Talk:Northern Independence Party

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is notable - see https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-northern-independence-party-to-stand-first-parliamentary-candidate-in-hartlepool-by-election-3168052 and https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19164754.northern-independence-party-stand-hartlepool-by-election/ and https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/politics/northern-independence-party-new-campaign-independent-north-england-explained-3019241 ---- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a Notable party that is gaining traction, so it shouldn't be deletedJudeobasquelanguage (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be deleted, it's a newer party that's gaining traction in North England, even soruces like Evolve Politics have talked about them Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

The Policies part has too much uncited POV statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.192.168 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Edits are being reverted if they mention that the party appears to have attracted a large number of people alienated from the Labour Party by the new leader's clampdown on Antisemitism, and indeed that there are serious questions to ask about the leader who has made Antisemitic statement and blocked Jewish journalists who have sought answers about these, in addition to selecting a candidate who has defended Corbyn's antisemitic behaviour and backed the "smears" narrative of denying anti-Jewish racism. Can we have a discussion about how to incorporate this important issue in a NPOV way? 90.252.117.157 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that demonstrate there is an issue of antisemitism in the party? — Czello 17:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle would seem to be a good place to start when looking for sources on the existence of anti-Jewish racism. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/northern-independence-party-leader-s-israel-zionist-posts-revealed-1.513655 90.252.117.157 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel and Zionism isn't antisemitism, though, and there is also a premis being raised that Corbyn is antisemitic without any evidence being shown.

The Jewish Chronicle is a right-wing rag and have no credibility on this subject ItsKesha (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle with regards to the British left is in serious doubt, and no accusation of anti-semitism has been levelled at the party or its members in RS. BLP would mean we must be exceptionally careful around this, I am seeking advice about whether the IP's comments should be removed per BLP. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP's comment is completely fine. Giving an opinion that Corbyn and Proudfoot's behaviour and statements (not their intrinsic character) is antisemitic is well within WP:BLP and if no-one could make comments like this then Wikipedia would be unable to stop antisemitism festering within our community. However, the JC source doesn't look particularly useful here, because (a) it's mostly about a person, not the party as a whole; and (b) it doesn't really contain any evaluative opinions or relevant facts. For example, in some contexts, using the phrase "dark money backers" can be antisemitic (if the person is implying some conspiracy of a Jewish-controlled society), but in other contexts it's simply a concern over a politician's corporate conflicts of interest. So we'd need a source indicating in whose view (the journalist's, or maybe some non-profit) what comments or actions by the party are antisemitic and for what reason in order to mention it (with attribution to the originator of that view). — Bilorv (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the comment is the individual opinion of the poster, not of the source, so it is OR whatever. Without going into detail, the remarks on dark money relate to literal dark money, money whose source was not known. The relevant section of BLPTALK is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Boynamedsue (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

But the comment is related to making content choices (we should very much be thinking about content choices in whether/how to mention antisemitism in this article) and that some people think Corbyn has made antisemitic statements can easily be sourced with most anything from Jeremy Corbyn#Allegations of antisemitism or antisemitism in the Labour Party, while the IP gave a source which they reasonably thinks indicates that Proudfoot has made an antisemitic statement. — Bilorv (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be discussing this until a decision is made re BLP by a competent admin, given the legal implications.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Consider me to be that individual. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, as long as sources are provided (RS or not) there may be OR and/or misinterpretations going on, but discussing potentially problematic edits to an article is the purpose of a talk page. I would recommend caution on what gets said, but I don't see anything at this time that needs to be hidden, suppressed, or otherwise removed. Primefac (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely worrying to see an editor parroting the talking points of anti-Jewish racists, down to falsely claiming that anti-Jewish racism is merely "criticism of Israel" and falsely claiming there is no evidence for Jeremy Corbyn's racism (much of it is even in his Wikipedia article, though I see the same problematic editor has been trying to remove it with the result that the page is now subject to arbitration under the category Arab-Israeli conflict (imagine how ridiculous that would sound if we hadn't lived through the last six years)).

