Talk:2012 Rotherham by-election

Untitled

I suggest we leave this article at this title pending further discussion, although I am prepared to bet money that it will eventually be moved to 2013. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Farage on HIGNFY

I have removed content added about comments Farage made on a recent appearance of Have I Got News for You, a satirical comedy quiz show. The only citation given was to the episode. The article should describe the by-election campaign, but that does not mean reporting every comment made. There was no citation given to show Farage's comments had had any impact beyond the show, so, it seems to me, it constitutes original research to cherry-pick what Farage said and to insert it here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Campaign

Trimming by Ghmyrtle(→‎Campaign: trimming per WP:UNDUE) There has been a lot of talk about UKIP on this issue in the media. This is a very sensetive issue which needs to be reported on fairly to avoid certain unfavourable public perceptions towards the party. In that light it is important that UKIP and it's party leader get the full oppourtunity to put across their views, this clearly requires giving them the oppourtunity to elaborate morte than others! I am hearing that this controversey could result in claims of slander and defermation of character, I am told that legal challenges are curently being seriously considered and are to be explored if need be. I strongly suggest that in light of this the wikipedia page is kept to appear as unbiased as possible, giving reaction from all relevent commentators and indeed allowing those whose character has been called into question to launcha deffence. Please revert your edit, I do not want an edit war! Nor do I want this page to become part of the controversey! Revert your edit and replace Farages's radio 4 quotation! — Preceding comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No. This article is about a byelection campaign - not about Rotherham Council, not about UKIP, and certainly not about Farage's comments. I think what is worthy of consideration here is whether the article should make any mention of the controversy whatsoever. Clearly it is being used by parties and their supporters for political purposes, but unless and until they admit that, I think there is a strong case for removing all, or almost all, mention from this article - and certainly not reinstating the WP:UNDUE comments that I deleted. There may be a case for saying more in other articles, but not this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not this issue should be covered in some other article, it seems to me to be very pertinent to the current by-election. I don't think it is undue to have more than one paragraph on the issue here. That said, we do need the article to be unbiased and some recent edits do appear to come from a strongly pro-UKIP position. Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly an issue in the campaign, though presumably not the only issue worth mentioning. My point is simply that the controversy relates to articles on Rotherham Borough Council, foster care, and UKIP, more than this one. The by-election will not directly affect the council's political control or policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but can someone stop blocking my comments on the talk page. Can I point out that you have started an edit war. I would like a mediator to engage in this because I do not wish to retaliate. I have just written a long justification for this part of the page and it has been blocked! in response I would say ofcourse this issue has been politicised, UKIP have been called racist by an officially recognised body, it is understandable for UKIP to poiticise this by taking every oppourtunity to rebut the claim that they are. Yes this issue has been politicised, end of! If UKIP do not take every oppourtunity to rebut this and deffend themselves then this public perception will stick because it has been said by someone official, you can't get away from that. In being silent wikipedia are allowing that false impression to stick, UKIP need the oppourtunity in all forms of media on which this is reported to make that rebutal. the best way of doing that is to make quotations from the horses mouth, saying exactly their position and view! Quotations from Farage are appropriate! need i remind you of the potential forthcoming legal cases, slander and defermation of character are veryserious cases! For this reason wikipedia must appear absolutely neutral and the onlywa to do that is to be direct in terms of quotations. Silence simply allows the negative deflamatory remarks to sit in peoples minds, so a clear rebutal is absolutely vital. The section is not that long, it does not dominate the page (it is towards the bottom). Revert your edit now please. Mediator please get involved, this user is abusing the system by engaging in an edit war, deleting things willy nilly when I have made proper and correct use of the talk page! furthermore the argument that this whole section is in some way irrelevent I find utterly baffling. This is a local news even, in the constituency, it has grabbed the national headlines in the midst of the campaign and it concerns defermation of a party that have a candidate on the ballot paper. If all that makesthis inappropriate then I'm sorry but I fail to see how wikipedia can claim to be impartial! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but can someone stop blocking my comments on the talk page. Can I point out that you have started an edit war. I would like a mediator to engage in this because I do not wish to retaliate. I have just written a long justification for this part of the page and it has been blocked! in response I would say ofcourse this issue has been politicised, UKIP have been called racist by an officially recognised body, it is understandable for UKIP to poiticise this by taking every oppourtunity to rebut the claim that they are. Yes this issue has been politicised, end of! If UKIP do not take every oppourtunity to rebut this and deffend themselves then this public perception will stick because it has been said by someone official, you can't get away from that. In being silent wikipedia are allowing that false impression to stick, UKIP need the oppourtunity in all forms of media on which this is reported to make that rebutal. the best way of doing that is to make quotations from the horses mouth, saying exactly their position and view! Quotations from Farage are appropriate! need i remind you of the potential forthcoming legal cases, slander and defermation of character are veryserious cases! For this reason wikipedia must appear absolutely neutral and the onlywa to do that is to be direct in terms of quotations. Silence simply allows the negative deflamatory remarks to sit in peoples minds, so a clear rebutal is absolutely vital. The section is not that long, it does not dominate the page (it is towards the bottom). Revert your edit now please. Mediator please get involved, this user is abusing the system by engaging in an edit war, deleting things willy nilly when I have made proper and correct use of the talk page! furthermore the argument that this whole section is in some way irrelevent I find utterly baffling. This is a local news even, in the constituency, it has grabbed the national headlines in the midst of the campaign and it concerns defermation of a party that have a candidate on the ballot paper. If all that makesthis inappropriate then I'm sorry but I fail to see how wikipedia can claim to be impartial!

