Talk:2021 Hartlepool by-election

Slow down!

Slow down everybody! I know it's been reported that Mike Hill has said he has resigned as MP for Hartlepool, but MPs can't actually "resign". The procedures under Resignation from the British House of Commons has to be followed, which may result in slightly different techinical dates for when he is no longer the MP. Also no by-election has actually been called. A writ has to be issued and what-not. I know that it's highly likely that all this will come to pass, but we have to encyclopedic about this. Who knows? He might change his mind this afternoon. Seaweed (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

He had "the talk" with Chief Whip Nick Brown. He won't be changing his mind. You are right about the legal fiction of "resigning" and I take the point. We will add confirmation that he has taken the Chiltern Hundreds in due course. doktorb _words^deeds 13:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep slow!

Can editors remember that we don't add candidates without reliable secondary sourcing. Tweets by parties do not count!

Also, can we not rush to add results boxes for an election with only one candidate named. Results boxes are for results. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou I was once messaged on here asking if I was "on a crusade" by insisting that we didn't host single-candidate boxes. I am a bit wary about being accused of that again so am leaving the single-candidate box there for now. I would, usually, have hidden it until a second candidate was chosen. doktorb _words^deeds 15:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Editors are free to establish if they have consensus for content here. As per WP:BRD, I hope no-one re-adds the result box until doing so. I live in hope... Bondegezou (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources for parties standing

I'm not sure of the utility of privileging secondary sources over Tweets when it comes to declaring a party's candidacy. A slightly edited quote by a party official to a newspaper journalist (as in the NIP's declaration) seems just as reliable a statement of intent as a tweet. Do we think this is a convention that we need to uphold in this case? I don't see its applicability here. Consgay (talk)

With Wikipedia, social media sources have less value than newspapers (and even then, some newspapers less than others!). Anybody can tweet that they're standing for election (just as, while I'm the nominator, anyone can form a political party and use Wiki as a free publicity blog.) Over the years that I've been contributing to the UK politics project here, we tend to fend off IPs adding tweets and the like pretty well, and by convention wait for the SOPN published by the council etc. doktorb _words^deeds 01:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We repeatedly see minor candidates making claims on Twitter that they'll stand, but then they don't or they fail to get nominations/put up a deposit. That's partly why practice on UK election articles has been to require reliable secondary sourcing.

The other reason is that Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY) clearly privilege secondary sources over Tweets! We have a clear content guideline to avoid Twitter in WP:TWITTERREF. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

When candidates have stood in by-elections, credence should be given. Equally, those that miss Notice can be removed. The major parties get lots of coverage, whereas some also-rans get none. Compare Tracy Brabin, months of free coverage, not even selected candidate ~ surprise, surprise. This is at shortish notice. Hartlepool mail is not publishing in order it is receiving, it is drip-feeding announcements. Forget illusions of democracy, and see where you can get minutes of party de-registrations. You cannot. When Approvals Board published some, it showed the Electoral Commission was doing a Camrbidge Analytica, gathering friends and family social media of political party officers. That Kremlin mind control. 2019 is the last minutes you can see. We are 2021. As an exercise, why don't you try to contact a newspaper? They pick and chose what they want to cover. Alternatively, list no-one until SOPN. Where parties might struggle with deposit, who knows listing might help. Or just mandate Labour & Tory, which is pretty much what they both advocate in Offcom party-political broadcasts. They are miffed they might have to share. Old political games in a changing world. UKIP 20 years and delivered brexit. They all have to start somewhere. Trim at SOPN is my recommendation. If someone has stood before, then clearly they can raise a deposit and trudge around doorsteps for signatures to nonminate. Do you have to pass a driving test every time you get in a car? Then there are wiki hitlers who kill of party pages. If there is a link that is bare, flesh one out using Google or even Wiki.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCaxton (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Results box when

