Talk:2016 Batley and Spen by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberty GB party[edit]

I believe the name of Liberty GB as expressed in the table of this year's by-election candidates ought to be linked so that it makes clear to the reader that you are talking about that party and not the advocacy group Liberty that was previously called the National Council of Civil Liberties. These organisations would probably be considered antithetical and I would not be surprised if users associated with Liberty the advocacy group protested.Cloptonson (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there could be scope for confusion, so I've been bold and have edited the party's name in the template (Template:Liberty GB/meta/shortname). Warofdreams talk 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: Why has this far right wing party been given the same colour as the Conservatives? --Maxl (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a similar colour, but it is a different colour. I presume the colour was picked as a reasonable match for the colour in the party's logo. Bondegezou (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes shows that there's only so many shades of colour we can use on Wiki for each party, as you say Bonde, there's probably just a close match to the official party logo here. It can be changed, of course, if necessary. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's VERY close. Maybe too close. It might seem to indicate a connection which does not exist. --Maxl (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to raise it at Wikipedia talk:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes. It's not something determined here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources needed for candidates[edit]

Anyone can claim they're going to contest an election and we routinely see numerous people making such a claim with by-elections, but plenty of those never make it on to the ballot paper. The appropriate way of dealing with this is to apply a basic Wikipedia rule: claims need to be verified by an independent reliable source. I've deleted three candidates from the article where the only citation given fails WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Um, did you check, for instance, Google News?[1], [2] Doug Weller talk 11:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources to support these candidacies, great, let's use them and feel free to re-insert the text deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any reliable sources that Hirst used to be Muchewicz, as the prior article text read? Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muchewicz... Surprised helicopter neighbour looks like Hirst, only she's called Muchewicz in 2013! http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10632989.Helicopter_garden_landing_is_probed/ Companies House has Muchewicz... https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/cige9uJYoQdPcMMVs_9SkGQbNAg/appointments http://www.veritasparty.com/personnel.php https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=212678785:0794&d=bmd_1472409900&scan=1 Hirst... "Therese is proud to be a Yorkshire lass born and bred, from an Anglo-Irish-Polish background." https://www.facebook.com/Therese.Hirst.English.Democrats/about/?entry_point=page_nav_about_item&tab=page_info . http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/bradfordwest/ ...same person, you can tell from recent pics, just email her... or again companies house... https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06781718/officers I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE ALL THIS STUFF FROM THIS BACKWATER, STOP NAVEL-GAZING... PEEPS DON'T WANT THEIR HOME ADDRESSES ONLINE, ON WEB-PAGES...

Not everything is posted openly on the internet - and not everything can be take as 'real' if unreliable. There's probably more out there. I have stack of correspondence with Electoral Commission, Bately & Spen returning officer, and Parliament's Speaker's commitee, establishing English Independence. Even nice letters saying they don't want a 'death-penalty' party-description or 'Ang Murderers / Just Ang'em' for Batley & Spen By-Election! These I will move to an English Independence / Neil Humphrey page, when someone creates one. Wiki doesn't like people editing their own pages... http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/213871/2016-Party-registration-decisions-July-to-September-english-version.pdf Neil Humphrey standing as English Independence... http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14709282.Party__39_s_anti_Indyref_slogan_rejected_as__quot_offensive_quot_/ I have yet to reply to Trinity Newspapers, who are in correspondence. The Huddersfield Examiner reported has the same name as her husband, judging by companies house, need to check that one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.144.230 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eg. Dear Mr Humphrey, I am writing to update you on your application to register a political party in Great Britain. While we aim to process all application within 30 working days, in this circumstances we are not able to do so. *** I do not have a set date by which a decision will be made on your application. This is in because you have made clear to us that you wish to contest the Batley and Spen by-election. *** Due to the recent events in Batley and Spen we are considering *** all applications carefully in light of those events and their impact on the community ***. We have a duty to ensure that any names, descriptions or emblems are not *** offensive ***, misleading or confusing. This will mean that any candidate you wish to stand in the Puckeridge Ward for the East Herts Council will have to nominate as an Independent. Whilst this email will no doubt be disappointing to you, I trust you will understand that the Commission is obliged to assess every application on their merits and the circumstances in names, descriptions and emblems appear on ballot papers. Craig Wakeford, Senior Adviser – Party Registration, The Electoral Commission, 3 Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8YZ, Tel: 020 7271 0531 CWakeford@electoralcommission.org.uk ... noting they intend to break 30 day guidelines EVEN if ByElection was called under Recess Act 1975. This is "massive" proof that minor parties are PREVENTED from sudden By-Election Protest... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.144.230 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. My point was that reverting before checking means others have to clean up. It would have been better to check first, change the source if you found a better one, or delete if you actually then found nothing. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I think WP:AGF includes not berating people for how they fix problems.
I note WP:BLP says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It doesn't say, "Leave material up while you spend time looking to see whether there are reliable source citations that could be used instead." Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's 'my point', ie my opinion, others will certainly differ. Replacing a source can take a minute or two if you're fast. Still, I guess technically 'immediately' can be seen as you see it. That's the way I usually handle similar issues. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brucejoel99: I've reverted you on Love's and Khan's candidacy. Citations given do not appear to meet WP:RS. Happy to see them returned if there are decent articles supporting their inclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Humphrey[edit]

81.174.144.230 has added some material about Neil Humphrey as a candidate in this election. However, User:Doktorbuk and I have reverted these additions. There may be some useful material here that we should cover in the article, but I am concerned about whether the claims are adequately sourced. I hope 81.174.144.230 can input here on the matter.

