Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

UK fact check

Why is the UK fact check controversy not in the article? The Conservative Party members who done the renaming have engaged in fraud. This is a serious issue. (78.17.99.12 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC))

The article is underpopulated in terms of covering the campaign. I think we need a lot more material, that could include the controversy over this issue. Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree and I think the fake Labour manifesto that the Tories created is likewise misleading. Which was why I had added both, with references to news articles, to the article. I was intending to expand on them but it was removed. I gather from the edit summary that this was considered undue weight. I disagree with this idea because it is an issue discussed by many different sources and resulted in intervention by Twitter [28] and the politics watchdog [29]. Heck, factcheckuk has over 230,000 results and most of the first results are discussions on news websites about how it was misleading. It even has international coverage: whether in English [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] or not [36] [37] [38] [39] Munci (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I concur with Munci that this warrants coverage. We achieve WP:BALANCE by adding more material, not by avoiding talking about anything. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree too that it should be covered, but only as part of a balanced and duly weighted set of all controversial campaigning tactics from all sides, along with any rebuttals or justifications which are also covered in the sources. As it was, as an isolated and one-sided view of just one of the notable tactics, and without comment from the other side, it just looked like blatant pov-pushing. We are bound to comply with WP:NPOV - which is summarised as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That is, not just presenting the views of supporters of one of the political parties. For each tactic we choose to cover, we should cover it in a balanced way, or not at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Great. Then let's work on some text. I'll have a look when time allows. (Don't wait for me!) Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand the idea of balance. Would it be a good idea then to add Dominic Raab's response? [40] or that of the Tory press office? [41] And perhaps some controversies involving other parties? Munci (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Munci: the scenario here is that the Conservative Party temporarily re-branded that account to rebut the claims being made by Labour about them in the TV debate, Labour reacted and Twitter commented, and then Raab reacted to that comment. That is broadly how we should present it - and without editorialising, spinning it or injecting our own personal bias or POV. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, putting individual events in chronological order without overly summarising them. The current version seems to fit with this idea and I am happy with it. Munci (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I just removed another (very) non-NPOV incarnation of this. Please let's agree wording here before adding it to the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest some text, go for it. Either something from scratch or based on previous suggestions is fine. I am not precious about any of the text I added. I do think the way forward is by actually writing text.

I am unclear precisely what your objections are to date. The paragraph presents the criticisms and covers the Conservatives' rebuttals. I note that it is not the job of every paragraph to be balanced: the article needs to be balanced overall. This is an issue that has arisen and received extensive RS coverage. It is a criticism of the Conservative campaign (by Twitter, by the media, by Labour), so it's not a great paragraph for the Tories, but other paragraphs balance that with criticisms of other parties and other events. But we have to cover what RS are covering and this has been an issue in the campaign.

If there's a balancing topic you think we're missing, do say. I am happy to work on any topic or text suggested. Bondegezou (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Bondegezou: this is what I removed:

There were criticisms of the Conservatives' honesty in campaigning following several incidents: notably a video clip edited to falsely make it appear Labour's Brexit shadow minister, Keir Starmer, could not answer a journalist's question; renaming an official Conservative Twitter account to 'factcheckuk'; and creating a website with a fake Labour manifesto. The Conservatives responded that the Twitter account and website were clearly labelled as being by them, and that the video clip was "light-hearted". Twitter criticised the Conservatives' renaming of their account.

This presents "criticisms" of Conservative tactics but no criticisms of the tactics of other parties. There are plenty of other "controversies" which have featured in the RSs, including: those related to antisemitism, the NHS, Brexit, tax increases, spending pledges, etc., etc., etc. And of the three episodes mentioned, it treats party-political-inspired sniping as if it were rational/neutral criticism by third-parties, and without attributing it the the parties involved. This simply fails WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

The first would be better worded as something like:

A spoof video portraying a Labour politician as being incompetent, that the Conservatives characterised as 'light-hearted satire', was condemned by Labour as being dishonest.

The second as:

The Labour Party raised concerns over whether the Conservative Party had made it clear enough that they were the authors of their Twitter account which they had re-branded as 'FactCheck UK' to rebut claims made by the Labour Party.

The third as:

A website setup by the Conservative Party to ridicule the Labour Party manifesto was criticised as being potentially misleading.

-- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer it wasn't included at all as it will just bloat the article with relatively trivial items (once similar items are added). I would have thought the IFS saying that the Labour spending plans are "simply not credible" would have hit the threshold to merit inclusion before a twitter post. Jopal22 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The version proposed above "The Labour Party raised concerns over whether the Conservative Party had made it clear enough that they were the authors of their Twitter account which they had re-branded as 'FactCheck UK' to rebut claims made by the Labour Party." would not be clear and would indeed be less clear than the version that was removed because it's not just the Labour Party that raised concerns, it's also Twitter and the election watchdog so it is criticism by third parties. The version included should take these into account. And it wasn't just "I'm concerned"; it was "this is misleading". And the election watchdog got involved in Factcheckuk and not in the spending plan headlines, which there is a rebuttal to [42]. Munci (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Also relevant is that the Tories have apologised for the Starmer video [43] and even a right-wing magazine, that Johnson has written for, headlines with Tories under fire over fake Labour manifesto so the idea that this was misleading goes across the political spectrum. The factcheckuk was also criticised by David Gauke, Tory until a month or so ago [44]. Another example of misleading actions with intervention from third parties is when Facebook removed fake BBC headlines in Tory ads [45]. Munci (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Munci: we need to be careful to separate fact from opinion and tread carefully around feigned indignation - each needs to be treated appropriately. Also disillusioned former members of a party may have an axe to grind. Offer a suggested rewording, and remember, most news sources are strongly biased in favour of one side or the other, so compare sources from all sides, and try and strike a neutral balance between them. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course we need to separate fact from opinion. But we also need to separate tit-for-tat political arguments from those issues, like these, where third parties, like Facebook, Twitter and the Electoral Commission, have indeed intervened. Here is a proposed version:

The Conservative Party had put up political advertisements on Facebook without a disclaimer indicating that they were political advertisements. Facebook removed them as soon as the scandal became public.

An edited video portraying the Labour politician Keir Starmer as incompetent was condemned by Labour as being dishonest. Conservative MP James Cleverly characterised it as 'light-hearted satire'. A week later, chief Secretary for the Treasury Rishi Sunak apologised for the video..