The current edit does not paint UKIP as racist. It clearly shows widespread condemnation of the council decision taken. It would help if you familiarised yourself with certain standard Wikipedia policies -- like WP:3RR on edit-warring and WP:NLT on legal threats -- which exist precisely to ensure impartiality and so forth. Bondegezou (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that but surely it is reasonable to give people the oppourtunity to comment themselves, stating what their position is! This is erious, a seed has been planted! I'm not saying they should have disproportionate coverage, I'm saying they should have the full right to put their position accross given that it has been thrown in to question in such a public and indeed humiliating way! By all mean please add stuff about other campaigns. Really I encourage you to do that. There's loads you could say about the Labour candidate contest. Elaborate about Yvone Ridley (Respect) and her hustings with george Galloway. The Lib Dem and Tory campaigns.... all candidates should have the oppourtunity to have their campaigns highlighted and covered, I encourage everyone to do that. To simply supress this information though at this critical time is unacceptable. Add more information about others, don't simply delete the truth about those that you oppose. bias is showing a lot here. The best thing you can do is add stuff not delete, you are dealing with this in a very negative fashion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection of the article, to allow some sensible discussion and end the edit warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

OK so whats to be done about this, is someone official getting involved as I have previously requested on a muber of occassions or what? I want this orted, I don't want it all to be about UKIP, I want oter campaigns to have some commentary on but to leave things as they are with no reffernce to this incident is unreasonable. A story has appeared in the local and national media which has serious negative connotations against a party who has a candidate on the ballot. Things simply can't be left as they are, especially due to the potential legal proceedings that may be raised! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk)

Dear IP editor, someone official has gotten involved: that's Uncle G. As I understand it, his solution to your concern over potential legal proceedings is to remove the whole section. Presumably if Wikipedia says nothing about the case, then Wikipedia is protected from any legal problems.

Everyone, we need to reach consensus on the 'Campaign' section here before the article is changed. I was happy with either the 1 or 3-paragraph versions. What, it seems to me, would be useful is more explicitly linking the fostering dispute with the by-election. Here's one link for starters: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/james-forsyth/2012/11/the-prejudice-on-display-in-rotherham/ Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/council-will-investigate-why-children-were-removed-from-rotherham-foster-family-who-were-ukip-members-after-michael-gove-and-ed-miliband-weigh-in-to-row-8348028.html Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, for a start, a blog is not a reliable source, though the Independent is. We should start from the principle that we summarise what reliable sources say, rather than deciding what should be said and then finding sources to support it. And, we should give the issue due - not undue - weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources appear clear on (a) what happened with the children, (b) Rotherham council's explanation, (c) various responses (Miliband, Gove, Farage), (d) what enquiries have been launched, and (e) that it may impact the by-election result.

