Talk:2021 Chesham and Amersham by-election

Notes for editors

We've waited over 600 days for a Westminster by-election and now we're facing three articles to edit at once. So let us just remember what we've learned of late:

1. . The wider community prefers candidate selection to be covered in prose with an "ordinary" box, not a results box, until the publication of the SOPN
2. . This is an article about the by-election. It is WP:NOT a blog, campaign diary, or news feed.
3. . High-profile by-election articles have lots of editors watching the page for any potential WP:BIAS or WP:UNDUE editing. Please be aware that your edits may be amended or removed at any time.

Now, let's try to focus on Hartlepool, Airdrie/Shotts, local elections, London Mayor's election, Scottish Parliament election, Senedd etc etc etc AS WELL as this! doktorb _words^deeds 15:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Incumbent in infobox

There's a slow edit war over whether to list Cheryl Gillan (Conservative) in the infobox as the prior MP. There's a field entitled "before_election" and another for "before_party" that makes it seem sensible to put Gillan/Con. However, this renders on display as "Incumbent MP" and other editors feel that's wrong: Gillan, having died, is not the incumbent MP -- rather, the seat is empty.

It seems sensible to me for the infobox to list the prior MP/party, but I concur that "Incumbent MP" is wrong. Can the infobox be tweaked to deal with that? Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, by not saying this is an ongoing election, I've now got the text to say "MP before election", which is accurate, albeit not immediately before. Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A byelection never has an 'incumbent MP', the election is called because the seat has become vacant. Marlarkey (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Vultures circling

There's been some back and forth over a paragraph about the campaign accusing the LibDems of being like vultures circling by campaigning before the former MP died. The source for that is a one paragraph piece in Private Eye. (There was a second citation to a local newspaper, but that article doesn't make this claim and I've removed it.) It seems to me that this is insufficient coverage under WP:BALANCE for inclusion here unless further citations supporting the claim can be provided. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it is sourced information. PE is as reliable a source as one can find in the UK. The text of the paragraph as it was originally added was clearly WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, but having a moderately worded reference as we have now is fine by me. The way to redress unbalanced coverage should be to add more of what is being said/written about the by-election in general, not to remove this. Jdcooper (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One other point, about the link to the article... Clearly offline sources are permissible on wikipedia, but there is an issue with other editors (without access to the print version) being able to verify the source, which surely they may well want to if the information is potentially controversial. How does one facilitate this without linking to an uploaded copy of the text? (Genuine question!) Because Twitter isn't being used as a source, just a platform to confirm the source, no? I understand it may be a copyvio somehow, but what's the workaround? Jdcooper (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Private Eye is a satirical magazine, not a news source - citing an unverifiable offline reference to a source which does not claim to be entirely factual anyway is clearly not reliable. In any case, the LibDems frequently campaign at all times, without evidence that they only started when news of the terminal cancer was made public this claim should not be included.2A00:23C4:7782:A101:38A5:F6C8:7AAD:153D (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact, even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. So that it is offline is irrelevant. And what you said is misleading: as anyone who has read Private Eye knows, it partly contains satirical and humorous material, and partly contains high quality investigative journalism. With far higher standards of factuality than any of the British daily newspapers, I might add. Jdcooper (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

But there is no evidence provided that this was unusual campaigning by the LiBDems in response to the illness of the MP, and not simply 'business as usual'. Without that evidence the claim is unfair. Hell, it could be libellous.BarryNL (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Private Eye is a satirical magazine, but it is also "known for its in-depth investigative journalism into under-reported scandals and cover-ups" (to quote Wikipedia's own article on it). It is not mentioned in WP:RSP. So, I think we can use it as a source, but we should perhaps tread carefully. Jdcooper is right about WP:OFFLINE.

My concern would be that the article cited is a paragraph. It is hard to see it as an example of Private Eye's famed "in-depth investigative journalism". It's more like the Diary section of a newspaper, in which case WP:NOTDIARY applies. Had Private Eye done an in-depth report on events, I think we should include that. This, I'm not convinced it warrants mentioning. Bondegezou (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The offending statement reads simply: "The Liberal Democrats were criticised by Private Eye magazine for campaigning in the constituency while Gillan was terminally ill with cancer." Which is absolutely true, and verified. They were criticised by PE. @BarryNL: wrote in the edit summary that the criticism is "clearly not justified". I happen to agree, but I'm sorry, this is not your, or my, or any of our decision to make. Our coverage reflects the sources. If we included a long paragraph about it, that would be undue weight, but one sentence seems to me to be proportionate. I can see that the consensus is not with me on this, but we should note that what we consider "unfair" is irrelevant if it is sourced. And it certainly is not libellous as written and attributed. Jdcooper (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's going to be included it needs to be balanced by stating that there is nothing to show this was not normal campaigning. Campaigning is something parties do all the time and that fact that activists were on the streets does not suggest they were taking advantage of the MP's illness. If this is not included (which seems to make the section far larger than is warrants) then it should not be included at all.BarryNL (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

