Talk:2014 Clacton by-election

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Too soon?

I redirected this to the constituency article because it had been proposed for deletion and didn't think we should lose what was here already. But as was pointed out by someone who restored it, we have started by-election articles before without official announcements, and there are several reliable sources mentioning this. The question is also posed as to whether there will be a by-election. It will go ahead if Carswell has officially taken the Manor of Norstead or Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and there's too much time before the next election for the not to be a by-election. So is it too soon for this article? IMHO, I don't think it is. This is Paul (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steward of Northstead Manor. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people are too keen to start articles when they hear something in the news. In all likelihood this will happen, but until it is legally confirmed (by the writ being issued), articles should not be created, and if they are, they should be deleted or redirected until the writ is issued. Number 5 7 22:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the writ being issued should necessarily be the point at which an article can be created. (Writs have been issued and yet the by-election then not happen after all.) We should, as always, follow reliable sources. If multiple reliable sources say there will be a by-election, then that's what we should report. Bondegezou (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a lot of "reliable" sources are written by journalists who don't really have the in-depth knowledge to know the real technical details like this (I have worked in the public sector and despair at how wrong most newspapers were about the most basic of government-related things). If we have confirmation that journalists are making assumptions (here the BBC confirms that "Technically the seat could be left vacant until the general election"), then we shouldn't follow like sheep. Number 5 7 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you're just not right on this one Number 5 7, it isn't possible for the seat to lay vacant until the general election because of rules that came into force around by-elections, there are specific time scales now in place. Given that Carswell is now Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, he has formally resigned as an MP and therefore there will definitely be a by-election before November. I don't really think there's anymore to be said on that. Owl In The House (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Number 57 is right in part as that sort of thing can happen with list MPs. There is currently a vacant seat in the Scottish Parliament following the death of Margo MacDonald, which will remain vacant until their next election because she was an independent and there were no one to replace her. But I think in Westminster the by-election would only be held back if it were to occur less than a certain amount of time from the general election. This is Paul (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was six months by law, three months by convention. Could be wrong. Have no idea on Scottish Parliament rules. JASpencer (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different set of rules and indeed voting/seat allocation systems for Westminster and Holyrood, Number 5 7 is just plain wrong on this. The by-election will have taken place by Novemeber, The BBC's Nick Robinson says it is likely to be held on [9th of October (we should not report this in the article as it is hearsay). In theory it is still possible for other seats to fall vacant and by-elections to be held right up until mid/late March, although the prospect of that actually happening is incredibly unlikely. Anyway enough hearsay, the point is there is going to be a by-election. Owl In The House (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed as a reliable source?

UKIP's local chairman is quoted from Buzzfeed saying that Carswell may not be selected. Is this really a reliable source? (There seems to be selective quotation here as wel, but let's leave that aside.) JASpencer (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Financial Times [1] and The Guardian [2], two unimpeachable reliable sources, have quoted Buzzfeed, which suggests to me that, yes, Buzzfeed is reliable here. Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Guardian nor the FT quote the UKIP chairman (particularly the selective quotation here). This is a WP:BLP issue and needs to be removed until a better quote is found. WP:UNDUE also comes into place. JASpencer (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think these days BuzzFeed is not the place it used to be; they are moving into news and current affairs and as such can be considered as reliable as, say, the Huffington Post. I can't see how UNDUE comes into this. doktorb _words^deeds 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer, could you say more about why you think there is selective quotation here? Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The secretary of the Clacton association made a three or four paragraph quote to Buzzfeed in which she said that she was pleased to see the defection and at a later stage that she had hoped that Carswell would defect. The only bit of the quote to be taken here was a bit where she said that he was just a newly unemployed MP. It's a juicy quote, but it shouldn't have centre place. JASpencer (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential BLP issues re the Labour candidate