The Conservatives had re-branded their Twitter account as 'FactCheckUK' to rebut claims made by the Labour Party. The Electoral Commission insisted that the party act ‘responsibly’. Twitter threatened ‘corrective action’ against the party if they act again in a ‘misleading’ way.

A website set up by the Conservative Party called labourmanifesto.co.uk with the title “Labour’s 2019 Manifesto” was criticised as "dystopian" by EU leaders. The Conservatives responded that the Twitter account and website were clearly labelled as being by them.

Here I have chosen to quote the wording of the social media sites and the Electoral Commission in order to avoid subjective language. Munci (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

UK fact check - convenience break 01

I am happy for there to be more content on some of the other issues DeFacto has raised. I will look at those in more detail and add material when/if I have time. I disagree with Jopal22 that this would add "bloat" to the article. This is what the article is meant to be about, the election, which includes its campaign. I agree with Munci that, contrary to DeFacto, the criticisms weren't just from the Labour Party. In particular, the CCHQ Twitter account matter was criticised by Twitter, and it's back on the front page of the BBC News website this morning with criticism from Tim Berners-Lee. I'm happy to discuss wording, but this went beyond Lab-said-Tory-said. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I also think that DeFacto's comment that "most news sources are strongly biased in favour of one side or the other" is over the top. We're using sources that satisfy WP:RSP and that, while some may have editorial stances, present reasonably neutral news reporting. And it is clearly fact, for example, that Twitter criticised the Conservative Party's actions. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be no attempt to use neutral wording above. We should not be using words like "scandal" and "threatened". "EU leaders" is very broad and non descriptive. The wording above says "The Electoral Commission insisted that the party act ‘responsibly’", whereas the actual reference never says "the party", it says "all parties" etc Jopal22 (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I hereby modify my proposal to take into account the latest criticism:

The Conservative Party had put up political advertisements on Facebook without a disclaimer indicating that they were political advertisements. Facebook removed them as soon as it became public.

An edited video portraying the Labour politician Keir Starmer as incompetent was condemned as being dishonest. Conservative MP James Cleverly characterised it as 'light-hearted satire'. A week later, chief Secretary for the Treasury Rishi Sunak apologised for the video..

The Conservatives had re-branded their Twitter account as 'FactCheckUK' to rebut claims made by the Labour Party. Labour and the Liberal Democrats criticised the move. The Electoral Commission insisted that all parties act ‘responsibly’. Twitter said that there would be ‘corrective action’ against the party if they act again in a ‘misleading’ way.

A website set up by the Conservative Party called labourmanifesto.co.uk with the title “Labour’s 2019 Manifesto” was criticised as "dystopian" by Guy Verhofstadt. The Conservatives responded that the Twitter account and website were clearly labelled as being by them.

I consider it an exaggeration to say that I made no attempt to use neutral wording; there was, and perhaps still is, room for improvement, but that's not no effort whatsoever. Munci (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I broadly support the text proposed. I would drop the Verhofstadt quotation: he is ultimately a politician who supports a different UK party. I'd add in the Tim Berners-Lee comments. Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto suggested one area that was lacking balance was around alleged anti-Semitism in Labour. I concur. I've expanded a section on candidates who withdrew, and added a paragraph to the campaign background section (with also some mention of alleged Islamophobia in the Conservatives).

DeFacto, you also raised a lack of criticism of other parties on "the NHS, Brexit, tax increases, spending pledges, etc., etc., etc." Could you be more specific? There's some balancing discussion around Labour's tax and spend policies already. We have a Brexit section that looks reasonably good, neutral and balanced to me. Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: we need to cover the controversial claims made by Labour about the Conservative plans for the NHS, including mention of the fake image of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the bus.[46] Labour's contradictory briefings on Brexit.[47] Labour's inconsistent spending and tax-take claims, especially wrt the married allowance, WASPI women and the IFS criticism.[48][49][50] -- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Munci, sorry if you felt my criticism was unfair, I suppose I just feel it comes across that not enough care has been given to provide enough balance, and be factually accurate. Taking each item in turn:

• The text above makes it sound like the tory party explicitly advertised the tory party. The ads were actually published before the election was called and parliament has not yet been dissolved and were posted by the civil service. They were clearly labelled HM Government and were promoting the MyTown scheme. The is no confirmation from facebook that they removed the ads, with a "government spokesperson" saying they simply expired. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-pm-accused-of-using-public-cash-for-facebook-ads-targeting-marginal-seats_uk_5dbaec23e4b066da552d92d9. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/facebook-pulls-government-adverts-targeted-at-marginal-seats_uk_5dbc77f4e4b0d8b441ce9b73.
• The source here says it was criticised as being "misleading", and not "dishonest" which is a stronger criticism. The video portrays Starmer as unable to answer a question on Labour's Brexit policy. I'm not sure where the "incompetent" came from?
• The 'FactCheckUK' rebrand points does not say it was a short term rebrand to rebut "false facts" Corbyn stated in the debate, such as that the Tories plan the privatise the NHS. It also does not say it was labelled as "from CCHQ" (although in smaller letters!)
• Guy Verhofstadt did not refer to the labour manifesto website as dystopian. That was the FactCheckUK. Also he would not explicitly criticise a party during an election campaign as that would be interference. This item does not currently have an adequate source with criticism.

I think it would be better to format it as, "The Conservatives have been criticised by some for their social media campaign including x,y,z. The Conservatives have responded by saying X". Jopal22 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I support Jopal22's remarks and that we need to avoid adding our own subjective commentary. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So I would simply say:

The Conservatives have been criticised by some for their social media campaign. This included editing a clip of Kier Starmer to appear he was unable to answer a question about Labour's Brexit policy, and rebranding it's twitter account in a way that could be mistaken for an independent fact checking site. Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly has responded by saying the clip of Starmer was satire and “obviously edited”. He also stated that "The Twitter handle remained CCHQPress, so it's clear the nature of the site", and they had a right to call out the "lies and inaccuracies" made by Labour, specifically around the NHS.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/05/tories-unrepentant-about-doctored-video-of-keir-starmer-tv-appearance

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-50482862/election-debate-conservatives-defend-factcheckuk-twitter-profile

Jopal22 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that we can revise the text, most notably by being specific in regards to the video and checking who and what exactly Verhofstadt was referring to. I still think it is important to include mention of the objective observers, the Electoral Commission, Twitter, FullFact and perhaps also Tim Berners-Lee. 'By some' is much to vague and can give the impression that it was just tit-for-tat when objective observers have intervened. Munci (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If we include ntohing else, we should include the most objective and well-sourced description of what happened followed by what objective observers, such as the Electoral Commission, Twitter and FullFact have said about it. Anything else is optional as far as I am concerned. Munci (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Mention it by all means, but just keep it brief. Ideally only one paragraph. Obviously the Tories/CCHQ knew full well what they were *really* doing... to get folk talking about them. Obviously no UK (GB; NI has their own) electoral law was (apparently) broken; and Twitter as a U.S. company have no right or power to directly and publicly tell CCHQ off anyway for what is largely a purely UK party political matter (and they haven't actually done that, and it mustn't be made out that they did). 194.207.146.167 (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Twitter have the power to close down Twitter accounts and remove blue ticks: they do have power to directly and publicly tell CCHQ off. They didn't do that, but they did warn. What Twitter said seems an important part of the story and was widely reported.

