Talk:2021 London mayoral election/Archives/2021/May

Piers Corbyn and Covid

Pinging Bondegezou and OZZY19455 who have also edited material about Piers Corbyn. The status quo at time of writing is {[tq|Piers Corbyn, the Let London Live candidate, told the BBC on 19 April that, if elected, he would "end lockdown on day one". He has been repeatedly fined and arrested for breaching COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. He is a conspiracy theorist who has spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about Covid-19. He is also a climate change sceptic and an anti-vaxxer.}} in the campaign section and Weather forecaster and older brother of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has repeatedly propagated various conspiracy theories about COVID-19, describing it as "hoax". He has also spread conspiracy theories about vaccines. He was arrested in February 2021 after distributing leaflets that compared the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in the UK to the Nazi Auschwitz concentration camp. He has been arrested and fined for organising and attending protests during lockdowns. He is campaigning to end all coronavirus restrictions, reduce homelessness and defend the NHS from privatisation. in the candidates section.

The passage Corbyn has repeatedly propagated various conspiracy theories about COVID-19, describing it as "hoax". is sourced to a Times article, the only mention of a hoax in which is in a picture caption which reads "Piers Corbyn last month at a central London march of thousands of anti-lockdown protesters who believe coronavirus is a hoax". We shouldn't include material that makes stronger claims than the source material. Here's material dedicated to Corbyn calling Covid a hoax, but it doesn't invoke his mayoral campaign (and I suspect predates it), which I don't think establishes due weight for including that particular episode in this article, though it's worth including in his article. I would think that the description of him as a "conspiracy theorist who has spread misinformation" should given a source which uses the verbatim terms or unmistakeable synonyms (cranks deserve BLP consideration too!).

In the candidates section, I am unconvinced of the merits of duplicating material into the "other candidates" table, which I think is better dedicated to concise summary descriptions. In any case, any material sourced to "Daily UK News" should be removed: it seems like a straightforwardly inappropriate source to me (if you're unconvinced just by looking at it, there's a discussion on RSN that was as unimpressed with it as a source as I am).

I tried implementing changes to this effect (not sure my edit summaries were as comprehensive as they could have been) and have been partially reverted, so I've started this discussion to hopefully come to a conclusion about how to cover Piers Corbyn in this article. Ralbegen (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. Sure, we need to use RS and reflect what they say. However, I don't think we have to only use citations that are talking about Corbyn's mayoral campaign. A background summary drawing on older citations seems fine. That's what we agreed to do for Rose. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough! In both cases I think it's worth keeping material from beyond election coverage to a minimum. For Rose I think it's just the line about Covid misinformation? Maybe the text could read: Piers Corbyn, the candidate for the Let London Live party, told the BBC that he would "end lockdown on day one" if he was elected. Corbyn is a conspiracy theorist who has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, including calling the virus a "hoax". He is sceptical of climate change and has anti-vax views. He has been fined and arrested during the campaign for breaches of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, including an arrest on suspicion of malicious communications and public nuisance over his distributing a leaflet comparing COVID-19 vaccination programme with the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz in the campaign section and Corbyn is a weather forecaster and conspiracy theorist who has propagated misinformation about COVID-19. in the candidate table? Ralbegen (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that is fine. I did remove the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is his brother because it's not relevant. There is no need to mention the relatives of any of the candidates.--OZZY19455 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

As Bondegezou said in his edit summary here, Piers Corbyn's relationship with his brother is emphasised by reliable source coverage of him and his campaign, so it's worth including in this article. The same is true for the siblings Johnson. Ralbegen (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Binface grammar

Grammatical error in description of the policies of Count Binface: "His manifesto also included a croissant price cap and tying government official's pay to nurse's pay." The word "nurse's" should have apostrophe after the "s", as it is both genitive and plural.

Done, sorry about that. Ralbegen (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Niko Omilana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Niko Omilana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niko Omilana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Domeditrix (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

On the latest YouGov poll, the Greens are on 10% and the LibDems on 5%.

On the table on this page the Greens are down as 5% and the LibDems 10%.

See YouGov https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1389657497405960193?s=19 Mjstyles (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 06:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Half done Can somebody with knowledge of how to do it update the graph too? Domeditrix (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sorry about that, that was clumsy of me. Ralbegen (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Next (2024 or 2025) election

Do we know when the next election will be? The infobox points towards 2024 but I haven't seen any sources pointing either way. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's covered in the background section: the legislation says The postponement of that ordinary election is to be ignored in determining the years in which subsequent ordinary elections are to be held., so it's 2024. Ralbegen (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

really random question

If, for some strange reason, Niko gets more votes than the Green, will he be featured on the infobox? Twotoque (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The infobox tends to be for candidates who received 5% of the votes. doktorb _words^deeds 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Verb tenses

There is a tendency of some writers to use an adverb to indicate the timing of an event that is already clear from the verb tense and/or the context. I made the following edits thatvere reverted:

• "Siobhan Benita was initially selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate before withdrawing after the postponement of the election to 2021."
  • The sentence is clear that she withdrew after she was selected. There is no ambiguity here.
• "Initially, the party had selected Siobhan Benita, a former senior civil servant and 2012 independent candidate for London mayor. Benita withdrew in July 2020 after the election was postponed to 2021."
  • The very next sentence is clear that she withdrew after she was selected. There is no ambiguity here.
• "The former Conservative parliamentary candidates Azi Ahmed and Kishan Devani had previously been discussed as potential Liberal Democrat candidates for the mayoralty...."
  • The job of the past perfect tense is to tell us about something that happened before another event in the past. "Previously" is redundant. There is no ambiguity without it.
• "Sidhu-Robb had previously worked as a lawyer, and was the founder and chief executive of the health company Nosh Detox. She had formerly served as the vice-chair of the People's Vote campaign"
  • Same. "Previously" and "formerly" are redundant. There is no ambiguity without them.

Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read advises: "Text should be trimmed if it contains redundancy." Redundancy makes for boring reading. We should try not to be boring. Ground Zero | t 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(I wrote the below comment at the same time as this section was created, so I'm merging the sections and indenting it as a reply) Ralbegen (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground_Zero has made grammatical and stylistic changes throughout the article in these two edits. These edits appear to have been made on a rationale that the threat of potential redundency is something always to be avoided. The first edit in the article changes The mayoral and Assembly elections were originally due to be held on 7 May 2020 to The mayoral and Assembly elections were to be held on 7 May 2020. I think this makes the article's prose less readable and the meaning less clear.

The next change removes the word currently from the clause The position of Mayor of London is currently held by Sadiq Khan of the Labour Party. Both versions make sense, but currently is useful here because this is something which will change in the election. Once the result is in, the text will read The position of Mayor of London was held prior to the election... or something similar. The third change removes Both from the sentence Both the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party also gained seats., which is fine and I have no preference either way. On several occasions, Ground Zero removed the words "previously" and "subsequently" on the premise that the tense is clear by itself. But even though a sentence continues to make sense after deleting a word, it may be less clear and have its meaning change. Deleting both from the text both repair centres and a Library of Things in each borough makes it ambiguous. With "both", it means that [in each borough] [repair centres and a Library of Things] will be introduced. Without it, the text could equally and reasonably mean [repair centres] and [a Library of Things] will be introduced. Two changes of "as well as" to "and" and a spelling correction I think are both improvements to the article. Ralbegen (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course the holder of the position of Mayor can change after a mayoral election. Readers can be expected to understand what elections do.

Regarding "both", "and" does the trick here without ambiguity because of the use of "each". "Each" indicates the both boroughs are benefitting from the introduction of these two things. It wouldn't make sense to conclude that only one of the two things is being introduced in either of the boroughs when the sentence says that they are being introduced in "each borough". Ground Zero | t 12:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The point isn't that readers don't understand electionrs, rather it's that "currently" has a role in the sentence which isn't just strengthening the word "is". In the second case I don't follow your point. The word "each" means that each borough benefits from the introduction of new services. The inclusion of the word both means that both services are benefitting each borough. As I tried to write above, without "both" you can read the sentence as "...introduce repair centres. She would also introduce a Library of Things in each borough". I'm pretty sure I wrote that sentence, so I'm very comfortable saying that it could be written better, but I don't think removing the word "both" does that! Ralbegen (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Replying properly)

I think I parse the pre-edit sentences differently to you, which means there's probably an issue that needs to be resolved. The sentence Siobhan Benita was initially selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate before withdrawing after the postponement of the election to 2021 I would read as In the Liberal Democrats' initial selection process, they selected Siobhan Benita to be their candidate. She [subsequently] withdrew after the postponement of the election to 2021. rather than First Siobhan Benita was selected as the Lib Dem candidate, and then she withdrew. The same holds for the other Benita sentence.

In the two cases of previously, the adverb anchors the sentence. I'm afraid I'm not a grammarian, but the versions with only "had" read as dangling or unnatural, as if they're waiting to be completed. It's a formulation I don't think I come across in my general reading, as I find it quite jarring here. I don't think the deleted words are redundant.

I'm not precious about conserving the style of every sentence, though; your having isolated several sentences here lets me see several improvements that could be made: withdrawing should be her withdrawal or she withdrew, in the first sentence, for example. Ralbegen (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We should always be careful about writing for "clarity". Lawyers write for absolute clarity to avoid the legal implications of a misunderstanding. And what lawyers write is very, very dull, in part because of redundancy. ("Last will and testament, "cease and desist", "indemnify and hold harmless".) We should not write like lawyers. Wikipedia is intended for a general readership, not people who try to find loopholes in sentences.

What is "currently" doing in the sentence that "is" isn't doing? Above you said that it was indicating that the election could change things, as elections are understood to do, so I don't understand -- and you haven't explained -- what additional information it is adding. It is redundant.

But let's be clear, "had been" does identify that one thing happened before a second thing in the sentence. "Previously" and "formerly" don't change the meaning of the sentence. That is what makes them clunky and unnecessary.

We can agree that the LibDems selected Benita, can we? That's a simple fact. Then she withdrew after the postponement -- also very clear. Then they chose Porritt. There is no ambiguity there. There is no need to explain to readers what the verb tenses mean, because they are doing exactly what they are intended to do. The past perfect is a commonly used tense, so it does not need clarification.

The sentence says that each borough would benefits from one service and the other service. The sentence cannot be read to mean that repair centres or a Library of Things would be introduced in each borough. That doesn't make sense. Ground Zero | t 01:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Results map

The results map currently shows the 14 constituencies and by colour the winning mayoral candidate in those constituencies, blue for Bailey and red for Khan. The map is inaccurate because it shows Bailey as the winner in Brent and Harrow (3), Ealing and Hillingdon (6), South West (13), and West Central (14). Bailey did indeed win the first round vote in those four constituencies, but in the Bailey-Khan run-off, Khan's first preference votes plus transfers outnumbered those of Bailey. Brent and Harrow (3), Ealing and Hillingdon (6), South West (13), and West Central (14) should therefore be coloured red and not blue, otherwise an inaccurate picture is provided of the geographic support for each candidate.

First and second preferences

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, has posted on Twitter detailed first and second preference votes for four of the candidates, broken down by area. Could this be added to the article in some way? The only qualm is no second preference figures for City & East are listed.

As well as this, the London Elects website has made available as part of the Mayoral Declaration a complete list of overall first and second preferences for each candidate. This seems article-worthy? --Phinbart (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)