Yes, the Jewish Chronicle has supported the political right more than the political left over the last decade. Given the way the left in the UK has comported itself with regard to Jews, that shouldn't be surprising in the slightest. Before you defame a 180 year old newspaper merely because it reflects its readership, maybe consider how you would react if someone said (for example) that criticism of anti-black racism in the Conservative party couldn't be sourced from The Voice simply because its editorial (as opposed to reporting) content reflects its readership of African Caribbean Londoners. 84.68.41.136 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You could give WP:NOTAFORUM a read, though I suspect you probably already have, given your use of the term "problematic user". There are concerns about the JC on leftwing topics as it has been found by IPSO to have published 7 or 8 stories containing false information about people on the British left in 3 years. As for the article, it does not even claim that any NIP-related individuals are antisemitic, therefore no claim of such can be included in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a forum on Antisemitism. I'm asking for a conversation about how we objectively address an emerging problem of racism in a new political party which has been judged notable. and it would be great if that conversation could be done without acting as a comment honeypot for those apparently who wish to excuse all the other anti-Jewish racism which has been endured from the UK left in the last six years. That's you two using this as a forum, not me.

Smearing one of the main reporting outlets of the community which is the victim of that racism isn't a constructive contribution to that discussion, but since you brought it up - it's interesting that detail is rarely given by those who wish to do them down. The most high profile example was that they had to apologise for claiming someone now close to Corbyn had been thrown out of the Labour Party in the 1980s, because Corbyn's Labour Party said they'd lost the paperwork from that era, so couldn't prove it was true. Utter joke. I stand by my view that users who patrol the profiles of people widely regarded as antisemites by Jews, trying to whitewash attempts to document that racism, are problematic. Particularly if the sum total of their attempts to remove such documentation are comments such as "Nah".

Now, does anyone have anything on-topic and substantive to say about the fact that the leader of this notable party defends people who smear British rabbis, boasts of his ability to track down "Zionists", and blocks Jewish journalists who ask him questions? 84.68.41.136 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not smearing anyone, I am neutrally stating a fact regarding the JC. If there are articles in Reliable Sources accusing the NIP of antisemitism, then we can add them where the satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Have you got any such sources? They have to specifically say "this is antisemitic", which the JC does not do. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just answering some factual concerns re the last post, which I didn't do earlier as I had reported them as potentially libellous. In the case in which IPSO paid damages to a woman, she is not close to Jeremy Corbyn, she requested her own party record which couldn't be traced. Are you alleging collusion between the party membership department and the complainant? There were also 5 other proven falsehoods in the JC's reporting on that individual, a fact which you are likely aware of. Some falsehoods, the JC refused to correct, despite them being clearly documented, until IPSO intervened and ordered them to pay damages. Please stop hiding behind anonymity to make libellous accusations against private individuals. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: please do not make accusations of libel when you have been told by a checkuser that I don't see anything at this time that needs to be hidden, suppressed, or otherwise removed. See Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats. It is also not acceptable to treat an unregistered user this way when you do not know their personal situation (there is no evidence they are acting untoward by not registering an account). — Bilorv (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely will not take any legal action against any individual based on these comments, and would be in no position to do so as I have no connection to any individual referred to or alluded to on this page. I do, however, consider the statements to be libellous and defamatory. As you are aware from your arguments, the JC have not accused the individual named above of making an antisemitic statement, whereas the IP has. The IP is also suggesting that several individuals within the Labour Party and a woman who the JC libelled colluded to commit fraud, and stating that this 30 year old paperwork going missing was the reason she won her IPSO case, which is a lie. This is not acceptable behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Primefac: Boynamedsue is continuing to insist that the comments are libel and defamation (strictly legal claims) despite my understanding that your comment implies there is no libel/defamation on this page. Boynamedsue is also, in my view, making repeated personal attacks and unwarranted insinuations of misconduct against another volunteer for their choice to edit unregistered. Can you offer any further feedback? — Bilorv (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I consider insinuating criminal conduct by identifiable private individuals, as the IP does here, to be unacceptable behaviour, and in breach of BLPTALK. My objection regarding the IP, is not that they choose to use an IP, but that they constantly switch IP, making themselves untraceable and unaccountable for the extremely controversial comments they make.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP said Philip Proudfoot blocks journalists because they're Jewish, and described Corbyn as "a known antisemite". Are those not defamatory? ItsKesha (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP did not state the first thing, they merely insinuated it. The language around Corbyn is insulting, unsubstantiated and incorrect, but far from uncommon in the UK's pathetic political discourse. So they are allowed to say it here, as if it were a problem it would have been sorted out elsewhere. I don't think they are allowed to say things that are demonstrably false and damaging to the reputations of living individuals, especially ones outside the public eye. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to be absolutely explicit. Corbyn is a known Antisemite. He has a decades-long history of unrepentant antisemitic behaviour, and the reason none of the hundreds of people who have called out his antisemitism have been sued by him (unlike a Tory MP who mistakenly claimed he had spied for Communist Czechoslovakia) is that he knows he would lose. Truth is an absolute defence in British law to defamation claims. https://www.camera.org/article/jeremy-corbyns-antisemitism-crisis-a-timeline/