On more general points, perhaps we could drop the pre-election Facebook ads here? Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned that some of the suggestions above give undue weight to this issue. I would think 5 lines around this is more than adequate, which set out the high level point, give's prominent examples, and adequately states the response from the tories as balance. This is not a newspaper and we are not trying to sell a story or push an agenda. We should state facts, put them in context, and avoid subjective and leading adjectives. I am happy to change "been criticised by some for" with "questioned by the media regarding". I would argue that the MyTown item, and the labourmanifesto did not get particular widespread media coverage, and the other two examples are adequate to cover the issue. As for response from "objective observers", I challenge that they were either a direct attack, or necessary objective. The media will have asked questions around this to the likes of the Electoral Commission and Twitter and they will avoid directly criticising a party during an election unless rules have explicitly been broken. It seems to me they have given the standard type of response of "we would hope all parties act responsibly", and have not directly and explicitly criticised the tories as is implied. The Fullfact website did criticise the tories for being "inappropriate and misleading", but this is a fact checking website which should be used for citation of facts, not for their moral opinion of a strategy where the facts are not in dispute but they might feel steps on their toes. I am not sure why you have suggested Tim Berners-Lee's opinion being particularly relevant or objective? Jopal22 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Newest version:

An edited video portraying the Labour politician Keir Starmer as unable to answer a question was condemned as being misleading. Conservative MP James Cleverly characterised it as 'light-hearted satire'. A week later, chief Secretary for the Treasury Rishi Sunak apologised for the video..

The Conservatives had re-branded their Twitter account as 'FactCheckUK' to rebut claims made by the Labour Party for the duration of the first Johnson-Corbyn debate. Labour and the Liberal Democrats criticised the move. The Electoral Commission insisted that all parties act ‘responsibly’. Twitter said that there would be ‘corrective action’ against the party if they act again in a ‘misleading’ way.

A website set up by the Conservative Party called labourmanifesto.co.uk with the title “Labour’s 2019 Manifesto” was criticised as misleading. The Conservatives responded that the Twitter account and website were clearly labelled as being by them.

Is this fine? Munci (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No! You've completely ignored my concerns raised above, and created a selective narrative and used refs that don't match what you are saying? What is wrong with my suggested text, it provides the core information people need to reach their own informed opinion about the conduct of the Tories? Jopal22 (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Which concerns have I ignored? I have certainly modified the text to take into account recent suggestions. What about it is a selective narrative? Which refs don't match what is said? I've already said what's wrong with the proposal above: it excludes the interventions of objective observers, which I think are the msot important voices to be heard. Munci (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Munci: I agree with Jopal22, I think:

• It needs to specifically attribute (give name, role, etc.) of who complained, criticised, or whatever. e.g. who "criticised [the video] as misleading"?
• It needs to include some of the criticisms of other parties too, not just of the Conservatives.
• It needs to avoid editorialising, loaded terms, and the implication of fact rather than opinion - instead of "condemned as" say "said to be", for example.
• It needs to be specific, and not generalised - "re-branded their Twitter account as 'FactCheckUK' to rebut claims made by the Labour Party" should say "re-branded their Twitter account as 'FactCheckUK' to rebut claims made by the Labour Party about the Conservative Party's policies".
• We need to qualify who senior people are: James Cleverly, for example, is Chairman of the Conservative Party.

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Munci: Agreed I don't want this to go on much longer. Just looking at the final paragraph, you talk about objective sources, but then the first source you use has no source of who is criticising, and the second one says criticism came from "people on twitter". Then you final source supposedly contains a response from the tory party around the website, yet looking at the source it doesn't reference this at all. That is just clear issues with the final paragraph, let alone the other three! Jopal22 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is specific criticism, that I can implement change with.

The Conservative Party edited a video portraying the Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Keir Starmer as unable to answer a question. The factchecking service FullFact said 'It is irresponsible for a political party to mislead the public like this.". Conservative Chairman James Cleverly characterised it as 'light-hearted satire'. A week later, Chief Secretary for the Treasury Rishi Sunak apologised for the video..

The Conservatives had re-branded their Twitter account as 'FactCheckUK' for the duration of the first Johnson-Corbyn debate. Labour and the Liberal Democrats criticised the move. The Electoral Commission insisted that all parties act ‘responsibly’ in response to the move. Representatives of the website Twitter said that there would be ‘corrective action’ against the party if they act again in a ‘misleading’ way. The Conservatives also responded that the Twitter account was clearly labelled as being by them.

A website set up by the Conservative Party called labourmanifesto.co.uk with the title “Labour’s 2019 Manifesto” was described as inappropriate by factchecking organisations.

On the other hand, what I have seen of FactcheckUK, they were not just responding to criticism, but actually making claims themselves. It needs to be specific, yes, but only as specific as need be to describe the facts. As far other parties, would you suggest more on Labour and antisemitism? Munci (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am struggling with WP:AGF. You are clearly not really addressing the points raised other than lip service. Then you ask about the other parties even though DeFacto already contributed his thoughts quite clearly earlier on in this long discussion. I suggest we look to close this thread and my preference would be not to have a section at all listing all the accusations thrown around by various parties as it can quickly grow as people add more and more tribal items. But if we do have a section my preference would be the text I suggested i.e.

The Conservatives have faced media questions around their social media campaign. This included editing a clip of Kier Starmer to appear he was unable to answer a question about Labour's Brexit policy, and rebranding it's twitter account in a way that could be mistaken for an independent fact checking site. Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly has responded by saying the clip of Starmer was satire and “obviously edited”. He also stated that "The Twitter handle remained CCHQPress, so it's clear the nature of the site", and they had a right to call out the "lies and inaccuracies" made by Labour, specifically around the NHS.

