of the criticism the TIG make, that the party was not welcoming of their views. To list his tweet with other, Corbynite criticisms and in contrast to the comments from Tom Watson is erroneous. Other quotations I deleted looked to me all minor variations of "they've betrayed the cause". We can discuss them one by one if you wish, but I would hope the article generally moves towards fewer quotations. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I suggest we drop the Lansman quote. It's evident that those who left were opponents of Corbyn: that hardly needs saying. The "hate and abuse" directed at Berger was of her own making, through her continual and vituperative attacks on her own party leadership. His quote doesn't add anything. Jontel (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it does add something. It's a reading of the situation that places the departing MPs in a general opposition to Corbyn, not specifically over antisemitism in Labour or over Party handling of Brexit. -- Woofboy (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Jontel, you say that, The "hate and abuse" directed at Berger was of her own making, through her continual and vituperative attacks on her own party leadership. You may have that as a personal opinion, but that sort of opinion has no place whatsoever in deciding Wikipedia edits. To do that would be in complete violation of OR and NPOV.

I think the Lansman quote is useful given his significance as a figure on the left of the party. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we have the MPs images?

I can see views differ. I do not see images on the articles of other minor parties. Should we reach a consensus? Jontel (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No pictures would be my position. Bondegezou (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I also agree – in general, I think that use of images in tables within articles tends to be superfluous and I try to avoid doing so when I can (unless they somehow express more information than mere text can convey). Mélencron (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, we should have pictures. A picture contains a large amount of information – worth a thousand words, per the adage. Human vision is optimised for recognising and interpreting faces[5] and so we can absorb information from such a picture at a glance. Without pictures, the article will be a dry wall of text. Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I took the pictures out in this diff on grounds of consistency - List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2017–) and List of Labour Party (UK) MPs. I would have created a new list article but I thought it better to wait until the name of the political party was established. We seem to manage with a dry wall of text for all the other UK political parties, why should this one be any different? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove them: having such images is not the norm in similar articles. What sort of interpretation of faces is likely to be attempted by readers? A phrenological examination seeking anti-Brexit indicators? Realistically, including the images adds nothing and makes the table unnecessarily unwieldy on anything except large screens. EddieHugh (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with EddieHugh about the images in the table. A single group photograph would be useful however. Some exist but I'm not sure if there are any freely licensed ones. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes 6 against and 1 for. Let's drop them. However, a group photo as per LukeSurl's suggestion sounds good, if possible. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I also vote against the images. Other political party articles don't have picture galleries. Maybe we should add pics of all the Conservative and Labour MPs to their respective party pages to help readers too. Maybe not. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• The page List of MPs elected in the 2017 United Kingdom general election has images in its much larger table of all MPs and that seems to work fine. If other lists of party's MPs don't have pictures then that just means that they haven't received so much attention and so are of lesser quality. We should aim to level up rather than level down. See today's BBC coverage for a professional example which contains a similar section listing the members. This is illustrated with a thumbnail portrait of each member and so demonstrates that this is normal and expected in high quality work. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd favour removing the images from List of MPs elected in the 2017 United Kingdom general election too: that table is unusably large because of them. More ≠ better. EddieHugh (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

'TIG or IG'?

Nobody calls The Independent Group IG. Universally they are referred to as TIG. The article in the reference which cites The Independent Group as IG is dated the 18th Feb, ie the day TIG launched. Clearly it's been passed by events. 82.132.225.217 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it has been removed already. I am inclined to revert it if that acronym is added again. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Centrism in lead