Similarly, therefore, Proudfoot cannot sue for people saying he (or to be strictly accurate, whoever runs his party's social media) blocks Jewish journalists who ask about his problematic statements regarding Jews, because those journalists have the receipts: https://twitter.com/acailler/status/1376888749657882624 - we may not be able to feature it in the article yet because it's a primary source and therefore counts as research, but it sure as heck happened. If a political party is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I fail to see how the Leader of that party can be "outside the public eye" so we're all good. Thanks.

Corbyn not suing anybody does not equal an admission of guilt, that is a false equivalency and you know it. Corbyn never sued a Tory MP, another unsubstantiated lie. Corbyn has been, and continues to be, on the receiving end of all sorts of ludicrous accusations over the last six years. Cop on. Oh and lol ItsKesha (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright for the sake of absolute accuracy he threatened to sue if the MP didn't retract his statement, and the MP retracted his statement, so he didn't sue. How many people has Corbyn threatened to sue for documenting his antisemitism? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/19/tory-deletes-spy-tweet-about-jeremy-corbyn-after-legal-threat

Oh and 'lol' back at you since we're playing that game on this 'non-forum': https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/left-wing-outlet-apologises-over-antisemitism-panel-segment/ 90.252.69.185 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Brown =/= Novara. Good try though. Oh and Corbyn didn't even sue for this. Are you saying that is true? lol if you do m8. ItsKesha (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You didn't read the link, did you. Brown is not Novara (though she is its commissioning editor) but the comments for which Novara apologised were made by Brown. I'd suggest the main reason Corbyn didn't sue over the "network" article is that "knowing someone" isn't a specific defamatory accusation, and going to court to complain about being accused of knowing some dodgy people might have entailed discomfort for both parties - The Sun because he has no particular connection to many of the people named in the "network" article, and Corbyn because he does, nonetheless, pal around with some extremely dodgy people. This seems of limited relevance to the NIP other than through its overt pitch to disaffected Corbynites. 90.252.69.185 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Novara apologising =/= Brown apologising. Novara are careerist wetwipes, of course they apologised. I'm not even going to respond to the rest, I wouldn't dare give any of the rest of your nonsense any credence, for they are the arguments of idiots and desperate right-wingers. ItsKesha (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we are starting to see why you can't be regarded as a good faith editor on anything to do with Corbyn or the left. You are describing some of the furthest left people in the UK media landscape as "careerist wetwipes". I'm not sure this discussion is helping anyone but it's certainly not portraying you as able to have dispassionate conversations about figures on the left accused of harbouring anti-Jewish sentiment. 90.252.69.185 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Novara can be amongst the furthest left people in the UK media while also being careerist wetwipes. There's literally no correlation seeing as most of the UK media is massively to the right of them. Nice attempt to smear me as a bad faith editor though, thanks for that. I'm sure, however, somebody who regards Dan Hodges as a good source is acting in good faith. ItsKesha (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh and if my IP address has changed again, then for the sake of clarity it's still me. I love how much "not a forum" goes out of the window when the content of an article might reflect badly on St Jeremy. Thanks Primefac for attempting to bring some order. 