We should also add items around Labour's inconsistent spending and tax-take claims, especially wrt the married allowance, WASPI women and the IFS criticism. Also criticism of parties specifically (Lib Dems) around misleading graphs in election literature.....plus anything else people identify that is significant. I suggest we add it all at the same time so as not be bias against any one party Jopal22 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I note that reporting of Conservative social media campaigning, particularly the Twitter matter, has received more attention than some of the other issues mentioned by Jopal22 and DeFacto. Consider Lord Ashcroft's recent polling about what incidents people have noticed in the campaign. We don't achieve WP:BALANCE by ensuring there's one anti-Labour story for each anti-Tory story: we achieve BALANCE by following what reliable sources say. I think this is a key part of our disagreement here.

I think phrases like "have faced media questions around" are too vague. We can be specific, and it wasn't just "media questions". I would highlight Twitter's and Tim Berners-Lee's criticisms.

I also think the suggestion to "add it all at the same time" violates WP:WIP. We make the article better by adding well-sourced content reflective of what reliable sources say. Sure, we should keep an eye on the overall balance of the article and keep making course corrections, but expecting multiple different sections to be worked out here first is unnecessary delay. Bondegezou (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests if this goes on any longer. Munci (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I've requested input at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and started a new subsection below to aid users new to the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Except Twitter can't actually do any of that without as a purely U.S. company, headed and controlled by U.S. citizens, listed in the U.S., being accused as a non-UK foreign entity of directly meddling in UK elections. I know you Bondegezou are probably speaking as a Labour activist, but this is just getting a little too far. (And haven't you defended that another 'activist' who said that a serving Irish parliamentarian who actually lives in Dublin could just somehow apply to run in Northern Ireland with a Dublin address?... (some proper Twitter-style trolling!)... just shows your poor knowledge UK electoral system (that for people to stand in any given UK parliamentary constituency, he or she has to have a certain local connection to the given constituency).) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:AGF and withdraw comments not consistent with the policy. I am not a Labour activist. I do not recall being involved in the debate about a serving Irish parliamentarian. Your comments about Twitter appear to be WP:OR or a misunderstanding of the discussion at hand. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

UK fact check - alternative texts

We've considered several versions of text on this matter. I bring these together here to help those new to the discussion.

(A) There were criticisms of the Conservatives' honesty in campaigning following several incidents: notably a video clip edited to falsely make it appear Labour's Brexit shadow minister, Keir Starmer, could not answer a journalist's question; renaming an official Conservative Twitter account to 'factcheckuk'; and creating a website with a fake Labour manifesto. The Conservatives responded that the Twitter account and website were clearly labelled as being by them, and that the video clip was "light-hearted". Twitter criticised the Conservatives' renaming of their account.

(B) The Conservative Party edited a video portraying the Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Keir Starmer as unable to answer a question. The factchecking service FullFact said 'It is irresponsible for a political party to mislead the public like this.". Conservative Chairman James Cleverly characterised it as 'light-hearted satire'. A week later, Chief Secretary for the Treasury Rishi Sunak apologised for the video..

The Conservatives had re-branded their Twitter account as 'FactCheckUK' for the duration of the first Johnson-Corbyn debate. Labour and the Liberal Democrats criticised the move. The Electoral Commission insisted that all parties act ‘responsibly’ in response to the move. Representatives of the website Twitter said that there would be ‘corrective action’ against the party if they act again in a ‘misleading’ way. The Conservatives also responded that the Twitter account was clearly labelled as being by them.

A website set up by the Conservative Party called labourmanifesto.co.uk with the title “Labour’s 2019 Manifesto” was described as inappropriate by factchecking organisations.

(C) The Conservatives have faced media questions around their social media campaign. This included editing a clip of Keir Starmer to appear he was unable to answer a question about Labour's Brexit policy, and rebranding it's twitter account in a way that could be mistaken for an independent fact checking site. Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly has responded by saying the clip of Starmer was satire and “obviously edited”. He also stated that "The Twitter handle remained CCHQPress, so it's clear the nature of the site", and they had a right to call out the "lies and inaccuracies" made by Labour, specifically around the NHS. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/05/tories-unrepentant-about-doctored-video-of-keir-starmer-tv-appearance https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-50482862/election-debate-conservatives-defend-factcheckuk-twitter-profile

(D) Have no text on the topic at all.

Which of the four suggestions do people prefer, or please propose text yourself. Bondegezou (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Provided that no reference is made out that Twitter Inc of California (Incorporated in Delaware), as a non-UK Electoral Commission-registered/regulated entity, is somehow directly reprimanding CCHQPress (Conservative Press Office, CCHQ)... 194.207.146.167 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou for organising this, although I note, of course, WP:!VOTE. Positions should be back by reasoning, preferably with respect to guidelines and reliable sources.Jopal22 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Voting Grid:

USER	1st Choice	2nd Choice	3rd Choice	4th Choice
Jopal22	D	C	A	B
Bondegezou	A	B	C	D

I have outlined my concerns quite a bit above, but my main point here would be criticised by who. If you look at the sources it is opposing parties, left wing paper editorialing, and some "people on twitter". I don't think we should have passage saying "rivals criticise their opponents", and if we do we could add other insightful things like "Corbyn is his father's son" and "water makes things wet" Jopal22 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I simply don't think that's accurate. The reason I feel we should be covering this is because it goes beyond "rivals criticise their opponents". There has been criticism by non-partisan fact checking groups, by Twitter itself, by a respected father of the Internet (Berners-Lee) and even by Conservative politicians. This has been pointed out before. Do you not accept this is the case? Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou, hope noticed my response above about !vote was similar to a response you gave to me in a different place (was meant tongue in cheek). I'm relatively accepting that some text around this will be on this page, and not totally against it, although prefer not. Let's take each in turn:

fact checking groups

"By editing the clip in this way, the Conservatives have created a false narrative. It is irresponsible for a political party to mislead the public like this."

Undeniable criticism from a fact site. But a fact checking site is for checking facts, and the facts do not seem in dispute here. I don't think the fact checking site is objective about this issue, and I don't think it adds anything by including that they think it was "irresponsible". The reader will have the facts they need to determine that for themselves.

twitter

“We have global rules in place that prohibit behaviour that can mislead people, including those with verified accounts. Any further attempts to mislead people by editing verified profile information – in a manner seen during the UK election debate – will result in decisive corrective action.”