It seems to me that we're all reasonably clear on that. The question is how much coverage this warrants, and within that, how much coverage there should be to each part (e.g. how much on Farage's response). I'm OK with Miliband (head of the party defending the seat), Gove (Minister in charge) and Farage (head of the party affected) all being quoted, ditto the two key council figures.

The Spectator is a reliable source, I suggest, even a blog at The Spectator. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Only in so far as it relates to this by-election. Have those you mentioned commented on the affair's relationship to this by-election? If not, what they think about the council, or UKIP, or fostering policy, is not relevant. You may think it is relevant to the by-election, but unless that is set out in reliable sources, what you are suggesting is original research and synthesis, which is not allowable here. We are to provide encyclopedic content, not commentary on current events. I'm happy with it being entirely left out of this article. What you want to add to the articles on UKIP, or Rotherham Borough Council, etc., is another matter entirely which can be addressed elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Many RS articles link the affair to the by-election. Here are some more: [1], [2], [[3], [4] Bondegezou (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Another relevant citation, including further coverage of the Labour campaign: [5] Bondegezou (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted, but the Gilligan column is clearly not neutral! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been haing problems uploading this comment, clicking save has simply deleted what I have written several times. I feel it is important to make clear that I did not at any point make a legal challenge on behalf anyone or against anyone, I was simply pointing out that the embryo of a case does exist between UKIP and Rotherham Council. It is important to make absolutely clear that this case has nothing to do with wikipedia, of course wikipedia are not subject or going to be subject to any form of legal case. To interpret what I have said at any point in that way is not only a bit of a stretch but frankly laughable! NO legal hallnge what so ever tat implicates wikipedia, my coments were merely about sensible reporting. It is asstonishing that a national story like this which defermates a party who has a candidate on the ballot just days before a byelection is to be ignored. I have long accepted that wikipedia do not like UKIP, it is clear from the UKIP page placed on wikipedia, you label them as "right-wing populists", a very deflamatory label and might I say inaccurate.... UKIP are Libertarian, it is within their constitution as their prevailing ideology! Other commentators recognise UKIP as being Libertarian but aparently not impartial wikipedia, no they prefer terms like populist! 40% of UKIP voters are previous Labour voters. This treatment towards UKIP from wikipedia does seem to be consistently unfair, the libertarian label has been discussed on the talkpage but ofcourse rejected. As for the term rightwing, I think that is up for debate, you see to be Libertarian goes beyond the left/right paradigm and to labl either way doesnt work! I was simply quoting verifiable facts! I accepted the removal of the reference to Have I Got News For You, I can see your reasoning behind that and accept it but these accusations of racism actually within the constituency well what can I say I've lost my faith in wikipedia's impartiallity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you took Uncle G's suggestion to read m:The Wrong Version to heart. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Yea I'm taking this personally, UKIP are being labeled racists, a party that I have voted for, by implication I'm being made to feel a racist and prejudice in other ways. Well let me tell you I am gay and live with an English black girl, A Romanian Boy and a Lithuanian Girl, we get on really well, we are a diverse house and I like it! I strongly object to this characture and believe this should be covered fairly. I don't seek to use wiki as an advertisement page, I simply want balance, a sense of proportion. We're talking about something in national news (the main headline) that is affecting the byelection, it is being linked to the by election by just about everyone, except ofcourse wikipedia! I object to UKIP's page on wikipedia, it is very deflamatory and this page is following suit by refusing to publish the truth! So yes, I take this personally, I object to the characture and these slurs and the stigmatization, I get enough of that from the homophobes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This article does not label you or UKIP as racist. In its current form, in not saying anything about the issue, it clearly can't be labelling you or UKIP as anything. If you have a problem with the UKIP article, you should discuss that on the relevant Talk page, not here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done, so have loads of other people, people are very selective with sourcing, for example all 3of the sources used to back up the claim that UKIP are "right-wingpopulist" come from pro-EU sources, blatent biased, one of the sources is actually from the European Union's own website, how can that be a credible source, of course they are going to use deflamatory terms! There is no sense of fair play or accurate reporting on wikipedia. I use to think there were sufficient safe guards but clearly their are not, it's all down to editorial opinion, just like a newspaper! And I was the one being accused of activism and making wikipedia biased, pot calling the kettle black or what. Sorry I probably shouldn't use that phrase because of course people will emidiately think I'm being racist! I had a boyfriend who was half Algerian for for heaven sake! As for this part of the article some how not being relevent, well... I really fail to see how you justify this! I think this does need looking at! To simply ignore something as major as this in a by-election campaign is simply to be complicit! I'm not asking wiki to do a favourable report, I'm not asking wiki to do a massive section in the byelection page about this. I'm simply asking wikipedia to perform it's function of an Encyclopedia and provide an entry that reports the facts, please see wiki's defenition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best way of achieving that aim is (1) to have respect for Wikipedia policies and your other editors; and (2) to focus on what this article needs rather than discussing other articles. Bondegezou (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Another article on the Rotherham campaign, but on a new issue: [6] Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Politicized edit warring