I've just got the Guido Fawkes email blast and it mentions a couple of personal allegations about the Labour candidate. Currently it's sitting behind the Sun's paywall but it is likely to get on the Guido Fawkes site in the next couple of days, which has historically meant Wikipedia editing. We may have to brush up on the WP:BLP implications. JASpencer (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This story is starting to resurrect on forums. Minor motoring offence but it could be spun in a worse way. This should not go on the main article as it does not relate to the Clacton by-election and any mention would fall foul of WP:SYNTH. However if there is a story that links the conviction to the by-election then it's not so clear cut. JASpencer (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate box

By-Election 2014: Clacton
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	UKIP	Douglas Carswell
	Labour	Tim Young

Can people please stop removing the candidate box, it is a standard piece of UK byelection article layouts. We have reliable sources for 2 candidates, yes there is a lot of media hearsay and speculation going on in the background but Wikipedia is not a news network, it is not a place for hearsay, it is an encyclopedia. There is talk that Tim Young might not be the Labour candidate but in terms of hard facts, he is the official Labour candidate for the seat and the Labour Party have not explicitly or otherwise said that this will change, speculation and hearsay are not relevant, facts are. As for Carswell and UKIP, well, it is clear that Lord has been dropped as candidate, yes there is bitterness around that but UKIP's NEC have made it perfectly clear that Carswell is their candidate. We really have got to ignore hearsay in the media etc when it comes to reporting current events and facts generally. I have readded the info box and just in case there is any more funny business I have copied and pasted it to this talk page so that the format is not lost if and when when someone removes it from the article again. Owl In The House (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that I have reported User:Arms & Hearts on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for Edit Warring after repeated warnings. Owl In The House (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note the table is normally ordered in alphabetical order by party as to be neutral, and as an aside why do we have a polling section this is an encyclopedia not a news service. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the table is always ordered in Alphabetical order by the candidates Surname. That is what this table does. And, yes we do have a polling section, that is also following the standard layout for UK Parliamentary by-election articles. Agreed Wikipedia is not a News service, which is why we should deal in reported facts and ignore the hearsay, for the avoidance of doubt professionally conducted polls, published by BPC pollsters are reported facts. Owl In The House (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the consensus about listing by candidate rather than party as all the articles I have been involved with list it by party? Also do you know of a centralised discussion and consensus that decided that detailed polling information was encyclopedic, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't believe I've come across you before, have you ever been involved in editing a by-election article, you seem to be unaware of the differences between a main election article. Yes, we list by party for general elections, European elections, local elections etc but not for by-elections. Please feel free to look through the edit history of all 18 of the previous by-elections (prior to the result) and you will see how candidates are ordered correctly. Also are you seriously, trying to suggest that polling shouldn't be included in this article? We have included polling for every other by-election where professional, independent polls have been conducted, we even have entire articles dedicated to polling, I'm not sure why you think reporting them is some how out of place with wikipedia or indeed stylistically non encyclopedic. Owl In The House (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from following your comments at WP:AN to try and help and support inclusion of the candidate box, I have created by-election articles before (about five) but the listing by candidate didnt look right (that said I cant remember if I got it right in the articles I did either!), I dont have a problem with which way it is ordered just looking to see if it was consistent and that the consensus was documented somewhere. And yes I am serious that detailed polling results dont have a place in an encyclopedia, sure a one line summary after the election showing any trends if it is notable, but not detailed polling results. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining the discussion. Yes, I am also pretty big on consistency and yes the ordering is consistent with what has been and gone before on previous articles. As is the inclusion of polling tables, you are the first to my knowledge to dispute what has become a standard piece of layout for by-election articles. Whilst I agree that lines about betting odds etc are dubious and unencyclopedic, the same can't be said for including BPC registered polls. It is far better to include a data table then a sentence, besides it seems unlikely that this is going to be the only poll for this by-election. Polls are part and parcel of elections and it would be strange to make an exception in this case by not including it. Surely you're not suggesting we should remove vast swathes of Wiki content such as articles like Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Owl In The House (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be still nice to have the consensus on list order somewhere on one of the project pages so people like me dont keep asking about it! Not seen Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election before, what an awful article in my opinion no what wikipedia should be doing and I am sure a list of detailed results is not encyclopedic, but it appears to be a more global issue so not really for debate at this article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't an issue, all "Statements of Persons Nominated" (official election doc) and indeed ballot papers rank the candidates in alphabetical order of Surname, that is the reason we do the same on Wikipedia for by-elections. I can't believe that you edit UK political articles and you have never come across Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, or indeed any of it's preceding articles, or even any of it's international equivalent articles. Polling articles have long been a feature of Wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with them, provided every single poll is included and that we are consistent in the way we report the polls and indeed that they are well sourced articles. Anyway both of these issues aren't really discussion points for this article. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one dreaded moment I thought this was going to be about that other perennial debate; the summary box in the top-right. doktorb _words^deeds 10:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, someone had already tried to add candidates to it but I removed them already and explained why to the editors in question, so it hasn't been a problem since. This is also why a candidate box is a standard piece of the article layout for ongoing by-elections. Thanks :) Owl In The House (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war in progress.