Very loose wording here from twitter, giving them lots of wiggle room. Did the Tories break any rules - ambiguous. Was the "as seen during this debate" speaking specifically about the tories, or is this talking generally to cover a multitude of things that have happened on twitter? What do they mean by decisive corrective action? It is all general. If twitter said "the Tories broke our rules, and we have warned them and will suspending their account" then fine include it, but they don't. I could be convinced to say something around this but we'd have to be very careful with wording, and not translate things that are implied to fit an editorial narrative.

Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the web (not the internet - sorry I'm a bit anal on detail!)

I'm not sure why his opinion is relevant. If John Logie Baird and Alexander Graham Bell were still around I wouldn't want their opinions on what politicians said in tv debates, or over telecommunications.

Conservative politicians - is this just Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rishi Sunak?

He is sort of a second tier tory who gave as soft apology (i.e. sort of supporting it, sort of apologising). Again could be convinced about some carefully worded note about this but I was trying to go down the road of covering the social media coverage in general terms rather than end up with a list of each item which is more disjointed.

Hope that answers your questions Jopal22 (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: I always welcome a WP:!VOTE reminder ! :-)

I'm glad you concur that we have examples that aren't just "political opponents criticise each other". We can work out precise wording and who to quote, but it's these other voices that make events more notable and kept the story in the news for longer than most events. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to throw another spanner in the works, this is all part of a strategy by successful media guys hired from down under to gain publicity - good to bad - which enables them to get their core messages across. We could instead frame this as part of a passage about the Tories overall social media strategy. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/23/tories-hire-facebook-propaganda-pair-to-run-online-election-campaign Jopal22 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I do of course support the version B, the version that I have modified several times to take into account valid and precise criticism. I feel it is the best version as it includes the most detail, is the most well-sourced and includes the information I consider the most essential i.e. the interventions by the Electoral Commission, FullFact and Twitter. And Twitter is not responding to the election itself but behaviour on Twitter. They can of course not do anything else, but they can decide what is inappropriate behaviour on their website. They have always said they oppose people pretending to be others on their site, so it's no surprise that they intervene here. And, while political opponents and opposition-supporting newspapers have criticised the moves, independent observer organisations and even conservative-supporting newspapers have done so too. It is not "people on Twitter", it's Twitter the company. And I have specified all this in the latest version of the section.

It may indeed be relevant to add the reference the Antipodean media guys that were hired by the Tories. Munci (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

My views on the currently proposed options:

• Option A contravenes WP:NPOV because it is stating unattributed opinions as facts. It also uses loaded language and editorialising - verging on WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, so should not be used in its current state.
• Option B is a bit too verbose, yet misses essential detail of the reasons given for the events, so too fails WP:NPOV, I think.
• Option C is good except that it omits criticism of other parties.
• Option D would leave the article incomplete, I think.

So currently I don't fully support either of the proposed options. I'll try and find time later to offer an alternative proposal. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get time to do any more research, and if we are just concerned with social media capaigning, so I propose we use the following text to try and reach a speedy conclusion on this - it is a slight rewording of option C from above:

• The Conservatives have faced media questions around their social media campaign. This included editing a clip of Keir Starmer to make it appear that he was unable to answer a question about Labour's Brexit policy. They also rebranded their Twitter account for the duration the leaders' TV debate, in a way that could be mistaken for an independent fact checking site. Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly responded by saying the clip of Starmer was satire and “obviously edited”. He also stated that "The Twitter handle remained CCHQPress, so it's clear the nature of the site", and they had a right to call out the "lies and inaccuracies" made by Labour during the TV debate, specifically around the NHS.

-- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I consider this to be lacking the elements I consider msot important: the interventions of the Electoral Commission (which they said on their facebook page was in response the Tory's social media use), Twitter and FullFact. Munci (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the change made is good, it is an important factual point to note that the change was only for the debate. Munci, I have answered points about twitter/Fullfact above. As for the Electorial Commission, the quote from them I can find is "Voters are entitled to transparency and integrity from campaigners in the lead-up to an election, so they have the information they need to decide for themselves how to vote. The Electoral Commission seeks to deliver transparency to the public through the political finance rules. While we do not have a role in regulating election campaign content, we repeat our call to all campaigners to undertake their vital role responsibly and to support campaigning transparency." The important things from this quote is that the EC has no role to play in regulating this, and that they are giving a general call for responsibility from all parties. You cite that the EC directly criticised the Tories in an explicit way. I would be interested to see your evidence of that, as they themselves just stated that this is outside their remit and it would surprise me as it would seem to be interference in the campaign. Jopal22 (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have already added the point to my version that it was for the duration of the debate, so it is not something specific to that version of the text. I have read your points about Twitter and FullFact above and answered them. Twitter is a US company but it has policies and decides on which usage is inappropriate on its site. And both are neutral observers which help distinguish this from tit-for-tat politicians attacking each other. The proof that the Electoral Commission is responding to the Tory's "factcheckuk" is in their Facebook page, which I use as a source in my latest version of the text: [51]. It's not interfering in the campaign. It's intervening to make sure the campaign is being run fairly. Munci (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have already said that I could be convinced to add part of the Twitter and Fullfact statement if appropriate care is taken. Now that it is clear the Electorial Commission is a direct response I would be open to adding something around this. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to ask wording to be careful, adequate balance to be given, not to add unnecessary fluff which doesn't inform the reader and especially statements being made not to be backed up by the underlying source. This is some thing you continue to push, and I challenge you to point out where A website set up by the Conservative Party called labourmanifesto.co.uk with the title “Labour’s 2019 Manifesto” was described as inappropriate by factchecking organisations is backed up by either of the citations Jopal22 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that the current section being discussed is related to internet campaigning only. However, it is reasonable to also include sections on religion and leaflet campaigning. In these sections, we can easily mention multiple parties, Labour [52] and Tories [53]for the first and Lib Dems [54] [55] and SNP [56] for the second. These can of course be dealt with separately. Munci (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The current sentence regarding antisemitism in the Labour Party should be balanced with the Muslim Council's comment about the Tories. Munci (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, I have put this article in for dispute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2019_United_Kingdom_general_election Munci (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Social Media Section

Munci, DeFacto, Bondegezou Below is my attempt for consensus. I have added the context of the campaigners who were hired which I think is important. I have also added what the electorial commission and twitter have said. I think overall it has some balance on thediscussions we've had. Most of all I a confident what is said is backed up by sources, although I haven't bothered adding them yet or spent too long on wording in anticipation of push back. We will need to add something around other parties social media campaigns but not necessarily as long. Although the Lib Dems (and Labour I think) were criticized for "fake graphs" and this was in election leaflets, it was shared and challenged on social media, so I'm open to this being included here.