The additions claim Humphrey will be a candidate, but the source given merely says he is "considering standing". I suggest we need something more definitive than that. 81.174.144.230 also added two citations to scandals in UKIP, but I could not see how they related to the text. One was also to a Daily Mail article, and we don't generally consider the Mail a reliable source.

"we don't generally consider the Mail a reliable source" - sounds a bit snobby, leftie press manipulating to me. It's a national rag.
You have had refs and proofs for creation of an English Independence party, has anyone created a wiki page for that? No? But then we're not allowed to create one ourselves. Reeks of Censorship and ludicrous rules from supposedly unbiased consensus editing. Then when we do release for press coverage, it will still be ignored. In the meantime, other candidates even independents enjoy publicity. Did you even check Shipley reference to Khan. UKIP HQ blocked me after being selected, because I whistleblew on Boston & Skegness fiddles. I was months ahead of Natasha Boulter affair. Head of candidates biased by knobbing one. This all seems like a lot of leftie biased commentators, avoiding mentioning the creation of a party to rival the SNP, by tackling the stupid Democrats part of Eng'Dem. You cover Eng'Dem briefly. This is no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.144.230 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Smith UKIP Bradford Chairman <jasonsmithukip***@*******> 11/1/14 Hi Neil, Spoke to UKIP and told them I’m happy to have you as our PPC, They said they’d be speaking to you shortly, Cheers Jason... Hi Neil, I didn’t complain, but he asked me for a report of the hustings which I provided, I am more than happy for you to be put forward for the SHIPLEY seat – I mentioned that you had agreed to attend our next hustings, Do you want me to speak to Mr Peers? Think he’s got his wires crossed. There was another guy who never turned up at all which I mentioned and another who turned up and decided not to stand. Let me know if I need to speak to Mr Peers as I am keen to get you on board,
Cheers Jason, Jason Smith UKIP Bradford Chairman... (and W Khan was then SHIPLEY - so if you're going to list me, then you must also list that link - UKIP got angry over B&S before it was in the press as Rod Peers admitted "fiddling" in a call to me. Which went to the Telegraph. They did not publish, but took as another confirming source. A lot of these things are just starting to appear as court cases against UKIP HQ gestazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.144.230 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

81.174.144.230: can you explain further, or provide additional sources? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail can be a reliable source, and generally is for purely factual material as opposed to interpretative. However, I think that Doktorbuk and Bondegezou were correct to revert at this stage. Emeraude (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, since nominations have not been opened and closed, and the election has not even been called, there are no candidates as such, just prospective candidates. Emeraude (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a Batley & Spen electoral regsister from September 2016 that says I am as legitimate as any of these other 'candidates' give prospective and all that..." - Neil Humphrey "Issued by the same lot who're talking with Electoral Commission on the deed-poll name - if rejecting death-penalty descriptions, which you have Electoral Commission decision links for - again my advice is 'stop navel gazing' there is plenty of proof, it just can't be plastered all over the internet yet - the Herald guy only rang 'cos he spotted S*d Scottish Referendum and he's a sad proper, professional journalist who trawls public soources - unless it sells chip-papers, really difficult getting any free media attention at all - press sources will be hard to find - having already stumped up a lost deposit plus leaflets, when I say I'm standing, I stand - please be cynical of those who don't bother the hassle for forming a party - with 30 days of abuse by authorities who point blank REFUSE to register an ENGLISH party AT ALL... Scotland has what 9 for a tenth the population... yet we have EngDem which camps on English National (the only other rival to become like the SNP) if you want to check the same Robin Tilbrook Chairman. You're arguing with someone who stood for the English Democrats... about whether or not same person... I managed to find multiple sources, 'cos I know where to look"

Incidentally, I also queried whether people who specialise in (allegedly) 'Far Right' groups need to find magazines like Searchlight and Hop'Not'Hat'. Are these reliable sources. NOT. I do research too, and this shows an 'activist level' of interest that says either spook or liberal-leftie-gestazi. Surely the point is editorial independence? Sounds like they need to be the politician... not wikipedian...

WP RP - Also says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with COMMON SENSE, AND OCCASIONAL EXCEPTIONS MAY APPLY. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, DISCUSS FIRST on the talk page." There clearly is enough proof (not all of it online). The choice about when we time full press launch is ours. as abovbe, I can cut and paste, if needs be you can waiver to contact them yourselves, but soley to prove we are in discussion. You wiki editors are NOT parties. We're trying to resolve 'Death-Penalty' with the Electoral Commission - which is abusing its powers to suppress legitimate political debate. If you have an email we can share in confidence. This stuff represents over 6 months of work. You have one national newspaper, the Herald, and getting picky about intention. I was at the interview and the term I used was "WILL STAND". Journalist make mistakes, maybe you can contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.144.230 (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.144.230 (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

81.174.144.230, I take it you are Mr Humphrey. You are welcome to let editors know, via this Talk page, when further coverage of your campaign emerges, but Wikipedia strives for verifiability, so we have to follow what reliable sources say. So far, the only reliable source discussing your candidacy is the Herald and it only says "considering". You are welcome to contact the Herald and get them to change the article, or to publish some follow-up, but Wikipedia never takes the lead in such matters. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper: we simply not in the business of interviewing candidates or researching stories. The press do their job; Wikipedia follows. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you feel there should be an article about your new political party, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Politics and government to suggest this. For an article to be created, there needs to be evidence of sufficient notability, for example coverage in multiple reliable sources. In other words, the request is unlikely to be fulfilled if the Herald article is the only coverage you can present. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batley and Spen by-election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Batley_and_Spen_by-election&oldid=1196704520"