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Edit war
• Wikipedia:Three revert rule
• Wikipedia:No legal threats
• m:The Wrong Version

This article is now fully protected, as a result of an edit war that has seen 11 reversions on the same content/section in the past 26 hours. I have decided not to make use of the blocking tool, but I warn that we take a dim view of politicized edit warring here.

We also take a dim view of legal threats. 217.41.32.3, you are skating on very thin ice. I've stood up for you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but be aware that you are getting close to being turfed out of the project on your ear for trying to force the hands of other editors with threats of legal action. Stick to what is relevant to encyclopaedia writing. Try to leave your partisanship at the door, and cut out the almost threats. Here, you should be an encyclopaedia writer, not a political activist.

And try to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. This is not a vehicle for getting campaign messages out, and this is not a critical time to Wikipedia. The encyclopaedia can quite happily live with editors writing this all up after the election, if you are unable to resolve your problems before then. Your partisan political deadline is not a deadline for encyclopaedia writing. I have set full protection to expire at 00:00:00 UTC on the day after the election. If you cannot get your acts together, so that I or another administrator can see that the dispute is resolved, you will not be able to edit the article until then.

Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

OK so whats to be done about this, is someone official getting involved as I have previously requested on a muber of occassions or what? I want this orted, I don't want it all to be about UKIP, I want oter campaigns to have some commentary on but to leave things as they are with no reffernce to this incident is unreasonable. A story has appeared in the local and national media which has serious negative connotations against a party who has a candidate on the ballot. Things simply can't be left as they are, especially due to the potential legal proceedings that may be raised! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Uncle G. There are by-election articles over Wikipedia which include campaign details and scandals, but there's a line to be drawn to differentiate between a record(ing) of facts and a record(ing) of current events. There is no deadline to Wikipedia, indeed, an article can be 'frozen' for weeks if an Admin feels it's necessary and it doesn't impact on Wikipedia's reputation by so being. Wikipedia is not a campaign website or a politics forum, most importantly, as Uncle G says doktorb _words^deeds 11:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Labour colour in the infobox

To make the red Labour colour appear above the candidate's name in the infobox:

| election_date = 29 November 2012 | candidate1 = Sarah Champion | image1 = | party1 = Labour Party (UK)

image1 field should be "& nbsp;" (no space)

| election_date = 29 November 2012 | candidate1 = Sarah Champion | image1 = & nbsp; [no space] | party1 = Labour Party (UK)

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Has no one bothered to fix this? Oh well, if you want something done, do it yourself... Sunil060902 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Result

The protection of this article terminates some time after polling day. I've voiced my concerns on this matter to the user who (rightly) protected the page against the edit warring and conflict of interest content addition, and hope that we can get the result onto the article as soon as possible doktorb _words^deeds 19:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to fully protect it. I don't see any substantial disagreement between registered editors over this - certainly nothing that can't be addressed by normal discussion processes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to Uncle G, it was a misunderstanding over dates which led to my concern. doktorb _words^deeds 16:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the by-election result has just been announced, I'm just wondering if a senior editor or someone can upload the result. I realise this edit is locked so I will not even ask for any other edits or anything for now but it would be nice and useful if the results could be upoaded. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A new Campaign section

If we can move on from the emotion of the edit war and subsequent events to actually agreeing on some text... The last version Ghmyrtle was happy with was as follows...