You may have noticed I've added IFS material, I pray to god it is not as discussed as this section.

Edit: Although there is a lot to unravel around this, and there is a need to reach balance, which is tough to get right first time, so constructive suggestions more than welcome.Jopal22 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Social Media

The Conservatives hired two digital campaigners who have been credited with helping Australia’s rightwing coalition unexpectedly win a general election. Their social media approach is described as purposefully posting badly-designed social media material, which becomes viral and so is seen by a wider audience. Some of the Conservative social media activity has created headlines challenging whether it is deceptive. This included editing a clip of Keir Starmer to appear he was unable to answer a question about Labour's Brexit policy. They also rebranded their Twitter account for the duration the leaders' TV debate, in a way that could be mistaken for an independent fact checking site. Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly has responded by saying the clip of Starmer was satire and “obviously edited”. He also stated that "The Twitter handle remained CCHQPress, so it's clear the nature of the site", and they had a right to call out the "lies and inaccuracies" made by Labour, specifically around the NHS. In response to the re-branding on Twitter the Electional Commission, which does not have a role in regulating election campaign content, called on all campaigners to act "responsibly", and twitter stated they'd take "decisive corrective action" if there were "further attempts to mislead people". Jopal22 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I support this version, it seems o cover all the concerns mentioned above, complies with WP:NPOV and is not carrying undue weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This is improved, thank you. It now is my second choice. It has the stand-out point of putting the context and the cause of the social media campaign. It does of course need sources and I would prefer references to FullFact as well. Munci (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I note that there was another relatively low profile story on a similar issue today (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50595930). Note that the BBC summarise the same as we are trying here in the last few paragraphs, and even they decided that the response from the fact checking site was not necessary to summarise the events. The also didn't feel the need to mention the electoral commission, so the above still provides more sources of criticism than the BBC does when trying to convey the same events. Note also that the BBC does not provide a link to the video they are complaining about, I think they have wised up that the Tories would want them to do that, as it would help it reach a wider audience! Jopal22 (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted, but note also their summary says, "Twitter said the party had misled the public". I'd like us to say something like that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: You are right in mentioning this story. The BBC's reaction to these advertsq could also be added to this section of the article. You are also probably right that the Tories would like more views of the controversial video. Munci (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, what do you suggest? The above text makes it clear it was a response to the re-brand, and uses the actual wording of twitter (i.e."further attempts to mislead people") which I think is cleaner than using the editorial description produce by the BBC?

Munci, I suggest we keep it as it is for now, the new story doesn't seem to be getting as much media attention as the other two items.

I will look to tidy the wording, add citations, and see if I can find a brief description of the other parties social media to add to the section. I think it is more encyclopaedic to have this a section on social media as a whole, rather than just a list of criticisms. 12:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Expansion to include wider social media discussion - To not just make the section about Tories, I suggested adding this as a second (or first) paragraph

The use of social media advertising is seen as particular useful to political parties as they can target people by gender, age, and location. The Labour party is reported to have the most interactions, with the Times describing Labour's "aggressive, anti-establishment messages" as "beating clever Tory memes". In the first week of November Labour is reported to have four of the five most “liked” tweets by political parties, many of the top interactions of Facebook posts, as well as being "dominant" on Instagram, where younger voters are particularly active. Bloomberg reported that between 6 - 21 November the views on twitter/facebook were 18.7m/31.0m for Labour, 10m/15.5m for the Conservatives, 2.9m/2.0m for the Brexit Party, and 0.4m/1.4m for the Liberal Democrats.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/corbyn-leads-the-election-cyber-war-but-tories-improve-on-2017; https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50335567; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labours-simple-message-is-winning-social-media-war-ckhk3djpx Jopal22 (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

These are indeed good additions. It looks like we are getting somewhere. Munci (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Munci. I've added text to the article, thought we had enough consensus to do that, but obviously can be changed Jopal22 (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That's great. I made a slight change to the wording as you can see, but nothing major at all. Munci (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's a relevant video by the FInancial Times: [57] Munci (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Channel 4 Debate

Currently it says that Channel 4 said their climate debate was a leader's only debate hence why Channel 4 would not let Michael Gove on instead of Boris Johnson. According to other sources however it was because the other leaders taking part wouldn't let Michael Gove on and not Channel 4 itself. Here is a link to a source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwPz14dXMkk is it worth updating the note about why there was no conservative representative on the debate to mention this? Also the current source for the note is Twitter can we get a better source? C. 22468 Talk to me 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The Sun, the source for that YouTube video, is not considered a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Oddschecker

The oddschecker prediction has been added to the 1 week to go "polls" section. Just flagging, this isn't a poll, it's based on betting odds. Thought? Jopal22 (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's got secondary sourcing, which is better than most of the predictions listed. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with primary sources to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Anyway I split out the polls, and the betting odds sections as I thought that was clearer. Jopal22 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Major Parties contesting in Great Britain

According to the subsection "Great Britain" under the section "Contesting political parties and candidates" the definition of major parties is given as "Major parties (parties with MPs at dissolution or current MEPs)" such a definition includes the Birkenhead Social Justice Party (BSJ), as Frank Field was an MP of theirs at dissolution, I added this party to the table in the same subsection a few days ago, I returned today to find that it had been removed under the premise of "vandalism" by user 185.60.220.4, I've now reverted the edit but I thought it important to raise here as to reach a conclusion on this issue as I understand viewing BSJ as a "major party" is likely to be controversial, I only intended to remain self-compliant with the subsection's own definition of a "major party". Melias C (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Depending on how you read the current wording, that could be taken to mean parties with multiple MPs at dissolution, which would exclude the BSJP.