It's perfectly normal practice to create a results box with the candidates listed in alphabetical order before we get the result, not aware that there has to be a minimum number of candidates before we do so. PatGallacher (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Consider 2021 Dutch general election for a recent high profile election. The election was held on 17 March. There was no results box in the article until 18 March when there were results. Or consider 2021 London mayoral election for a UK election to be held, probably, on the same day as the Hartlepool by-election: there is no results box currently in 2021 London mayoral election. Let's have a results box when we have results. As per MOS:PROSE, let's focus on writing good prose rather than focusing on formatting a table. Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think, as ever with these articles, and lord knows we've had plenty of by-election articles on Wikipedia, that the least we can do is wait for the Statement of Persons Nominated. Prose for candidate announcements, table after the SOPN, how's that for an idea? doktorb _words^deeds 15:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this could be a hardy perennial, a proposal which has been put forward from time to time but not generally followed. I'm not sure I see the point. PatGallacher (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

PatGallacher, until SOPN, the nomination of candidates are not facts that speak for themselves, but contested and speculative processes more comprehensibly presented as description in prose. After SOPN there is a definitive, factual, sourced account of who the candidates are. Jdcooper (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We now seem to have gone to the opposite extreme, I think the convention is that we only include actual candidates, not just parties. PatGallacher (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Candidate box

In 10+ years of creating, editing and maintaining constituency articles, I have never seen any editor allow that non-standard table, or allow parties to stand with "TBA"/"TBC". I can't see why we should use Hartlepool as a test case for allowing this. doktorb _words^deeds 11:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the Peterborough By-election 2019 page, which had a table prior to SOPN. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Peterborough_by-election&oldid=896204687

By all means remove the 'TBA' if it is so irksome, but having the table just makes it a more user-friendly article in my opinion. Mikeo34 (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. We have some information (these parties say they intend to stand). Presenting that information in a table is a clear way of doing it. What by-election articles have often had at this stage is a results table, but without the results. That seems worse to me: a plain table seems more appropriate. Lots of other articles for forthcoming elections use plain tables of parties or candidates. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I put Samantha lee into the box as an independant with links to her Facebook campaign page and also her endorsement by Wiki_Ballot, I am the person who started Wiki_Ballot so declare an interest there, The Table is not user freindly to new editors and in a By Election with a number of independent candidates could I ask that other editors observe wikipedia's policies to;Be polite, and welcoming to new users− Assume good faith − Avoid personal attacks − For disputes, seek dispute resolution Glad to see Bondegezou here to keep an eye on things. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bitter Giant changed the edit citing vandalism, the change was not vandalism and I wish to re instate.Bondegezou could you please take a look?Thankyou RogerGLewis (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Samantha Lee is on the SOPN and there is a citation to a local newspaper- those are both WP:RS enough for her inclusion, while the Facebook page is WP:USERG and I'm really not going to click through that Wiki_Ballot link, but if that is just a wiki mirror that is also WP:USERG. I would like a source which does clarify explicitly that Samantha and Sam Lee are the same person to avoid any contention over editing, but of course the source which reported her candidacy does refer to her as "Sam", so idk. BitterGiant (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing if the Ballot paper will have Sam or Samantha Bitter Giant. On WP:USERG where a candidate is independent and running their whole campaign digitally then their campaign web site or Facebook page should suffice the Major parties link to their own materials and they are no less WP:USERG. The same issue is also true of Smaller parties like the Greens where in leadership elections most materials are WP:USERG but still linked to? RogerGLewis (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

SOPN has her listed as "Sam Lee", to note. Regarding links, while Lee's candidacy may be largely online, she does seem to get coverage in the local newspapers, which is enough to establish notability. There are plenty of regional and national news articles covering the election, and I'd stick to those for candidates over self-published stuff. After all, Featherstone had her candidacy announced on Twitter weeks ago, but because it was her personal Twitter (which went on lock pretty quickly due to some stuff that's not worth getting into), but we had to wait until we had gotten a reliable secondary source. Generally speaking, stick to reliable secondary sourcing over personal publications. BitterGiant (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood BitterGiant and Thank You, the discussion Herereferred to above is very worthwhile I think.RogerGLewis (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Links to campaign online preseneces?