Just noticed the use of the term "centrist" in the lead getting removed and re-inserted today. My first instinct is to retain it based on the fact that their position as centrists is commonly understood throughout a variety of sources, but it may be that I've imagined that characterisation myself. I do think it's helpful to have a summary of a group's political position in the infobox and I'm curious why people are determined to remove it. Any thoughts? Maswimelleu (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Maswimelleu, I agree with you it's useful and meaningful information about the group - aside from pro-Europeanism the group's other defining feature is that its to the right of Corbyn's Labour but to the left of where the ERG is pulling the Conservatives. Its a little tricky, as TIG (and most political entities) don't have a helpful diagram of their website pointing to exactly where a Buzzfeed quiz placed them on a two-axis political spectrum chart. So you have to find 3rd party sources and see how the group is described. This is done in the article as it stands based on news article citations, but it would be better to get some more robustness to this statement. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox should only summarise content already established in the prose. The discussion and sourcing as to whether they are centrist, or whatever, should be in the prose body (not the lead as it currently is) and summarised in the lead and in the infobox. Generally, nothing in the lead or infobox should need a reference as it will be fully covered in the prose. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think this tells me that we ought to establish that TIG is centrist in prose, since this seems to be a widely accepted fact. I will see if I can find a few reliable sources for this assertion. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Every single media report about the TIG I have seen (ranging from the Guardian to the Times, the Independent to the Telegraph) describes them as centrist or moderate, with an emphasis on their remain values. The lead as well as the infobox should retain and reflect this information. Greenleader(2) (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe link the the UK section in centrism, that might be a good workaround. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Greenleader(2): why don't you just write a short paragraph in the prose to reflect that then. Then, assuming it isn't challenged, it can legitimately be summarised in the lead and inserted into the infobox. Remember, the lead and infobox should be summaries of what's in the prose, not places for stuff not mentioned in the prose. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

BAD AFD decision

No demonstration that the topic passes GNG; it is clearly receiving coverage as part of the ghatly Brexit soap opera. I say again, WP:NOTNEWS and {{WP:NOTGOATSLIVERSINVOLVED]]. These people are not receiving any significant ongoing coverage; rest assured this will be at AfD again in a few months.TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

TheLongTone, your AfD was speedily opposed. We have a lengthy and well-referenced article that dozens of editors have worked on. Does none of this give you cause to stop and think that maybe you're wrong here? Because everyone else can see very clearly that this topic passes GNG in spades. Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Lengthy and well-referenc4ed, yes. in NEWSPAPERS. READ WP:NOTNEWSTheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Independent Group has been the subject of in-depth coverage in hundreds, if not thousands, of mainstream media reports. This passes the thresholds of the GNG many times over. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, so a future AfD argument based on the fact that coverage has waned will not succeed. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

See [[WP:NOTNEWS}}

It was an overspeedy non-admin decision that ignored the sbecking facts:

• This received widespread coverage not as a standalone topic but as part of the brexit mess.
• The coverage has been very short lived. They are neither attracting ongoing coverage nor seem to be gaining any more members.

The article is a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON, evidently concepts you a5r3e all unable to grasp.TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A topic that has received enormous and constant media coverage over a period of several weeks warrants an article. There are articles in the main space discussing UK political parties and political movements that do not have MPs at all. You seem to have little understanding of the criteria for inclusion if you feel this article does not meet it. Incessantly calling for this article to be deleted despite unanimous opposition from other editors is - in my view - disruptive behaviour and suggests that you are here to push a personal agenda rather than improve the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest you stop. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course this is a notable article. Members of two large parties defect, talking about setting up an official party, creating an unprecedented independent group in the House of Commons. It's perhaps the most significant mass defection since the SDP. doktorb _words^deeds 16:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

TheLongTone, you seriously need to re-evaluate your position. You appear to have a major misunderstanding of notability criteria, nor do you understand WP:NOTNEWS or WP:TOOSOON.

I just did a Google News search and found 10 articles about TIG published in the last 4 hours, so, yes, the group is attracting ongoing coverage.

The TIG are not just "part of the brexit mess". While different views over Brexit was one of the drivers for the Group's formation, there were other factors, notably the anti-Semitism in Labour issue.

WP:NOTNEWS does not mean that things in the news should not have articles. WP:NOTNEWS opens, "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." That's what we've done: written a stand-alone article on a significant current event. It then warns against 4 things: (1) original reporting - we're not doing that here. (2) News reports, saying "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Again, we're not doing that here. This is not routine news reporting of announcements: we have sustained reporting and analysis of a significant matter. (3) a Who's who - not applicable here. (4) A diary - not applicable here. We've moved away from a day-by-day coverage of events to analysis.