BarryNL, I don't think adding a rebuttal like that would be appropriate. That would be us editorialising. We follow what reliable sources say. If other reliable sources offered this rebuttal, we could report it. As it is, I believe we should either have the one sentence version as has existed or nothing. If further reporting on this issue follows, we can review. Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that the PE comment doesn't actually relate to the by-election anyway, but to events while the previous MP still held the seat it doesn't particularly deserve to be included on this page anyway. Given the controversy and lack of balance in the article I'd suggest there is no good reason to mention it at all.BarryNL (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, it strikes me that the WP:SYNTH maybe comes from the wording. Consider the distinction with this:

"The Bucks Free Press reported that Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey visited businesses and a mosque in Chesham, and a pub in Little Missenden on 27 March. Private Eye magazine criticised the party for campaigning in the constituency while Gillan was terminally ill with cancer, describing them as "vultures circling" and "ambulance chasers"." So the BFP source is for the campaigning (in the "Campaign" section) and the PE source is for the criticism. Jdcooper (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a better wording, yes, but I still feel BALANCE is an issue. It's one small piece in PE: we should reflect the amount of coverage RS give to different issues. If all there is on this topic is one small piece, then Wikipedia's coverage should be very limited (no more than one sentence perhaps).

As for providing an online source to the article text, if an official one doesn't exist, there's nothing we can do about it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. So what are other RSs saying about the by-election? Jdcooper (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Given the refusal of others to present any WP:BALANCE on this issue I think it has to be left out completely. Wikipedia is not the place to run political campaigns.BarryNL (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat voters and your typical British Wikipedia editors tend to be a demographic that overlap a lot. That's why its best to declare an interest clearly and to avoid any edits that could be construed as benefiting the campaign of your own party. Harking back to a similar debate on the Lewisham East by-election article, news that focuses mainly on one party should only really be included if multiple news outlets are covering the same topic, granting it sufficient notability that it can't be perceived as a partisan skew to the article. Private Eye commentary definitely shouldn't be included, and if it relates to a commonly discusses topic then a better source should be found. Articles that are essentially just papers printing party press releases (as above for Lib Dems) are especially unwelcome, in my opinion. Disclaimer - I am a Lib Dem who is active on this campaign. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Candidate selection

So far the candidates selected seem to be Twitter/Facebook confirmed only, so not quite Wikipedia appropriate.

They are Sarah Green (not that one) for the LibDems; and Peter Fleet for the Conservatives. It appears that neither have articles here yet.

doktorb _words^deeds 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It would seem that the candidates are prospective, not actual candidates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.239.157 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Progressive Alliance

There's obviously been a bit of talk about standing a single candidate from the LibDems, Labour and the Greens against the Tories in this election, but I've not seen anything that would be an an official source yet. Might be good to get something on here if a reliable source publishes any information about this. BarryNL (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Social media chatter along these lines is common and not in itself notable. If reliable sources say something, then, sure. The article could do with more content (with citations) discussing the election. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bucks Free Press have done an article on comments by former Lib Dem MP Phillip Lee, so I have added that to the article now. I cannot see anything else, as yet. Tvcameraop (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL... "progressive"... try socialist or left-wing.

46.93.255.53 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Reference to a comment in the Guardian makes no sense

What`s the point to include the opinion of a left-wing commentator and her call for an alliance between Lib, Lab and Greens in the article?

It has zero value. Everyone knows that the far-left Guardian promotes anti-conservative, anti-british and open borders-mass immigration values.

46.93.255.53 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

46.93.255.53 If you can find a commentator from an opposing political wing, and an opposing reliable source, you are free to add it here. Just take heed of WP:NOTFORUM with your talk page contributions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does the article only refer to unknown rumours about internal polls from the LibDems?

How about a balanced view point which would also include citing conservative sources with their internal numbers?

62.226.94.249 (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of sources we could use? Bondegezou (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)