Talk:Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)

Speaker Gain

Please See here, here, here, here and here, for the way the Speakers seat is reported.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's always been done that way doesn't mean it's right, does it? Besides, it's quite nonsensical to include a swing, or indeed a change in Bercow's vote. Wereon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, we have gone over this on your talk page. The reliable sources all describe it as a 'Speaker hold'; reverting in the face of these is disruptive. ninety:one 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No swing has been included by me of any kind. Also if it is such a problem being a Speaker gain then why has it been allowed to remain on every speaker since 1974.21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ: [1]. Wereon (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, the ball is firmly in your court. The sources have been cited and explanations have been given. What more are you looking to discuss? ninety:one 21:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have cited my own precedence and sated why I think it should be the way it is. Also I am waiting for more talk than just the two of us who are going round in circles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Every gain or loss in a UK election is by party ("Labour gain", not "Thomas Smith gain"). John Bercow has gone from Conservative to Speaker Seeking Relection. "Conservative Hold" is NOT correct - once an MP becomes Speaker, he becomes neutral, loses his party registration. Therefore Buckingham IS a "Speaker Gain". doktorb _words^deeds 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources, where they give a gain/hold, describe it as a 'hold'. ninety:one 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been nearly ten days since this was last discussed, anyone have anything else to add? ninety:one 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has changed it since it was placed as Speaker Gain the Wikipedia Concensus appears to be that these are listed as Speaker Gians and not as holds regardless of what the sources say. Changing to Speaker hold would be tantamount to WP:point.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see either 1) any consensus 2) any consensus that we go against the sources. Perhaps you could highlight where this consensus was reached? ninety:one 14:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The concensus is bourne out in the other Wikipedia articels as linked to in this discussion. It has also been articulated by doktorb who correctly sums up the exiting Wikipedia cocensus.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We're back to where we were on the 18th May: just because something has happened in the past, doesn't mean we should do that now. Historial precedent is not the same thing as consensus. If we had established a consensus now, then that wouldn't be a problem, but we haven't and all we have is two sources that say 'hold'. ninety:one 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not just one article that is being given as a source for consensus. If it was just one then that would be a precedence. The articles given show the consensus on how Wikipeida articles refer to the Speaker of the House of Commons General Election results. It is done by them being Speak Gain form previous party. Also there is only one advocacy for changing the current consensus where as more than one person has said it should stay the way it is. The current consensus has been clearly demonstrated and no change to this can be clearly demonstrated. If no one else wants to change something then don't change something which is not wrong.--17:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Consensus to gain a more thorough understanding of exactly what consensus means and how it works. As both myself and Wereon have said (in my case, repeatedly) the fact that X has happened in the past does not mean that X should happen now, because that is precedent not consensus (precedence is a different concept altogether...). Both myself and Wereon have advocated changing it to what the sources say and you have disagreed (and doctorb has made a point about Bercow not being a Conservative - a fact that is common ground). That is most certainly not consensus for "gain".

Now to the matter at hand, once again. The sources on which the results table relies describe it as a "gain". There are no sources that describe it as a "hold". ninety:one 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to override the sources, we would need consensus, and there is no consensus to do so. In order to overirde current concensus you need to establish more than just you think it should be changed form what it currently is I am not going to start a wikilawyeriong rant but please see the Five pillars which states that as the fifth pillar that there are no fixed rules. Also as the current article on the subject list it as a Gain that is the consensus which is the point you are missing, whihc has been very clearly demonstrated. not all sources are taken as correct and some are ignored.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My patience can only stretch so far. I have tried, several times, to explain the situation. Consensus is not: "lots of other articles do X", not is it "X is the status quo". Consensus means lots of people agreeing that a particular course of action is the one that should be taken. There is no consensus to do anything at the moment, so I shall have to call for a third opinion. ninety:one 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have googled this at length, read both arguments, and thought the matter through. Note that the Telegraph reported, "Speaker Hold" and the Guardian reported, "Speaker Gain", and there is only a single page of discussion of this on the entire Internet expect for this page (googling - "Speaker Hold" "Speaker Gain"). Therefore, I'm fairly sure there isn't a convention on the matter, and it's just two different ways of looking at it. However, Wikipedia need not try to follow journalistic convention, nor need it follow the way it has been done in previous articles. We should aim to provide the information in the clearest way. I certainly feel that the clearest way is Speaker hold, for the following reasons: The Speaker did not resign his whip immediately before the General Election, he did it upon taking the Speakership. Six months ago, the seat was held by the Speaker. The election returned the speaker. If we don't look at a party political view, John Bercow has HELD the seat. He has not GAINED the seat. One might argue that he has 'gained' the seat from the Conservative party, but this argument is weaker and makes less sense than the view that he 'held' it - since he had it before and after the election. In almost every other context, '<person> held the seat' means that the seat did not change hands, while '<person> gained the seat' means the seat did not change hands. To make the article clearer, 'held' makes more sense. The idea that John Bercow 'gained' the seat from the Conservative Party, while perhaps technically true, is misleading and unhelpful. To a reader trying to simply discover the result of the election - held is more useful than gained. Hope I was able to help. SmokingNewton (MESSAGE ME) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)—SmokingNewton (MESSAGE ME) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

.