The citations added by RogerGLewis fail WP:USERG. However, RogerGLewis's point that where a candidate is independent and running their whole campaign digitally then their campaign web site or Facebook page should suffice still has merit in a different context. Namely, should we have an external links section that points to candidate's official campaign presences online> Within an external links section, links to social media pages are allowed by WP:ELOFFICIAL, so the official link for Sam Lee's page could be that Facebook campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree an external links section for campaign sites makes a lot of sense. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Focaldata MRP estimate

Although covered by reliable sources, it seems inappropriate to include this in the opinion polling section, as it wasn't a poll conducted for the by-election specifically and focuses on not just Hartlepool but also 82 other constituencies across the north. JDuggan (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. As I understand it, it's a poll of a wider region and then they use a regression model to predict the Hartlepool result. So, it's worthy of mention, but shouldn't be presented as a poll of the constituency. Bondegezou (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thelma Walker

'I don't see any sourcing for these concerns'. Surely the reverse is true. There isn't any sourcing for NIP being a registered party. They have a deadline for a reason. Deadline was 31st January 2021. NIP application was 12th February 2021, way beyond that; "we are unlikely to grant applications submitted now" - Electoral Commission. Unless she does a deed-poll (no published or stated evidence that she will do, unlike ANTI-Corbyn), then 'Independent' is best description. The further issue is why journalists are not doing such fundamental checks? Are they then unreliable sources? https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campaigner/political-parties/registering-and-maintaining-a-party — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCaxton (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC) With regards to NIP being used as a deed-poll name, YOU (a person) must be known by it. The problem in reassigning a party name to a person, is you need to justify to returning-officer that is YOUR name, by which YOU are known, not the name of a party, that you failed to register in time. If someone says NIP to me, I think of Phil Proudfoot, as founder. However, none of them before now had used NIP, it is frankly too late. I have some experience as deed-poll candidates and agents. Then it has to not be offensive. (NIP is slang for Nipple, which could be deemed offensive). However, staff seem relaxed in Hartlepool, so probably the back of a fag-packet will do for deed-poll and nomination form (prior Dep'ret'officer words BTW). If you want to know if X is possible, investigate {lol}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCaxton (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Walker was listed as an independent because of concerns that the Northern Independence Party is not yet registered with the Electoral Commission. I have changed this back to NIP. I don't see any sourcing for these concerns. Original research based on primary sources is not allowed: we follow what secondary sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am tempted to start a wider discussion on our main project page about candidate boxes, slightly prompted by this article's history with them, and for reasons like this, where we find ourselves debating one candidate's label (or lack of label). The current situation is that NIP is not a registered party - see this search result [1]

Now my instinct is to use this fact to change her designation back to "independent", though that could cause an unnecessary situation of back-and-forth editing and discussion. When the SOPN is published, we'll have our candidate box, with official designations. Until then, we have what we have here. doktorb _words^deeds 09:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional response. The Electoral Commission's guidance says:

1.9 The following is optional:

• A commonly used name – if you commonly use a name that is different from any forename or surname that you have and you wish this to appear on the ballot paper, you need to state this on the nomination form. More details are provided in paragraph 1.76. • A description – if you want the word ‘Independent’, and/or ‘Annibynnol’ in Wales, to appear on the ballot paper underneath your name, you need to state this on the nomination form. No other descriptions are allowed for candidates who are not standing on behalf of a registered political party. Alternatively, you may choose not to have

a description at all by leaving this part of the form blank.

As NIP is not registered, there are only two legal options. "Independent" or blank (what we used to call 'no label' in italics here, I think we use 'no description' now) doktorb _words^deeds 09:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, Doktorbuk, but that is the textbook definition of original research from primary sources, and Wikipedia policy is very clear that we do not do that. We have to follow secondary sources and trust that they have done their due editorial diligence. It is possible that the NIP is in discussion with the Electoral Commission and have everything sorted. It's possible they don't. The epistemology of Wikipedia solves this conundrum by following secondary sources. Stick to what those say: not tweets by the party, not searches of the Electoral Commission database, not our interpretation of the material. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

But the only way we have proof that they're not registered is using the Register of Political Parties. There is no secondary source to back that up, that's evidence, Wikipedia asks us to source our claims. The claim is, they're not registered. The evidence is the Register. We can't get into a Kafka-esque state of needing a citation for something I can prove, surely? doktorb _words^deeds 09:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not the case that the only way we have proof that they're not registered is using the Register of Political Parties. A reliable, secondary source -- so probably a journalist for a reputable publication -- can look into the matter and then publish an article saying this. That's our gold standard. There's nothing Kafka-esque about wanting that.