Certainly, the BSJP is not a major party and I don't think the article benefits by including it here. But we should be clear about what we're doing, so I support clarifying the wording on inclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't that interpretation also exclude the green party? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Aha! I thought that at first, but no! Because the current wording says "or current MEPs". Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This did occur to me too, although with current wording I think it's generally understood to mean any number of MPs how about we change the wording to directly include "multiple" so that it is understood the party needs more than one MP/MEP to be considered major? (Greens would still be safely major due to having a number of MEPs) Melias C (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

TV debate viewer numbers

Does anyone have details of the viewer numbers, are they even being published - can't find them anywhere. If they are not being published that begs the question: why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.8.71 (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about this, but it could well be due to the fact that final ratings, as opposed to overnight ratings (which due to increased catch up viewing are now considered much less important), take a bit to calculate. Also lower ratings are not always published by BARB (for example see This Time with Alan Partridge where it explains why ratings for some episodes of that series are not available). Dunarc (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Boris wins BBC debate with Jeremy Corbyn

52 to 48 percent according to yougov

https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-live-boris-johnson-and-jeremy-corbyn-clash-in-final-debate-11879892

62.226.88.127 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. And.... 331dot (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. 52:48. That sounds familiar. A really decisive win, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Incumbent MPs during the election

Should the MP postnomial be stripped from incumbent candidates during the election, and should they be listed as former MPs? A number of articles are being changed along these lines. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think they should as they aren't MPs currently JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn or disowned candidates - Lewis

Should Ivan Lewis be added to this section given he is now advising his supporters to vote for the Conservative candidate in Bury South rather than himself? Dunarc (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I see this has now been done. Dunarc (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Error in Number of Conservative Candidates

There are 650 seats in the House of Commons. Northern Ireland has 18 and the Conservatives do not stand in NI. They also will not oppose the Speaker. Thus the maximum number of candidates they can have is 631. Everybody is talking of 635 candidates, which is the number given in the Introduction to the Conservative Party Manifesto. Surely, the Manifesto must be wrong. If not, where are the extra 4 candidates standing? PeterPedant (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The conservatives now stand in Northern Ireland Jopal22 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

See Northern Ireland Conservative Jopal22 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my mistake. Yes, the Belfast Telegraph does list four Conservative candidates -- see https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/conservatives-to-run-four-candidates-in-northern-ireland-38687043.html PeterPedant (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Leader’s seat

For leaders who don’t have seats but are standing in the election should we include the seat they are standing in? JamesVilla44 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at 2008 Canadian federal election it lists the Green leader, (who was not a sitting MP) as standing in a seat (which she ultimately lost) in the info box so there is a possible precedent of sorts. Dunarc (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove seats needed to gain majority for SNP, DUP, and SF

It seems minor but should the number of seats needed to be gained to have an majority in the House of Commons be removed for Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party, and Sinn Fein because they only field candidates in their respective countries? Replace the numbers with N/A. Jason594 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

It's election day and there's, unsurprisingly, a lot of IP editing going on. Some of this has been unhelpful. I have requested semi-protection. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes please, protect it now. Impru20^talk 14:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that the 121.157.29.42 and 218.155.136.167 IP addresses are being operated by the same person as per obvious WP:DUCK. There are others but I have little time now; I'll probably fill a report on this spammer and all of its IP accounts at some point throughout the day, after their persistent and continuous disruptive behaviour throughout the past months. I don't want to engage in further edit warring in this article, so if other users can revert this disruptor or even report them in the meantime it would be helpful. Impru20^talk 14:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

This needs to be sorted

Support

I don't see why we shouldn't have it on election day. It should be added by 10pm. I'm free to have a discussion but this is my view JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Requirements for inclusion in predictions

Is there a consensus on the requirement for including a prediction in the article? An individual clearly can't just make a prediction on their blog and have it included but there are predictions included from organisations not in the British Polling Council for example. So, where is the line drawn? Perokema (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A prediction should be covered by independent reliable sources, the usual Wikipedia approach to considering what's important. I'm in favour of trimming any of the current predictions that don't meet that. Bondegezou (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GEUN Spam

@Bondegezou: So far, the 121.133.198.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 218.155.136.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 121.157.29.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 119.194.250.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP addresses are being operated by the same person to keep re-adding the same spam content over and over again. The later two are new, but the first two ones were already used in the past to add similar spam into 2019 Polish parliamentary election and September 2019 Israeli legislative election-related articles (among others). The latest three are currently blocked for a 31-hour period, though we may expect they re-engage in a similar behaviour in the future once unblocked. The IPs do not seem to be dynamic (seeing their WHOIS and that they are being re-used throughout time to conduct the same edits).

I'm linking to other possible "dormant" addresses that that have been used for the same purpose and that could be re-activated at any time, so that these may be more easily identified. They include those with a previous history of editing in articles such as 2019 Portuguese legislative election (121.133.188.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), again the September 2019 Israeli legislative election (211.248.151.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), 2019 Saxony state election and 2019 Brandenburg state election (221.150.208.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), 2019 North Carolina's 9th congressional district special election (211.226.115.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), 2019 Argentine general election, 2019 Thuringian state election and 2019 Umbrian regional election (121.157.179.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), as well a large number of US elections (59.13.200.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)).

I may have missed some because this person is very prolific and could have very well been unable to identify them all, but all edits are the same: inserting these "Global Elections United Network" links to all articles in an effort to use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle to prop up the notability of their blog. Cheers! Impru20^talk 11:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This article has now been semi-protected for 3 days, so that will stop IP editing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Two consecutive introduction sentences start with "The Conservatives". Could you change the second one from "The Conservatives polled over 13.9 million votes, the largest number of raw votes won by any party since 1992" to "Their total of 13.9 million votes was the largest number of raw votes won by any party since 1992"? 208.95.49.53 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Seems to be an uncontroversial improvement. WJ94 (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Speaker

Did the Speaker stand in a different constituency this election? His article says that he represents Chorley (UK Parliament constituency) in the north, but File:2019UKElectionMap.svg looks like that area was won by a Liberal Democrat, and the color for the speaker is given to somewhere down by Penzance. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The current speaker in Lindsay Hoyle; he took over as Speaker from John Bercow in November. What you are referring to on the election map is probably the St Ives constituency which has still not declared its result (the constituency includes the Isles of Scilly so vote counting there has been delayed). WJ94 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Northern Irish parties

An edit removed all Northern Irish parties from the infobox. Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, and the parties are relevant, so it makes no sense to exclude them, the the infobox for the 2017 election also included those parties. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lochglasgowstrathyre: Agreed; add it back in if not done so already. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 09:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

One approach to the infobox is to include all parties that won seats. We can switch to an Template:Infobox legislative election if necessary to accommodate more parties. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Though for consistency's sake, one might want to have a look at the infoboxes of comparable articles:

• 2017: Conservatives (317), Labour (262), SNP (35), Liberal Democrats (12), DUP (10), Sinn Féin (7)
• 2015: Conservatives (330), Labour (232), SNP (56), Liberal Democrats (8)
• 2010: Conservatives (306), Labour (258), Liberal Democrats (57)
• 2005: Labour (355), Conservatives (198), Liberal Democrats (62)
• 2001: Labour (413), Conservatives (166), Liberal Democrats (52)

