Talk:2016 Richmond Park by-election

Brexit results?

The Witney by-election gave the Brexit referendum results in the constituency: Witney_by-election,_2016#2016_EU_referendum_result. Can we do the same here? We've already got a RS cite saying this will be a campaign issue. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that unlike Witney, there wasn't a co-terminous local authority with the result. However, Chris Hanretty (Reader in Politics, University of East Anglia) has made an estimation of the result by English and Welsh constituency: https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.nh63vky8a

It estimates that 23.39% of the constituency voted to Leave, and thus (by deduction - he only calculates Leave vote) that 76.61% voted to Remain. We could add this as a box result or as a line, but it's not an official result so I don't know if we want to add this. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and finding that. I think that is an adequate source and can be quoted, while noting it is an estimate. Bondegezou (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, will add it as a box in the style of Witney but with a caveat. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Candidate box

User:PatGallacher kindly added an election box for the candidates with Olney and Goldsmith. I've removed Goldsmith: there is speculation that he will stand as an independent, but I've not seen any confirmation of that. That leaves us with an election box with only one candidate in it: I think that's a bit silly, so would be happy to see the whole thing hidden until we get a few more candidates confirmed. Thoughts everyone else? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, he shouldn't be in there until he confirms his intentions. I think it's reasonable to include the line about him likely standing, as he's pledged for years that he would seek re-election in a Heathrow-related by-election, but we don't know as yet if he'll be an independent or a Conservative candidate or some other description. Also feel the election box should go until at least 1 other candidate declares, because to the casual reader it looks like only Olney is standing! FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, Goldsmith now confirmed as standing, but an editor claims that Olney is not necessarily the LibDem candidate. The Guardian article, IIRC, says she is, so I've put her back in for now. Happy to see that changed if sources emerge. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Olney is the candidate selected for the next parliamentary election, with her selection (like the other 629) expiring in 2017. By-election candidates in the Lib Dems are selected separately, so Olney is not necessarily the official candidate (but is likely to be anyway). Sceptre (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've seen two RS citations explicitly say Olney is the candidate, while this has Vince Cable saying she's the candidate, albeit with some ambiguity as to maybe she could not be. For now, that seems to me sufficient for the article to say she's the candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I altered Goldsmith's label in the box from "Independent Conservative" because that is not a legally permitted "description" on the ballot paper (as is mentioned on the article Independent Conservative), following the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. Nedrutland (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It is normal practice not to list parties which have not yet announced a candidate, since we could get into speculation about which parties are or aren't likely to stand. Even in Olney's case, this is not yet totally clear-cut. PatGallacher (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Constituency poll

BMG Research has taken a poll of the seat: http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/richmond-park-election-voting-key-issue-results/

They've surveyed with Goldsmith/Olney/unnamed Labour/unnamed Green/unnamed UKIP. They've also done a hypothetical poll including a Conservative candidate. As candidates have not been finalised I would suggest we include this in a 'pre-finalised candidates' table in the style of the Labour Leadership elections. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Yes, that sounds great, and we can also use this as a source for the campaign section talking about relevant issues. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the so-called "poll" after nominations closed - since it was completely devoid of sources / references. Who wrote this? Roy Bateman (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You deleted a section that was clearly sourced to two Guardian articles reporting internal polling by the LibDems. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced this section on that basis. Jdcooper (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet to be declared candidates

Apologies am unsure of talk-page/wiki etiquette -- Labour Councillor Sam Stopp has declared himself for the Labour candidacy, Sachin Patel who ran against Zac previously has also declared, and Fiona Syms, as an independent Tory, has also declared - however they all declared on Twitter and have not been covered by press or cited elsewhere. I just made an edit which only had Twitter as a citation for Syms candidacy and was promptly deleted. Do we completely omit these declarations because they've only been recorded on Twitter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Moulding (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Material on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources, which generally means secondary sources independent of the candidate, although we do use primary sources in some contexts. When dealing with by-elections, it is common for a large number of people to claim they'll be candidates who never make it to actually being nominated, so we tend to apply reliable source rules strictly and not include a candidate until they've been mentioned by an independent, secondary source. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A user has added Fiona Syms to the candidate box; I have removed her in line with Bondegezou's suggestion. I have yet to see a secondary source outside of Sym's own Twitter accounts confirming her candidacy. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There was an Evening Standard article saying she might stand, but I've not seen a RS report that she definitely intends to. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Well we have a mention and discussion of her potential candidacy, there's no reason to include her on the list until she announces. Jdcooper (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No label

Paging @Bondegezou. I've tried changing the election box to show the candidate as "No Label" only to get the same parameter waffle you seem to have (the {{{votes}}} thing). What is causing that? It's never done that before.... doktorb _words^deeds 09:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Something to do with it not being a recognised party? Will look around for other examples. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

David Icke in Haltemprice and Howden :) doktorb _words^deeds 22:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This the article before the election. Formatting looks the same, but no parameter waffle, so I'm baffled what we're doing wrong. Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't ask how I've solved it because I genuinely don't know, lol doktorb _words^deeds 08:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Olney image

The head shot for Olney has gone, but this makes the infobox look very weird. Is there some missing-picture picture we can use to equalise the spacing on the infobox? I've seen this done before on Wikipedia, but can't find right now how to do it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What was the problem with User:Liberaljon's image of Olney? Why has it gone? Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The picture I added of Sarah Olney was a screen grab from a video I shot myself so I clearly hold the copyright and it doesn't appear anywhere else online so shouldn't get picked up by bots. I I have no idea why it got deleted from the Commons. Liberaljon (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you missed one of the tickboxes or something when uploading??? Try again maybe. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has uploaded many images to wikipedia, I find it odd that the image was deleted. I upload to wikipedia rather than to Commons as I don't have a particularly high regard for the way images are managed on Commons; some copyrighted images are allowed to remain while some over-zealous deleting is done of clearly free images for overly stringent reasons. I recommend re-uping to wikipedia. Graemp (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the Commons admins kindly undeleted the image pending confirmation of its copyright status (it's my copyright as I took it but am going through the formal Commons process to establish this via email) so I've linked to it again. Liberaljon (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Redundancies

I took out a bunch of redundant words to improve the article. As William Strunk Jr., wrote in The Elements of Style,

"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."