During the election campaign, social workers removed three children from foster care on behalf of the local council on the grounds that the foster parents were members of UKIP. The local council said that the children were "not indigenous white British" and that they had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration. The decision attracted widespread criticism from across the political spectrum. Labour leader Ed Miliband called for an inquiry, saying "Being a member of a political party like UKIP should not be a bar to fostering children".[15] Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove described the decision as "indefensible", saying that membership of a mainstream political party should not affect eligibility for fosterhood. He has since launched an inquiry within his department. The Leader of Rotherham Council has also launched an inquiry and demanded a report be on his desk "first thing on Monday morning" (i.e. 26 November).[16] Leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage said that he was "appalled and upset" by the decision and that it was wrong that "if anyone tries to question... the open door policy, that they are immediately written off as racist as an attempt to clamp down on the argument".[17][18] He said that his party is officially constituted as a non-racist, non-sectarian, libertarian party, as defined in the party constitution.[19]

I am broadly happy with that text. The IP editor above favoured a considerably longer section; I have no objection to a somewhat longer section. I would like to add some more cites specifically linking events to their possible effect on the by-election result, as suggested above. We then have two further citations about the campaign (one about Labour, one about RESPECT), as given above, but I am less certain what to do about them.

In the interests of seeking a consensus, are we happy with the length of the text on the UKIP fostering affair being about one paragraph long, or would anyone still like more? Are there specific additional cites that are needed? What other elements of the campaign warrant coverage? Is there anything else? Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Some more general coverage of the campaign at [7] Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel that this new text is neutral and fair. My main concerns have been addressed. However I must once again object to the bit where it says "he said", when refering to UKIP as non-racist, non-sectarian and Libertarian, it is to vague, the constitution is a legal document as are all party constitutions. May I refer you to a practical example: The Labour Party under Tony Blair's leadership had to be repeal Clause IV of their constitution before the party could change it's policy on nationalisation of state utilities and railways. Also I think it's important that something is quoted from the couple who had their foster children removed from them, the telegraph interviewed the couple and direct quotes are on their website. It is important to realise that the primary victims in all of this are the children and the couple concerned, they should be quoted in my view. Other than those 2 points I am happy with what has been suggested and would like to thank those who have made efforts to reach consensus. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to comment on the length of the text, yea a paragraph's fine, provided there is comment from all sides that's fine by me, I would only add an extra 2sentences ish stating what the family themselves have said about their experience. Also yes I would like to encourage people to add other elements of the campaign, so yes something about the Labour and Respect campaigns as you say seems like a good idea to me! It wouldn't be completely fair if there was only coverage of one party when this clearly isn't the only thing going on! I'm just glad we've past the point of pretending that a scandall as big as this within the constituency durring the campaign (which has an effect on the campaign) is not happening. So thankyou for being reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the story has moved on a little since the previous paragraph was drafted, but we are still awaiting an official explanation and decisions from the borough council following their report. I think we should, as a bare minimum, trim some and probably all of the direct quotes from the paragraph, and the views of the foster parents should not be included. I repeat, this is an article about a parliamentary by-election, not about UKIP, or tabloid publicity over a fostering issue. A reminder - we are writing an encyclopedia, not a news release. I won't draft anything, or support anything being included, until we can put together a more considered form of words. We can easily wait until after the election is over before including anything about the fostering issue at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite happy to wait until Rotherham Borough Council release and comment on the report! However I really do not think removing comments is in any way appropriate, as you say this is an encyclopedia entry and has to be balanced and non-biased, the best way of getting accurate information is both by reporting the facts and most of those facts come from 'the horses' mouth as it were, the parents, Joyce Thacker and then UKIP have a right to defend themselves and other political parties have a right to distance themselves from this decision, most of that is included in the above draft! I am happy to wait till after the report is released before anything is posted on wikipedia, I understand why that might be necessary. I am very much against fact sensoring or manipulation by removing quotations, it's not uncommon to make direct quotations on wiki! Like you say this an encyclopedia, based on facts, since a lot of this unfortunate incident is to do with who said what and when, I would say quotations are pretty key to the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk)