90.252.69.185 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming you are the same user, I feel this is important and I am grateful for you observing the formality. Having said that, arguments are down the hall, this is contradiction. I can safely say I disagree with most of what you say, but this isn't a forum and I can't be bothered getting into it. My statement above was to confirm to the other user that you haven't broken any rules by saying things about Corbyn both I and the other user feel to be false, and that you hadn't said what you were accused of saying. Blocking Jewish journalists on twitter is not antisemitic, whereas blocking journalists for being Jews is, you did not say the latter had occurred so your statement was mischaracterised. Since you are here, I'd ask you to remove your comments about the private individual who was awarded damages from the Jewish Chronicle for the 6 separate falsehoods they published about them, as your comements appear to be accusing them of illegal activity Boynamedsue (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My point in this respect refers to paragraph 8 of the IPSO ruling. We can link it in full so people can see the whole case in context though I think attempts to discredit a mainstream Jewish news source based on them sometimes being inaccurate (find me an infallible source) is becoming tangential here - nobody is disputing the accuracy of their NIP article I think, merely its implications. https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01740-19 90.252.69.185 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle is worse than a tabloid on issues relating to the labour party. Read paragraphs 24-29 detailing the various ways said rag libelled the individual, then please remove your comments and the link. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been a vital source in documenting the widespread racism of the Corbyn era, whether you like it or not. 90.252.69.185 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There are 7 IPSO judgments against it regarding the British left in 3 years, and one mandated clarification during the period. Not reliable. Now, could you possibly remove the comment in which you accuse a person whose only claim to fame is that the Jewish Chronicle libelled them in 7 different ways of committing fraud?Boynamedsue (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not made the allegation you claim I have made, and you have been asked by others to stop claiming that I did. I merely alluded to my perception that the Corbyn-controlled Labour Party was hardly a reliable source when asked whether it was in possession of evidence which could substantiate or discredit the position of the Jewish Chronicle relating to historic events. Given what we have discovered since then (e.g. EHRC - albeit confirming what many of us already believed to be the case) that seems uncontroversial to me. But I'm not asking you to agree, and it's of limited relevance to this article. Has Proudfoot made an IPSO complaint? 90.252.69.185 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify this is the text to which I refer:The most high profile example was that they had to apologise for claiming someone now close to Corbyn had been thrown out of the Labour Party in the 1980s, because Corbyn's Labour Party said they'd lost the paperwork from that era, so couldn't prove it was true. Utter joke. You are suggesting that there was some form of collusion between the libel victim and the labour staff to "disappear" the relevant documents, and therefore the JC is not at fault. You are claiming this person was close to Corbyn, which is false. I have now shown you evidence that the JC in fact committed libel on 6 separate counts, rather than merely being about the non-existent expulsion, I would ask you to retract your statement and recognise that the JC acted without any integrity in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are reading something into my comments which is not there. She is politically close to Corbyn, indeed chose to join the party only following his election as leader. That she is a leading left-of-Labour voice in Merseyside is not in dispute and she is clearly supported by senior figures from the Corbyn era. There is no need for collusion between her and Corbyn's office to disappear any information. If that happened (I'm not saying it did, merely that Corbyn's Labour can't be assumed to be acting in good faith with regard to the Jewish Chronicle) they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves without a discussion with the now suspended Labour member in question. This continues to be of limited relevance to the NIP. 90.252.69.185 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are insinuating wrong-doing by the victims of the JC's smears. The Labour party does not have a record of lying about the JC, whereas the JC is proven to have published a large number of false stories about the Labour Party, having admitted to doing so and paid compensation on several occasions. And the phrase "close to Jeremy Corbyn" implies a personal connection, not merely being a supporter. By your new definition, I am close to Jeremy Corbyn and so are about half a million others.