WP:TOOSOON says, "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." We have numerous sources here. The article has 65 references cited at present. Clearly this doesn't apply. Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh puh-lease. DEvaluate my position my curky pink. This WAS a news story; they are NOT# gettoing qany more attentyion. Newspapers are onlf the snecking FIRST DRAFT OF HISTORY. These people are not notewo0rthy; they deserve a very shot pa5ra in the article on the Labour party. I WILL BE RENOMINATIONG THIS IN DUE COURESE.TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that any renomination will be speedily rejected. At this point, your actions, TheLongTone, are beginning to look actively disruptive and entering WP:NOTHERE territory. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I want to try to present a more measured tone here, TheLongTone, if you excuse the pun. Bondegezou is right, you are coming across with your language as though you are personally affronted by the existence of this article, and that is not a valid objection, nor a reason to recommend that this article is deleted. You must look at the facts. This group sit in the House of Commons, and as such, they are notable because they are elected MPs in a national parliament. This group is inherently notable, by its very nature. It's the largest en masse defection of a group of MPs, inherently newsworthy, inherently notable. It can't be described as WP:TOOSOON, they are established as a group in Parliament. If they don't attract any further MPs, that is in itself notable, and we can cite sources about that. doktorb _words^deeds 21:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Founders in infobox

There's been some back and forth regarding whether to list the 7 founder members in the infobox. A discussion here is better than one conducted through edit summaries.

Personally I'm a *no*. I see the point, but a list of 7 is just too many for an infobox and this info is readily presented in the lead prose. - LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way, but I would agree with that no. Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Also a no for the reasons aforementioned. No need to add more. · | (talk - contributions) 22:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nickname

If UKIP members/supporters are Kippers are TIG such Tiggers? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Tiggers" (sometimes "TIGgers") is being used, see [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Bondegezou (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So it seems he's no longer the only one. Seriously though, if this phrase is being used to describe their supporters then I wonder if it's worth adding a hatnote to that article. This is Paul (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not right now, I think it's just slang. It's not like the article for the Scottish National Party really needs to say that its supporters and members are sometimes referred to as "nats". Maswimelleu (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It #is# the obvious nickname (should the party ever reach the point where such is needed). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It might become that way but to my knowledge they are not consistently called that in any reliable sources. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

We will have to wait until the group becomes more than 'None of the above' (named parties) MPs, acquires a corporate party identity and survives a general election as a group before developing the idea further. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not really a relevant consideration, our only concern is whether the expression "Tigger" is commonplace across a reliable of third party reliable sources. My view is that it's not, so it shouldn't get a mention on this page. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the functions of WP talk pages - to record the 'not quite notable enough' points and passing mentions. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Funding

Re this revert, I'd argue that the fact that TIG solicits public donations like regular parties is useful information in this context, as the rest of the paragraph is about how they differ from standard parties. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't all politicians solicit donations, whether they're in formal parties, informal parties or independents? Doesn't seem noteworthy to me. More to the point, I'd be more convinced of that if a reliable, secondary source was saying it. WP:PRIMARY warns us off interpreting the significance of material with only a primary source. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, What do you think of my recent edit, using a non primary source? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Three paragraphs

DeFacto has removed three paragraphs from the article, saying, "not relevant to TIG - take to talk if you think differently". All were in the article for some time before recent removal. I think all three should be returned. Would other editors like to express opinions. I will put these under different subheadings. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: another way to put it would be: you just added three paragraphs and I reverted you, suggesting you take it to talk first. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I restored three paragraphs that had been in the article for some time. In the first case, since the early days of the article. Your claim that they are "not relevant to TIG" makes no sense. The latter two explicitly refer to TIG. Can you explain your edit please? If not, I will go with past consensus and re-add. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow the reasoning for exclusion—these are all definitely relevant to TIG, and are linked to the group by reliable sources. I think the third paragraph, about select committee places, could do with a line of context (that three of the group had been Labour select committee chairs). It might also fit more neatly into the history section than the responses section? Ralbegen (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Ian Austin didn't join TIG, so his actions are irrelevant to this article, and as both he and Gapes were removed from the Select Committees, that was more to do with them leaving the Labour Party than anything to do with TIG. They might have been metioned in news items which also covered TIG, but in the context of the damage to Labour and not because they were in any way relevant to TIG. That leaves Tony Blair's comment which, at best, is of marginal relevance - even if we assume it has due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