You have offered a primary source to show the party is not registered. We can use primary sources to a limited extent: as per WP:PRIMARY. So I've revised the text to say the party is not registered on the basis of a primary source, but with a tag noting it is only a primary source. A secondary source would be better.

I have, however, trimmed the reasoning put forth saying Walker will have to stand as an independent: that's textbook WP:OR. WP:V is very, very, very clear. We include material that is not merely true, but that is verifiable. Verifiable meaning by reference to reliable sources. Individual editors doing their own research is not considered reliable. You may well be 100% correct in your reasoning, but that doesn't matter. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd happily see the results box dropped in the mean time given these sorts of complications and uncertainties until the SOPN is out. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

When I finish work tonight I'll put together a discussion on the project page about candidate boxes. Think we need to thrash out a policy. doktorb _words^deeds 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this debate. Here with pretty much the same position as Bondegezou.

The BBC says Walker is standing as the Northern Independence Party candidate in the election. We don't actually have concrete official evidence that any candidate is standing in this election until the official notice comes out, so until that point I think we need to follow the secondary sources; which say that Walker is the NIP candidate. I can't see any source that says she is standing as an independent. Using a search on the Electoral Commission website as a source for negative evidence of the NIP's registration seems, I'm afraid, pretty textbook WP:OR.

If not a single reliable source has seen fit to comment on this, Wikipedia policy seems pretty clear that we shouldn't either. (Personally I think the note is OK, notes are sort of on the borderline between article content and editor notes for me, but I don't think it can go in the body without a proper source.) I'm also a bit uncomfortable with taking out the nominees table because the sources wouldn't let it say what you want it to, unless there's a policy being followed in doing that. TSP (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To have a table of potential candidates or not... I sometimes think about WP:PROSE. We can better explain what's going on, some parties with candidates, some saying they'll stand but without having picked someone yet, through prose, so why have a table? That said, if there's several potential candidates, sure, a table can be a good way of describing that. What I don't like is having the results table in that format with empty spaces when we don't have any results. Most election articles don't have results tables until the election is over. Bondegezou (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou: with all the back and forth while parties are announcing things on Twitter, prose is better to explain the various parties' positions (especially in a complex case like the NIP). A candidate table simplifies things misleadingly, because until SOPN is released they are not actually candidates just prospective ones. And having this work-in-progress candidate table throws up issues with undue weight, who to include, what to believe, etc. Having a blanket policy of waiting till SOPN is released before placing the concrete candidate list (and to be honest, I thought that was already the convention) is neater, fairer, and avoids NPOV issues. Jdcooper (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

BitterGiant, thank you for the citation saying that the Northern Independence Party's registration has been rejected. However, we cannot say Walker is standing as an independent. I cannot see any reliable source saying that. If she cannot stand for NIP, she may decide not to stand at all. It remains WP:OR for us editors to second guess what will happen. Bondegezou (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

True, although I think due to peculiar circumstances- that she is running for a party which had its registration rejected- and ambiguity surrounding Walker's candidacy, I would err to caution and leave her as an Independent for the time being, as the lack of official recognition kinda leaves that, if she does ultimately choose to run. This is rather a tricky goose of a problem, of course and I am sympathetic to the other side of the argument here, but ultimately we are rapidly approaching the 8th when the SOPN will be released and we can clarify exactly who- or even if- Walker will be running under the banner of.BitterGiant (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, this is exactly why prose is preferable to candidate boxes when the candidate list is not finalised. It seems misleading to our readers to cite Walker as either a NIP candidate or an independent candidate at this point, or even a candidate at all. Jdcooper (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah tbh adding in the box before the SOPN dropped was a mistake. BitterGiant (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

My conclusion/"decision" in the discussion below suggests that prose and an "ordinary" box should be our preferred option. doktorb _words^deeds