Another editor reverted allof my changes with the comment, "Revert: a few of those words do have important meaning". He/she could have restored just those words, or at least been considerate enough to identify which free words he/she thinks are important. So here is why I deleted these words:

• The Richmond Park by-election is a forthcoming UK parliamentary by-election... which is scheduled to be held on 1 December 2016.

"Forthcoming" tells the reader it will happen soon. So does "1 December 2016".

• I replaced "permitted by official rules" by "permitted by election rules". Because "unofficial rules" aren't a thing. "Election rules" is more informative.
• "The Conservative Party decided not to put up an official candidate against him...."

The Conservative Party is not putting up any candidate against him. Two Conservatives are running but as independents, as the article explains, but they are not being put up by the Conservative Party.

• "While not officially backed by the Conservative Party, he has attracted the campaign support of Conservative MPs...."

Again, not backed by the Conservative Party. Backed by some MPs. Not by the party. "Official" is over-used and mostly unnecessary.

• "... transport expert who had previously stood unsuccessfully to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor, finishing fifth out of six candidates."

Doubling up on redundancy here. The pluperfect form of the verb, i.e., "had stood", is used to tell the reader about something that happened before another event in the past, so it is telling us exactly the same thing as "previously". We can assume that readers understand English verb tenses when we are writing articles in English version of Wikipedia.

"Fifth out of six candidates" tells us that he was unsuccessful. Our readers will understand that, so we don't have to repeat it by adding "unsuccessfully".

• I replaced "Usdaw" by the name of the union, which is helpful to readers not well versed in Broudy trade union acronyms, and follow Wikipedia style - see WP:ACRONYM.
• I took out "The local Green Party subsequently chose not to put forward a candidate and will instead support the Liberal Democrat candidate." That point is repeated in the next two sentences.
• "... officially confirming that there will not be a Green Party candidate"

A party would not confirm something like that unofficially. Confirmation is not something you do casually.

• I replaced

"The UK Independence Party... has chosen not to put forward a candidate and have endorsed Goldsmith." by:

"The UK Independence Party... have not to put forward a candidate and have endorsed Goldsmith."

Because you don't change UKIP from singular to plural in the middle of a sentence.

• I spelled out "National Health Service" for the benefit of non-UK readers and per WP:ACRONYM.
• Replaced:

"estimated through a demographic model that Richmond Park saw one of the dozen lowest 'Leave' votes in the country" by

"estimated through a demographic model that Richmond Park had one of the dozen lowest 'Leave' votes in the country"

To avoid the journalese, because we can write better.

So you can tell that I am frustrated that another editor so casually and carelessly undid all of my copyedits instead of restoring "a few words", and in so doing, undid edits that improved the flow and clarity of the article, fixed an grammatical error, and brought the article in line with Wikipedia style. I'll restore the edits, and ask him/her to identify which few words he/she things should be kept. Ground Zero | t 22:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Goldsmith is supported by the local Conservative Party, thus I believe it is valid and relevant to talk about "officially" and "not officially" in this context, following reliable sources. Most other changes great! Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not get the hidden meaning in that use of "officially". The rest of the sentence spells out the distinction between the national and local parties so there is no lack of clarity there. Ground Zero | t 22:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I support all your changes apart from the removal of "currently" from discussion of Fiona Syms' membership status. She was a member, and will be again if she wins. She just is not currently. I think that word adds clarity to the sentence, as we are contrasting the present and the past. Jdcooper (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the present tense tells us the present condition of something? If we need clarity about her past but and possible for membership, then we should provide that clarity rather than expecting the reader to understand what we are implying with "currently". Ground Zero | t 22:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed a simple solution that I think works: saying that she has left the party. That makes it clear that she used to be a member. Wikipedia doesn't speculate on the future, so we don't have been to say that she could rejoin, unless she had said that herself. Ground Zero | t 22:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it says that in the first sentence of the paragraph. Your solution is fine though. Jdcooper (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, thank you for accepting the details that explain what is meant by "officially". The changes address my point that the "officially" has a clear meaning to the person who wrote it, but not to the readers. It is a word that gets used a lot without providing much in the way of information or clarity. That is why it is best avoided. I proposed clarifying by replacing it by identifying that it is that national party that has not backed him. I believe that this is still true even though parliamentarians and the local party do. But that clarification was reverted by another editor who insisted that "officially" was "correct terminology". This is the danger of letting people too clipper to a subject control an article. They lose sight of the aim of informing people who aren't closer to a subject. Pfft. Ground Zero | t 20:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to expand the text to provide more concrete examples of how Goldsmith is "unofficially" supported by the Conservatives. I think that's more useful than worrying about the appropriate terminology. I think "official"/"unofficial" work OK, but I'm not wedded to those terms. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Greens and Olney

This video was posted on Facebook today. https://www.facebook.com/saraholneyld/videos/554948884709467/?pnref=story I know facebook can't be used as a reliable source, but it is definitely true that the Greens are not just endorsing but mobilising for Olney. Jdcooper (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think one of the Guardian articles of today mentioned this as well. Need to look it up. Karst (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We've got a number of articles cited in the article now that show this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)