So let me get this straight, you think persons unknown in the labour party lost the woman's records to embarrass the Jewish Chronicle? But you aren't accusing the woman of a crime. You know she requested her own Labour party record, are you saying she knew she had been expelled but was banking on Labour having lost her record by accident? And all this was to stop the JC from being found guilty on 7 charges of lying rather than just 6. This is conspiracy theory nonsense of the type that typifies the whole Labour antisemitism moral panic. Anyway, you are right, this is off topic. If you don't have the decency to retract your false statements, there is nothing more to be said.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Can the two of you both drop it? Now we really are in the area of things that are not acceptable on talk pages. There's a million flaming trash piles on the internet you can jump onto if you somehow enjoy such bad-natured arguments, but this page is for presenting clearly relevant sources and discussing concrete wording and content changes to an article (which this stopped being about 25 messages ago). What concrete aim do either of you think you're achieving here? I'd hat the discussion but I'm involved. If you've got more time to kill on Wikipedia then you can each find thousands of articles on subjects of your passion that can be uncontroversially improved. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, are you posting here under two different IP addresses? It is not necessarily a problem, but you must declare it. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, many IP addresses change randomly (e.g. when you restart your computer) and there's no "declaring" needed unless you're trying to evade scrutiny or masquerade as multiple people in some way. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry mostly applies to people with at least one registered account.) I think it's clear it's the same person throughout in this case.

As for the unregistered contributor, can you please provide reliable sources for your claims? So far you have given one reliable source which I have argued is not relevant to include in this article. If you give some other sources then we can discuss that rather than this abstract meta-discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Given the support they are attracting it won't be long before there's more mainstream reporting, unless this fizzles out. It's clear to me what the JC means, and it hardly feels like original research to put the 2 of "Defends a known antisemite who attacks British rabbis" and the 2 of "Obsessed with googling whether people are Zionists" to get the very obvious 4, but you do you.

If I am coming up as multiple IP's it's not on purpose. My ISP intermittently assigns me a new IP address I think. Not interested in signing my contributions given how many of the people who have called out anti-Jewish racism on the left in the last few years are under enhanced police protection. 84.68.41.136 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the unregistered user here. Regardless of whether the JC is biased it is a reliable enough publication to verify that discussion around antisemitism in the NIP is happening. We are not asking for the article to pass judgement on the party or claim objectively that it is harbouring antisemites; we are simply asking that the article includes the objective fact that the discussion is taking place. JayBeckerNCL (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention antisemitism, and it's arguably not RS for anything to do with the left. Bilorv, we do need to know for sure we are dealing with the same user though, which is clear as of now. IP editor, you need a source, wikipedia doesn't work on your abstractions from a source.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Euroscepticism

I don't think the article properly covers the NIP's attitudes to Europe. It's only briefly mentioned, and the article says they "decline to comment on Northern membership"; this isn't accurate to the manifesto published in the Huff Post, which states that the party would only accept a reversal of Brexit in the "distant future" and that it does not believe any political party, including itself, should support rejoining the EU. What does everyone else think? JayBeckerNCL (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The impression I've gotten is the idea that Brexit is in the past, and it's not something they're particularly interested in talking about as a priority. ChytilSom (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2021 (BST)

I was going to say, put what ever can be sourced. But it seems to me to be the least important question of our day, Brexit has happened, time to get on with it. Surely their strong stance on sheep-worrying is more significant?Boynamedsue (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

In the section for EU membership and respecting Brexit, change "potential Northern membership" to "potential Northumbrian membership" 2A02:C7F:B20C:4E00:D78:CC8E:9E9A:C63D (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

But the draft manifesto adds: “If however the people of a free North want to rejoin the EU at some point in the distant future, then that is a decision for the people.” From the source. I think it's fine as is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Potentially useful source

The new statesman seems to have developed a slight obsession with the Northern independence party and has now done another article on it. I have given it a quick read but it's a bit late for detailed sourcing of potential quotes for Wikipedia articles on fringe political parties so I will just note the link down here in case it comes in handy at a later date.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/04/seven-thoughts-about-northern-independence-party Llewee (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Add an opinion piece in The Guardian, "Is the Northern Independence party more serious than it looks?", to the list. — Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Reception section excessively negative

The tone of the "reception" section is negative and I would argue unbalanced, since it fails to take note of the party's positive reception on for example social media and focuses mainly on the negative opinions of a few journalists and individuals.