To summarise where we are. Some progress has been made. The version I gave above was the one from Ghmyrtle. I'm largely happy with it. 81.133.12.45 is largely happy with it. However, Ghmyrtle, you appear not now to be happy with it. It seems to me that we have a large number of reliable sources citations that put the fostering issue as a key part of the by-election campaign, more than we had previously, so I don't follow your rationale for further. BTW, [8] is another article on the local campaign that seems of relevant; it also provides a second source for the report of a walkout in response to Labour's candidate selection. And this piece by UKIP leader Farage, [9], may also be relevant. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And there's [10] Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My rationale is simply that we may be giving the whole episode - and certainly the comments of individual politicians - undue weight, and we should guard against doing that, especially when (at least in theory) what we write could influence the election itself. From the point of view of writing an encyclopedia, there is no significant advantage in writing something on Tuesday or Wednesday, as against writing it on Friday. Just because a newspaper article has been written in a reliable source, it doesn't mean that we must include it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think it's clear that Rotherham Borough Council are not going to make any further efforts till after the by-election, therefore I'm happy to agree with Ghmyrtle that we wait till Friday. I really don't see how a neutrally written article on wikipedia is going to influence the by-election result when every newspaper and every news channel/programme in the land (and indeed world wide) have been covering this story in a favourable light for UKIP. If anything a neutral article would have taken the 'dazzling glow' of innocence (as Ghmyrtle might see it) the press have created off of UKIP! I agree with Bondegezou in that I don't understand why Ghmyrtle changed their mind! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The by-election is on Thursday 29 November. The issue is whether articles that have been published in reliable media sources in the run-up to the election (for details see previous posts) - particularly relating to a dispute over the local council's policy on foster care, which has been widely reported in the UK press and led to comments from senior politicians of all parties contesting the election - should be summarised in the article prior to the election itself; and, if so, how much weight should be given to it in total, and how much weight to the opinions of individual politicians in particular. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a tricky road to walk. Wikipedia is not a news service, nor a blog, nor a campaign website, nor a social media site. It's here to record facts, and to do so after the event rather than a real time update of who said what to whom. The ongoing controversy has a place on Wikipedia, only not in the way some editors would desire. Indeed, very few by-election articles on Wikipedia has a "Campaign" section, and it would be dangerous to have one, because of the edit warring we have witnessed here. The isolated incident with the council could/should be summarised elsewhere, for it does not have a direct link to the by-election. It did not involve any candidates, only parties, and it did not impact directly on a campaign (for example, no campaigning was delayed or postponed). This article should only mention it, not enter into a full examination into the wheres and what-nots. Ultimately this article is about the by-election - why it was caused (we've got that), who stood for election (we've got that), and the result (we'll have that). Anything else is peripheral, and that certainly includes the child adoption case. doktorb _words^deeds 16:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove if sources do not make the connection to the election - This smells like WP:SYNTH to me. When we bring in uninvolved sources to make our own point, it is original research. But if the multiple reliable sources make the connection to the election, it is definitely worth a mention. As the disputed section stands, it looks like it's giving too much weight to the controversy considering that it was condemned by sources "across the political spectrum". Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we need to consider whether any event will have lasting impact, worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Considering this happened only a couple days ago, I think we should wait to publish until the connection to the election is established by the sources, and its lasting impact is more obvious. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with some of the above. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the community still prides itself on timeliness. UncleG protected this article until after the election because of a specific edit war (see discussion above) and, if I'm not misrepresenting him, said he would unprotect the article when that edit war was resolved, which could yet be before the election. Those particular circumstances should not be stretched into a general approach of only reporting an election campaign after the fact and I see no policy support for such a position. I recommend people read WP:NOTNEWS in full; it does not appear to me to support the positions laid out above by either Ghmyrtle or Doktorbuk. I quote: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

While it is difficult editing articles during election campaigns -- as Doktorbuk and I both know well from other recent by-election articles -- that difficulty is not a reason not to try. Wikipedia managed to provide comprehensive, encyclopaedic coverage of the 2012 US elections while those campaigns were going on while dealing with much tougher editorial disagreements than here!