Although it's not exactly clear what the cut-off criteria are, it seems that only the largest parties are typically included in the infobox, so perhaps the more sensible thing would be to remove DUP and Sinn Féin from the 2017 infobox. There are “Full Results” subsections for listing the smaller parties etc. Michael! (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Seat change numbers

I have added a comment asking users not to change the Liberal Democrats seat change to 10, which has happened a few times. The seat change refers to the number of seats won at the last election and should not take recent defections of MPs to the Lib Dems from other parties. See, for example, the BBC News page which gives the Lib Dems seat change as -1. WJ94 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Having just said that, maybe we need to work out our position on this. If the infobox says that the Lib Dems's seats before is 21 and seats won is 11 then 10 does sound more reasonable. I think we either need to change it to seat won at last election or say that they lost 10 seats (similar changes would be needed for all parties). The Telegraph and Guardian both take into account defections. WJ94 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It should remain as seats won at the last election, that's consistent across all UK elections and is the practice in all the authoritative sources (e.g. Craig). If there are ways of making this clearer, great! Warofdreams talk 15:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This sentence needs rewording from a lawman's perspective

"Opinion polls showed a lead for the Conservatives throughout the campaign. Ultimately, the Conservatives gained 47 seats while Labour lost 59 seats, resulting in a Conservative majority of about 80 seats."

It first appears that one is comparing the Tory total and the Labour total, and stating that the Tories are ahead of Labour by 80 seats (giving them a lead of 80 seats). The second part needs to be separated or reworded, or possibly adding another clause such as "giving the Tories a lead of xxx seats over Labour, and an overall majority in parliament of 80 seats." but I still prefer for the latter clause to become a new sentence. Worthfulrebel (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the majority difference between the number of seats between both parties is much greater. But, truth be told, that sentence is kinda confusing.GUtt01 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Labour seat change in infobox

Since we're going by increase/decrease compared to the 2017 election result. The number is a decrease of 60 for Labour, as the current Speaker was only a Labour MP in 2017 election. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Lib/Dems seat last time 12, but the figure of 21 is typed, and showing a loss of 1 correctly states seats now as 11. 209.93.205.65 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The figure of 21 represents MPs at dissolution of Parliament, which includes 9 MPs who defected from other parties to the Lib Dems. The seat change is from last election.

Closed Danski454 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox - Denoting a Leader standing in their Constituency as Defeated

Is there a general need for denoting a leader of a political party during the general election, listed in the Infobox, as being defeated in the constituency they stood in? GUtt01 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not saying anything risks implying that the seat was retained. I had a quick look at recent Irish general elections. The PDs' leader lost his seat in 2007, the Greens' leader in 2011, and Renua's leader lost her seat in 2016. All have (defeated) written after the name of their constituency. The same is true for John Dillon in 1918. It's a bit harsh but there it is. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose there might be some merit. Especially if it contributed to a leader's discontinuation as leader of their party. GUtt01 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with Blue-Haired Lawyer's examples, in Ottawa, for 2015 (Duceppe of the Bloc), 2011 (Duceppe again and the Liberals' Ignatieff), and 1993 (Kim Campbell of the PC Tories), their constituency defeats are noted in the election infoboxes. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should denote any political leader standing for their seat with the result of their performance in that particular region? (i.e. "Retained" - maintained control of the seat) GUtt01 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

International reactions?

Any international reactions to Johnson's victory? 94.174.113.31 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

the number of seats held before the election should be shown instead of the seats won in the previous election, as the Liberal Democrats held 20 seats at the dissolution of the parliament, meaning they went down nine seats rather than one, this is the same for the Conservatives and Labour who had fewer seats in the house at dissolution than at the previous election

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/dec/12/uk-general-election-2019-full-results-live-labour-conservatives-tories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election Godhatesjonah (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Final results

So, are those the preliminary or final results? If the former, do we know roughly when we may expect the final ones? Also, what about the number of blank and invalid votes? Without the total, it's impossible to say exactly how much the turnout actually was.--Aréat (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

These are final results. Bondegezou (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the number of blank and invalid votes, then?--Aréat (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox & Lead - Seat Count of Labour

Can anyone tell us if official sources define the seat total of Labour as 202 (thus a net gain of 60) as opposed to 203 (thus a net gain off 59)? GUtt01 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@GUtt01 and PlanetDeadwing: sources say 203 seats [58],[59], [60] etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I found out in the article for the Speaker of the House of Commons, that a member of a political party elected to the role severs all ties to that party as a direct result. Therefore, they represent their constituency as an Independent. GUtt01 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm still seeing 202 on the various British news sites, which means a drop of 60 from the 2017 results. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Which constituency is being added as the 203rd seat? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Check here [61] - Its not the case of which constituency was won, but rather the fact that Labour earned only 203 seats. GUtt01 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it the constituency in question is Chorley, the Speaker's seat. If it's counted as a Labour seat, they have 203 seats, but if the Speaker is counted as an independent, then Labour has only 202. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think someone needs to double-check this. There's clearly an issue here - something is off, and we need someone to determine if the results being touted by media are correct or if we need an official source. GUtt01 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We have to count Chorley's seat, as he wasn't the Speaker in 2017. But, in agreement with GUtt01, we should determine what the sources say. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If the media is touting Labour's results, without considering the law regarding the non-partisan involvement of the newly elected speaker, then the seat count will definitely different than stated. GUtt01 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for RS. For what it's worth, the convention for articles for past UK elections seems to be to exclude the speaker from party seat totals. By this convention, Labour would have 202 seats. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results Michael! (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I had a check about how the BBC handles the results, and its very interesting. They are aware of the law pertaining to the non-partisan involvement of the Speaker of the House of Commons when standing for the seat of their constituency, but the BBC tends to include their win as that for the party they had to sever ties with upon being elected as Speaker. Thus there is a discrepancy of one seat for the party's final result. GUtt01 (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Turnout figure wrong

Total votes cast is given as 31,829,630, but it appears this is wrong (too low). For one thing, if you add up the votes cast from the BBC results page, you get 32,012,120. For another, 31,829,630 doesn't give the correct percentage turnout of 67.3% when you divide by the electorate of 47,587,254. My guess is that the problem is that there are a lot of "Others" who are not listed in the table of results. 92.29.236.173 (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This, and even when adding up all these votes, you still wouldn't be able to calculate the exact turnout with it, as a turnout is made with all votes including blank and invalid ones.--Aréat (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)