TBH, most of if not all of the Reactions section is surplus to requirements – it reads like journalism or a blog rather than an encyclopaedia entry. A wiki particle should describe the history positions and current status (if any) of a political party, not be a long list of quotes from detractors and opponents.--Autospark (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not unusual for Wikipedia articles about current events to start more journalistically and then mature into a more encyclopaedic style. I support that evolution and agree we need fewer "he said, she said". I've cut some of the soundbites today, although I think Blair is so notable, his should be in. The other two paragraphs under discussion seem more significant to me because they're not just quotes: they're actual events that have significance. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ian Austin

Text: On 22 February, MP Ian Austin left the Labour Party, saying he had become "ashamed of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn", but did not join The Independent Group.

An earlier version of the text may better explains the links. Text: On 22 February Ian Austin also left the Party, citing similar reasons and saying he had become "ashamed of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn", but said he had no plans to join the Independent Group.

The reporting around Austin's departure all referred to TIG at length with Austin leaving Labour for similar reasons and shortly after TIG were formed, and much speculation about whether he would be joining. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm on the cut side with this one. Although it seems likely that Austin chose to depart when he did due to TIG's formation, I think this is better discussed at Ian Austin (politician). Austin is a very different MP, being a strong Eurosceptic in stark contrast to TIG. Mentioning him here implies connections that don't hold up. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's me and Ralbegen supporting inclusion, but DeFacto and LukeSurl opposing. (Autospark's position here is unclear.) So, unless there's more discussion, let's leave this out. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Text: On 1 March, former Labour leader and Prime Minister Tony Blair praised the 'courageous' Independent Group MPs, saying he had a 'great deal of sympathy' for them.

Clearly Blair's comments were about TIG. The most significant living Labour politician comments and we think that's not worth mentioning? We bother quoting Kezia Dugdale and Angela Rayner, but not Blair? Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Blair in, Dugdale out for me; --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's me, Ralbegen and LukeSurl for inclusion, DeFacto opposing and, in the absence of further comment, I will take Autospark's comments as probably opposing too.

Would anyone else like to weigh in on this one, please? Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Select Committee places

Text: On 19 March, MPs passed a motion put forward by Labour to remove Gapes, as well as non-TIG independent Ian Austin, from the seats on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee they held as part of the Labour Party's allocation. They were replaced by Labour MPs Conor McGinn and Catherine West. Gapes called the move "a sad day for the independence of Select Committees", while Labour said that it was right that the party filled its allocation of seats on the committees. It was reported that Chris Leslie would face a similar vote on his International Trade Select Committee seat, but that there were no plans to remove Berger from her seat on the Health Select Committee.

Again, this text is clearly about TIG. It is also a concrete action that has happened, rather than just a soundbite, so it seems to me worthy of inclusion in terms of describing what Labour have done in response to the TIG. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This should be restored. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree this should be restored. (No strong feeling on either of the others.) TSP (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've restored this one given the strongest support so far. I hope more people can wade in on the other two. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC

I've removed it again because the discussion is still ongoing. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto, I'm finding your editing stance here somewhat aggressive. There's 4 (me, Ralbegen, LukeSurl, TSP) to 1 (you) to restore the text as was. That's close enough to a snow keep. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: what is the rush? This discussion had been open for less than 30 hours when you restored that disputed text. And no, it isn't a "snow" keep, or even a "snow" add. There is no clear consensus for the addition of that text, quite the contrary. Ralbegen did not support it being restored - they suggested changes and a different section for it. And Autospark seemed to think it was superfluous too. Give it a while and see if a consensus to add that, or any of the other two develops. What do you think about the compromise I suggested directly below?-- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The text had been in the article for weeks. You boldly edited, I restored. Normal convention is to respect the status quo ante while discussing disputed changes. Might I suggest it would be helpful if you didn't repeatedly rush to re-delete? Ralbegen suggests expanding the text; I take that as supporting including the text under the discussion. I see no need for your abbreviated version.