I would like to refer to the existing consensus, which the third opinion has ignored, on Wikipedia as to how this is reported. The other articles relating to the Speaker as given at the start of this discussion show what the existing consensus is. There is no appetite to change this apart from ninety:one, if this article is changed then the consensus for all of the articles relating to the reporting of the speaker needs to be changed which is significant and requires a significant change in consensus. In this case WP:IAR has come into force here and it is done as a gain and not a hold even though the sources say it is a gain. This is not an issue of legality in this case as there is no possibility of any law being broken over the reporting of weather the seat is a gain or a hold. WP:V would only trump IAR if a legal issue was apparent e.g. a breech of copyright, this is more matter of journalistic style as to weather it is reported as a gain or a hold.--11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The third opinion has not ignored the 'existing consensus.' Before making my third opinion, I looked at all of the linked articles and read all of the discussion. I believe I have considered everything. I also checked the history of all of these articles and observed that User:Warofdreams added all of these results, and used the phrase 'Speaker gain' in each of them. There was no discussion on any of the talk pages. The issue was briefly observed here in 2005, and appears to agree with the hold opinion. Please be aware that all of this was considered in the Third Opinion, and was not ignored.

I think it's clear that there is no consensus on the matter. It has never been discussed, and so to refer to a consensus on the matter is a bit of a nonsense. If dozens of editors had done this on dozens of articles, perhaps there'd be a case for it. But with a single editor doing it on five or six articles, it is not a consensus. We are establishing the consensus, and we should discuss the actual issue - and not the history. It's irrelevent and unimportant. The arguement that "requires a significant change in consensus" is not one I'm accepting, there is no consensus.

Please note, I am no longer acting as a Third Opinion Wikipedian - I'm now involved in the discussion and will take part. I am of the opinion that it should be speaker hold and that whatever we agree should be applied to all relevent articles.

I completely agree that it is a matter of journalistic style. Let's discuss the actual issue - hold or gain. Let's put this 'consensus' and 'how other articles do it' stuff behind us. Thanks, SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 11:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is much wider than the Speaker's seat and involves all cases where a sitting MP changes in parliament. Off the top of my head there are two other MPs sitting in the current parliament who have changed party and successfully retained the same seat. Sylvia Hermon in North Down was an Ulster Unionist until March 2010; she left the party and sat as an independent; in the election just gone she successfully retained her seat. Jeffrey Donaldson in Lagan Valley left the Ulster Unionists and jointed the Democratic Unionist Party over winter 2003/4; he also retained his seat. There are huge number of further examples in earlier elections.

I'm trying to find a current example of an MP who left their party unsuccessfully fighting the same seat, but the only clear one I can think of in 2010 is Bob Spink and Castle Point (UK Parliament constituency) lacks the boxes completely. Andrew Pelling in Croydon Central (UK Parliament constituency) is more complicated because boundary changes made it a notional Labour seat

The MP in the last Parliament for Grantham and Stamford switched from Conservative to Labour and retired; that page shows the seat as a Conservative hold. Similarly we have Labour or Conservative hold for a number of seats where the MP either went independent or lost the whip including Birmingham Ladywood, Liverpool West Derby, Old Bexley and Sidcup, Livingston, Scunthorpe, Leyton and Wanstead, North Tyneside, Leicester West, Ashfield or Luton South. Bury North does show a gain, but Conservative from Labour not Conservative from Independent.

The aim of showing changes and gains in election results is to show whether or not the voters have changed their position, regardless of how the various personalities have switched. The amount of time between the switch and the election is irrelevant. "Speaker gain" accurately sums up the change in the votes from last time. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I don't think this issue is worth the amount of time being expended on it, I just responded to the Third Opinion request and got involved. But I don't feel that an MP changing whip and a speaker seeking re-election is the same thing - because one is a party political matter while the other is not. And the notion of gain is a party political matter. I think it's fallacious to argue that Speaker gain accurately sums up the change in the votes from last time, because it does not represent the fact that this change in votes is purely notional - it's likely the same people voting for John Bercow. As such, to say he aim of showing changes and gains in election results is to show whether or not the voters have changed their position seems wrong because, in fact, we're representing a change in voters' positions without there necessarily being a change in position. Realistically, for John Bercow to 'gain' the seat from the Conservatives, that means that the Conservatives 'lose' the seat. This is not the case, and the Conservative Party would no doubt feel that way. I'd be prepared to discuss the use of the phrase Notional Speaker Gain from Conservatives, with a footnote explaining what happened, but I'm still uncomfortable with it and feel that Hold represents the truth. I think the best compromise would be to simply not say gain or hold, and use the phrase, "Speaker re-elected." as this would probably represent what happened more clearly. Thanks, SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 13:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input (not because I agree with it, but for clearly taking the time to research the background thorughly before jumping in and making a pronouncement!). I feel that to describe an election in which the Speaker is returned as a 'gain' is misrepresentative of what happened and confusing for the reader. I agree with SmokingNewton's final suggestion and just wish I had thought of it earlier instead of getting bogged down in a to-and-fro match. "Speaker re-elected" sounds like the best option to me. ninety:one 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome. Can User:Timrollpickering and User:Lucy-marie agree on this? SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 20:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to get too involved, I think the first point raised in the 3O is probably the most important. The seat was "lost" to the Speaker "party" at the time Mr. Bercow was elected to the position. Therefore, the constituency went into the 2010 GE with the Speaker as its MP, and came out with the Speaker as its MP. Ergo, "Speaker hold". I don't think the "precedent" argument is a particularly strong one, since it's predicated on other stuff being right, and on Wikipedia that's rarely guaranteed. In this case, I think the previous examples have got it wrong. That said, the conventional description is "Speaker seeking re-election", so "Speaker re-elected" is not only an accurate reflection of what he set out to do, but removes any ambiguity over the result. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)