UK Parliamentary by-elections can be significant events in the country's political history, although they aren't all by any means. Wikipedia seeks to be comprehensive and we should cover the details of by-elections where they are notable and reliably sourced. I disagree with Doktorbuk that an article about a by-election should merely be on "why it was caused", "who stood for election", "and the result", and that "Anything else is peripheral". Other by-election articles do have "campaign" sections and, where they do not, I hope editors will add them. In this case, the campaign has attracted considerable national media attention and that warrants coverage. We, it seems to me, are close to agreement on that coverage: we're talking about a paragraph of text with multiple citations taken from the UK national press. That would not appear to go against WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.

I note for comparison: Feltham and Heston by-election, 2011, Cardiff South and Penarth by-election, 2012, Manchester Central by-election, 2012, Middlesbrough by-election, 2012 & Croydon North by-election, 2012 - no campaign section, but notes on the candidates go further than merely listing them and other issues are noted, beyond Doktorbuk's short list. None received the same national attention as the Rotherham contest. Corby by-election, 2012 - has a campaign section. Bradford West by-election, 2012 - has a campaign section and an aftermath section. Belfast West by-election, 2011 - two additional sections surrounding the particular issues of that by-election. Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 - has a campaign section. These were all edited and evolved during campaigning, before the elections.

Considering this article in particular, we have a by-election campaign and we have an affair concerning fostering in the locale. Ghmyrtle provides an apt summary at the top of this section. Both have separately attracted national media coverage. Both have also been covered together and explicitly linked (e.g. [11] and numerous links given above). If reliable sources link the two issues, then so should we and I disagree with Doktorbuk's description of the matter as peripheral.

The fostering affair does not have its own article (perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't) -- although it is briefly mentioned on the UK Independence Party article. In the absence of its own article, it seems to me appropriate to have a brief (a few sentences) description of the affair here to explain its relevance to the local campaign, and then to discuss its influence on the local campaign. Precisely how much detail to give, how much to quote involved politicians, I think these are details where we are close to agreement, but look forward to additional input and comment from other editors. Ghmyrtle's own version of the text before the article was protected has now received support from myself and an IP editor, the other parties in the edit war. I do not entirely follow Ghmyrtle's reasoning why that version of the text is now inappropriate and needs substantial further revision, but am entirely open to alternatives and hope suggestions are made. Bondegezou (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you been involved with a presidential election article during an election cycle? It is a freaking BATTLEGROUND. So when you say we "managed to provide comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage" of the 2012 elections, what you mean is that the edit warring didn't cause a black hole that enveloped the entire page. In any case, yes, Wikipedia covers recent events, but for example, look at Talk:Romnesia. Lots of mainstream(ish) coverage there, but the article itself ended up being deleted, and I don't think you'll find coverage anywhere on Wikipedia. Every little thing has vastly inflated significance the last few days before the election. We're supposed to try to remain objective and put things in perspective, though that rarely happens in those critical days, which is why those pages are almost always at least semi-protected at the time.