Just noting that I've changed her back to NIP from Independent again and added a note. That is, by my reading, the majority view above; and following the sources is required by WP:NOR and specifically WP:SYNTHESIS. All our sources that mention her say she is the NIP candidate. Combining those sources with a lookup on the Electoral Commission website to unilaterally declare her an independent is exactly what WP:SYNTHESIS forbids. Listing her as an independent without a source that specifically says she is standing as an independent is clearly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. TSP (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

TSP I do agree with you about OR and SYNTHESIS, though I have to say, we may have all the sources in the country saying she's standing for the NIP, but if they're not a registered party, she can't use that designation on the ballot paper. When the SOPN is published - end of the week, I think? - we will know for sure. But if/when that says she is Independent, we will have to show that on the article. As I said at the start of this discussion, when we can point to the Register and prove that NIP aren't registered, and therefore prove their candidate can't use their name, it puts the article in a very bizarre situation where we can't reflect the truth! doktorb _words^deeds 22:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The moment anything says she's an independent, we can say she's an independent. Until then, if it's good enough for all of our sources, it has to be good enough for us - this is exactly what WP:SYN is for.

Until the official statement comes out there are no actual confirmed candidates anyway, so all the article reflects is who has been reported as standing and for whom. TSP (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I agree with you on all that, though again, it does strike me as odd (and I'm on old queen around these parts now!) that we're in such an odd position. We know they're not registered. We know she will be independent. Anyway, this takes me to the discussion in the section below, which I think should be adopted for the next time we have a by-election, or maybe Airdrie/Shotts which is less prominent so could be a calmer article to use as a test subject, whereby we use prose and hardly any box at all, certainly not a results box, which might dilute the back-and-forth we're having here. I think we'd all be better served not having this edit warring and arguments. We seem in the UK articles to spend more time on candidate boxes than the campaign, indeed, I think the campaign sections of a lot of these articles are never used! doktorb _words^deeds 23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easier to not include Walker in the candidate box at all until the actual list of candidates is published this week? By then, we'll know if and what she's standing as and hopefully any disputes will be settled. 185.69.145.10 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You'd think... doktorb _words^deeds 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

We have as good sources for Walker as for any other candidate. The reliable sources say she is standing; we have no actual proof that the Labour or Conservative candidates actually got their paperwork in either. I can't see any reason compatible with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR for leaving out Walker while listing other candidates. TSP (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We have no RS saying Walker will stand as an independent. We have some sourcing (primary) that her attempt to stand for NIP will fail, but we don't know what then happens. She may withdraw her candidacy entirely. That is a possible outcome, AIUI. So we cannot say she is an independent candidate. We can securely say she intends to stand for NIP. I think we can note that NIP are not registered. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that settles it.[2] BitterGiant (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: Candidate boxes

A discussion about candidate boxes has been started here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Policy_discussion:_Candidate/results_boxes

Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 23:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflict between this page and Hartlepool_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

There appears to be an ununified information in regards to parties standing in the 2021 by-election. How should this be resolved so both pages have the same information. Please see. Hartlepool (UK Parliament constituency) Elections in the 2020s

Thanks for bringing that up. I've stripped back the content at Hartlepool_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2020s. I think we should discourage 'live' editing of that article and just direct people to this article for now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Graph

@BSMIsEditing: added a graphic representation of the polls for this byelection. Is this really necessary? There are only three polls listed, one of which was not even a poll of the seat, but a mathematical construct. I'm wondering whether there is really enough data evolving over time to need it in this format.. Jdcooper (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You can replace it if you want, I just thought it would complement the table. BSMIsEditing (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a graph makes sense here given the limited polling (limited in number of polls, methods and small sample size). Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chris Killick

Although there may be a case for improving the wording of some issues concerning this person, the BBC report at least does use the term "unconscious" not "asleep". PatGallacher (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox lacks turnout

Can we have the turnout in the infobox so that we can see easily how few electors chose not to abstain, showing the sham nature of the result? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, so we'll be doing nothing to indicate any "sham nature of the result". Thanks. doktorb _words^deeds 14:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jill mortimer photo 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)