This sentence, pulled from the BBC article, makes no grammatical sense.

Of course they talk the talk before elections. They say what they feel they must say to get our support when they want our support, but on so many issues – on modernising our politics, on the recall of MPs, on controlling our borders on less government, on bank reform, on cutting public debt, on an EU referendum – they never actually make it happen.[6]

Who thinks this rubbish should remain like this in the article? It's exactly as the BBC have transcribed it and needs a comma. --LeedsKing (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should remain, it is well sourced and does seem to be a list of the reasons that has caused him to make this decision, to remove it would not be for the betterment of the article. Owl In The House (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QUOTE lays out how Wikipedia handles quotations, including how to handle errors in quotations. Bondegezou (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue prominence for Roger Lord?

Roger Lord was certainly colourful but should his travails take up more than half the candidate area? He was selected before Carswell defected, he refused to stand aside, the rules were against him and then he left UKIP and the County Council. Do we need to have anything more than that?

JASpencer (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed a bit, although I suspect there's still some fat in there. JASpencer (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Socialist Party candidature

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29027997 Not listed here. Either this is a crap source from the BBC or somebody's jumped the gun. I hope it's the former. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll find out for sure in three or four days time. Let's not get into a reliable sources rabbit hole, which could go either way when we can leave it on here and take it off if they are just puffing out their chest (admitedly likely). JASpencer (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self description

Am edit war seems to be brewing between User:The Almightey Drill and User:Doktorbuk about Charlotte Rose's profession. I can't see any way to read WP:BLP other than if people don't call themselves prostitutes, Wikipedia shouldn't either. JASpencer (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. She's open and proud about the fact that she makes money by having sex with customers. The word in the English language for that is "prostitute". It's not against BLP because it's not a baseless allegation, she's admitted to it. I guess drug dealers are "entrepreneurs of alternative pharmaceuticals" as well. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with JASpencer. Would you call a burger flipper in McDonalds a chef? Charlotte calls herself a herself a high class courtesan here, and elsewhere an escort. From what she says, she also does other sex work. Unless there are references calling her a prostitute, we should not. Martin451 23:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but isn't an escort just a person who accompanies people to functions, pretending to be a partner? The article says that she is a "sex worker" who "charges £180 an hour". Politicians, as she now is, can call themselves whatever they want. We don't need to euphemise with medieval synonyms. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:JASpencer and disagree with User:The Almightey Drill. She does not use the word "prostitute". We cannot, as an encyclopedia, put words into her mouth. She uses specific terms; we must also. doktorb _words^deeds 07:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Doktorbuk and others. "Prostitute" is a loaded term: we should use either the words she uses or something more neutral, like commercial sex worker. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron's birthday

I was going to delete the bit about it being Cameron's birthday on the grounds that it isn't really relevant. However, I see that the newspapers have seen fit to draw attention to this bit of trivia (e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11069776/Happy-birthday-Prime-Minister-Clacton-by-election-set-for-Camerons-48th.html). Does that make it relevant, I wonder? --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clacton by-election, 2014. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the links checked out as true but the other failed (well, it showed half of the first line, the rest was behind a paywall) - how do I reflect this? sheridan (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]