Autospark, my apologies for not including you in the tally. I'm unclear what path you are actually suggesting with respect to the disputed sections of text. Bondegezou (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To (hopefully) clarify my initial remark, I do think this is relevant for inclusion. I think it's something that happened to the group rather than about it, so it makes more sense to me to include it as part of the group's history than amongst responses tot it. But strictly on the matter of inclusion, it's better in than out. Ralbegen (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: it can't have been there "for weeks" as it was only reported 11 or 12 days prior to your re-addition of it. All I did was revert your bold addition, asking you to discuss it first as it was clearly controversial. Now let's try to agree a compromise wording that puts it into the context of the subject of this article (rather than of the Labour Party), as I suggest below, and an appropriate section for it as Ralbegen suggests above. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. It was in the article since about when the events happened, just shy of "weeks". My addition was not "bold", I was restoring text that had long been there. I was the R, not the B, of BRD.

At present, only you wants a shorter version of the text, so I don't see a need for a compromise. I'm happy for the paragraph to be moved to a different section if there's a consensus for that.

I'd agree to a short sentence that put it into the context of the subject of this article. Something like: On 19 March, MPs passed a motion put forward by Labour to remove Mike Gapes from his seat, which was part of the Labour Party's allocation, on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the text as it was for now, given that:

• inclusion was the settled state of the article
• it's been a day with no further discussion
• views on Talk so far have been overwhelmingly in favour of inclusion.

Discussion can continue, but there's no right to unilaterally remove content then insist it can't be re-added until discussion is somehow defined to be over. As Bondegezou says above, he was the R, not the B, of BRD. TSP (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@TSP: As I read Bondegezou's edit summary, they were't reverting a bold change, they were boldly adding selected stuff that they thought had been there sometime before, so I performed a revert - and we are now discussing it. Also I disagree that that wording has overwhelming support. In fact there are two editors (yourself and LukeSurl) supporting Bondegezou's addition of this paragraph, one (Autospark) thought it was superfluous, and myself and Ralbegen favouring a possible tighter to context wording and possible move to another section. So I think your action was premature and disrespectful of the consensus building process, and that you should have waited until this discusion is closed. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou restored text that had been in the article for 10 days (which I think counts as stable in an article barely over a month old) before being removed a few hours earlier. I don't think it is prevented from being a revert just because they didn't track down exactly which edit removed it. And I think you may be putting words into editors' mouths - Autospark has made no specific comment on this section, and Ralbegen has said the content is "better in than out". I'm not stopping discussion, and very likely the text should be in a different place or form; just saying until a new consensus is found, the version which is both the more stable version and the better-supported one in discussion is a better state for the article to sit in. TSP (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So, returning to the conversation on placement and wording of this. I'm inclined to think it's better in "History" than "Reaction" (which whole section may, as Autospark suggests, want to be gutted and placed as a brief section within History). The incident's primary significance to this page is in the removal of TIG members from select committees; rather than in the extent to which it was a "reaction" by Labour. (The vote was by all MPs.) I don't see a need for it being cut down substantially per DeFacto - everything in it seems relevant to me. TSP (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Support move to History.

I've been trimming down the Reactions section, concentrating on cutting out soundbites. Will look again. Bondegezou (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The Young Independent Group

A recent edit added information about "The Young Independents". This is based on [10] a The Oxford Student article which states that Ms. McDermott explains that she has been in contact with The Young Independent Group, the youth wing of the group, who have encouraged her to form a student society in support of the Group. Other than this, I can find no evidence a youth wing of TIG exists, and I'm not sure we can rely that strongly on passing mentions in student newspapers (I used to work for one in my student days and there's a lot of capacity for errors). I would have thought any such group would be mentioned somewhere on the main website. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Heidi Allen has tweeted about it. Bondegezou (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a society within Oxford University (which could literally be just 3 people), not a national TIG youth group. -LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictures on 'Members of Parliament' section?