Anyway, that wasn't supposed to be the heart of my argument. I'm living in the US, so I have no idea how significant the coverage or staying power of the issue is. My main point is that we need sources to make the connection to the election, and what I saw in the section did not imply that. I don't know if the sources exist, but at least that part of policy is clear, that we can't mention every controversy that could potentially affect the election unless the sources make that connection. So once that connection has been established, THEN we should debate whether or not WP:NOT#NEWS applies. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Two people have raised this point. Yes, we have multiple reliable sources that make the connection (examples above). That is not in contention. Can we move past that question? Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations for the above: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not really my responsibility to dig through a week's worth of back and forth :p. Anyway, if the multiple reliable sources make the connection, then there should be at least some coverage on Wikipedia. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not mentioning this is quite simply crazy.--Scott Mac 09:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It will be mentioned, but the coverage has to be measured, neutral, and focused. There is no need for Wikipedia to cover the story on this article *at all*, by the way, and once the polling is done and the votes are counted, then we can all decide what is mentioned and how it is covered. This article is about the by-election, not news running along side that election doktorb _words^deeds 10:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) The article has been fully protected - not what I suggested or supported. (2) The only wording drafted so far gives, in my view, undue weight to the opinions of one or two parties involved in the campaign, over a single issue. (3) No-one has suggested an alternative wording for discussion. So, as Doktorbuk says, the article stays as it is, until it is unprotected - and it does not matter that that is the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of finding you 2 BBC sources and a Telegraph and Guardian source that link this scandal and the by-election! It's simple there's a link, I'm happy to provide more sources if you wish! These sources cover the political spectrum, we have the neutral BBC, the 'Left of centre' Guardian and the 'Right of centre Telegrsaph', still not happy? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9708791/Could-this-be-Ukips-day.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/25/rotherham-byelection-ukip-golden-moment http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-20517712 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you expecting someone to draft something for you? If so, why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When the article is unprotected tomorrow, you can draft a piece then. This piece can - and probably will - be edited doktorb _words^deeds 13:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel we're starting to move in the right direction! The point is, I have already written something, other people have already written things, I largely approved with the above edited version, I suggested an addition of 2more lines. Comment from the couple themselves. However Ghmyrtle was the only person to disagree with the revision! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As we said, you can put that on the article tomorrow. Once the dust has settled, other editors will be able to look and decide if it's neutral, focused and relevant. doktorb _words^deeds 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure tomorrow's fine, this was all agreed the other day. I agreed with Ghmyrtle on that one particular issue. Not that I think it would have ever had an impact on the campaign, if anyting it would have neutralised any impact because all the media coverage has been positive. We must have a very high opinion of ourselves if we think we have any form of an impact when compared to the national press and television and indeed the international media. I just don't buy that but like I say I've been on the record as being happy to wait till Friday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like there are no more concerns now that the election is over? Dreambeaver(talk) 23:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Result

LD – 451 Bristow – 29 Lab – 9,866 Collins – 4,648 Copley – 582 Dickson – 51 Dyson – 261 Guest – 1,804 Ridley – 1,778 Wildgoose – 703 Wilson – 1,157

doktorb _words^deeds 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the actual number of votes for Labour? BBC says 9,866, Rotherham council website says 9,966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frinton100 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

9,866 is what the returning officer spoke, but the signed written declaration is the definitive result. The council website appears to be a copy of the official declaration, so either it was incorrectly transcribed for the website or the returning officer's eyesight failed when the document was read out. The council also lists TUSC as 281 not 261. The council figures do at least add up: 451 LD + 29 None (Clint) + 9,966 Lab + 4,648 UKIP + 582 Ind (Copley) + 51 Ind (Dickson) + 281 TUSC + 1,804 BNP + 1,778 Resp + 703 ED + 1,157 Con votes + 46 rejected = 21,496 ballot papers issued; but it's possible that the sum adds up because of spreadsheet propagating errors. At a guess, though, I'd say that the broadcast results are incorrect. — Richardguk (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I typed the results straight onto here because of the page protection, so obviously my rapid typing and tiredness may have had played their parts. As Richard correctly states, however, the signed declaration is the final word. What it says, we record doktorb _words^deeds 13:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your typing accurately reflects the figures still listed in the BBC report, which in turn reflects what was spoken, so you're not to blame! Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether the council website is an mistranscription of the signed declaration, or whether the returning officer made a mistake when reading the figures out. — Richardguk (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Though the news websites haven't been updated since last night, the council website still shows Lab 9,966 and TUSC 281. The council webpage appears to be a close reproduction of the wording on the official declaration form. Also, the council figures are now reflected at BBC Democracy Live (sourced to Dods) and parliament.uk. Since the council figures are the only ones which agree with the council's published totals (taking account of the 46 rejected ballots), I think the written result council's website is now a more reliable source than the acting returning officer's spoken announcement on the night. I have therefore updated the article and included relevant references. I have also included hidden references so that future editors are aware of the discrepancy. — Richardguk (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rotherham by-election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121120010006/http://www.rotherham.gov.uk:80/info/362/elections-voting/2395/uk_parliamentary_by-election_for_rotherham_constituency/3 to http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/362/elections-voting/2395/uk_parliamentary_by-election_for_rotherham_constituency/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• JaneCollinsMEPUKIP (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)