I removed them in this diff, as per List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2017–) and List of Labour Party (UK) MPs, we don't include pics (and presumably we will spin out the "List of Change UK MPs" once the party's registration is complete). Pinging Andrew Davidson to find out the argument for restoring them in this diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A now archived discussion appeared to reach consensus to remove, but no action was taken on this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with removal, FWIW. Makes the table much more useful as a table of data. Many of the individual photos can probably be used elsewhere in the article when a particular member is discussed. TSP (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Having reviewed the previous discussion, I've removed the images again. The previous debate had a 6:1 majority for removal, with Andrew the only editor arguing to keep them. I'm not convinced this needs another debate, and if does the onus should be on anyone who thinks consensus has changed since February to demonstrate that. TSP (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While not necessarily going against the consensus, I would like to point out that other stuff exists, so we shouldn't necessarily remove the photos solely on the grounds "other articles don't do this, so this article mustn't do it either". Also, consensus is based on the strength of arguments, not on majorities (I've seen "6:1" quoted too many times, and Bodney talks about voting against the images), so Andrew D.'s arguements such as the table being a dry wall of text without images should be considered, even if you disagree. I also note Bondegezou, who first quoted 6:1, has not given a single arguement on why they images should be removed, only "I agree" basically. However I believe Mélecron's arguement I think that use of images in tables within articles tends to be superfluous and EddieHugh's arguement [having photos] makes the table unnecessarily unwieldy are sensible and do not go along the lines of "other articles don't do this, so this article mustn't do it either". LukeSurl has come up with a good compromise (even though it isn't necessarily possible). So while not criticizing removing the images, I am criticizing the way "consensus" came about. --TedEdwards 14:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Two MEPs

BBC article on the registration approval reports that the MEPs Julie Girling and Richard Ashworth, have officially joined the party. Culloty82 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Move to Change UK?

Not initiating a RM request here, but should the article be moved to Change UK or separate ones for the history of the parliamentary group and the anticipated political party? Mélencron (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that name confirmed? doktorb _words^deeds 12:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

yes https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/independent-group-party-change-uk-heidi-allen-leader-eu-election-a8845121.html 2A00:23C4:F7AD:8B00:147A:7140:42F2:118A (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it'd be sensible to move this page rather than start a separate one–but only once reliable secondary sources refer to it that way. Ralbegen (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• We should move when the party officially becomes a legal entity. From what I can see [11] today they applied, but it doesn't read as if the party exists with immediate effect. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with LukeSurl: the reporting has that they've applied for that name (possibly styled ChangeUK), but they're waiting for confirmation that they can have it. So let's wait until it's a bit more settled. I do suggest ChangeUK and Change UK are set up as re-directs to here for now. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, someone had already done that for Change UK and I've now done it for ChangeUK. Bondegezou (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd defiantly delay as it looks like Change.org are not happy with this and look like they will contest [12] -- Nate^t/_c 14:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A sentence should probably inserted somewhere—possibly under "Funding", which touches on future events already—regarding the application itself. In the unlikely event that it's turned down, it would still be relevant material, and if it is accepted, it provides contemporaneous background. ——SerialNumber54129 14:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a section to 'History' about the registration - per WP:LEAD, the article lead should be a summary of the article's content, so if something is important enough to be in the lead it should generally also be covered in the article body. TSP (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Now is not the time to change it because they've simply applied to register the name, and there's a credible chance their application will be cancelled or rejected. They are still "The Independent Group" for the time being. I put in a redirect and others have done the same for other variations of the term. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The UK's Electoral Commission has approved the party, so the article now needs to be moved. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not. Change UK will be a sub-name that will appear on ballot papers if (if!) the UK participates in the 2019 European Parliament election. As it stands, TIG is the common name in media, and there is no certainty that Britain will even be able to stand candidates in European election.--Autospark (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)