I propose shortening the section and including a balance of positive and negative comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.21.189 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE; neutrality doesn't have to be giving equal balance between positive and negative, it's just to represent what the reaction has been. — Czello 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing/Recruiting

The party has made yet another twitter post claiming that "Lib Dems" are trying to delete and vandalise this page.

Their idea of vandalism seems to be anything critical of them. It's quite clear that the party keeps doing this to canvass and recruit support and influence this page, if this was not already obvious during the previous two deletion discussions. 148.252.129.83 (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm getting very uncomfortable with the extent of which the party is canvassing supporters and encouraging some pretty ugly attitudes towards users on here, while constructing some paranoid conspiracy that another party altogether is somehow trying to silence them by... editing a wikipage? It just feels like the NIP is doing a lot of 'wink wink, nudge nudge' towards doxing editors, and frankly we should add a 'canvass' tag to the top of this page. This isn't a question of "if they keep doing this" either- because they keep doing this.BitterGiant (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to request page protection -- this is clearly an attempt to whip up IPs to interfere with the article. — Czello 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@BitterGiant: do you have to hand any other social media posts of them doing this? In this case I can't see that the tweet caused any negative edits (as the recent edits have just been actual vandalism of rude comments about the NIP, and surprise surprise it's the "Lib Dem" experienced editors reverting it) but I am still highly concerned by it. — Bilorv (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding encouraging conspiratorialist attitudes about a "Lib Dem conspiracy" and canvassing supporters, you can see it here: [1], here [2], and referenced here [3], with supporters posting screencaps and overt references to userpages in the responses to those tweets, as well as generally vile accusations being laid at various users who have contributed to discussion (as can be seen in the deletion logs and even in a few spots on this talk page), with the NIP account liking those replies and on occasion retweeting them. In regards to the vandalism that has been on the page, it is ironic that the "Lib Dems" being accused of conspiring to put the party down are the ones removing said vandalism it, of course (and obviosuly tbh the page did need to be locked because vandalism was becoming an issue, and well, tomorrow SOPN drops for Hartlepool and if there is an issue with the NIP's Hartlepool nomination obviosuly the page would have seen a wave of vandalism). BitterGiant (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I never fail to find it astonishing when a left-wing person/group seeks to disrupt one of the largest, most decentralised projects in human history to make information free and accessible to all. Perhaps if anyone behind the NIP's social media accounts cared about their values then they would be joining us rather than interfering with the direct democracy of a community that has written everything they have ever read on this website. — Bilorv (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey NIP, if you're reading this, include me in the next screenshot please! Also please type out my name on twitter so I can search for it, thanks. — Czello 20:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv:, they wouldn't be the first group to fundamentally misunderstand what wikipedia is though! Jdcooper (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Jdcooper here, there is very little understanding in the world about where wikipedia comes from. I'm surprised people put so much faith in it without having a clue how it works. I'm not saying they shouldn't have faith, but that the faith they have is based on the wrong reasoning. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability

We should probably have a discussion about notability? All of the links that previously gave sufficient notability are about the Hartlepool and assuming the NIP would be on the Hartlepool ballot. It is now not on the Hartlepool, or any, ballot, which kinda feels like it undermines the necessity for the page. So, understanding that this page is a sensitive topic, with all the best faith in the world and deferring to more experienced editor colleagues, what now? BitterGiant (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We just had an AfD on this. You're welcome to start a 3rd, but I'm assuming it won't go through, even despite the fact they won't be on the ballot. — Czello 20:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I hate to tell the wider community "I told you so". But NIP has yet to show any notability. Nothing notable. Twitter followers: not notable. Going vital: not notable. Not being registered: not notable. I may do a 3rd nomination after polling day to put this to bed once and for all. doktorb _words^deeds 21:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Meeting GNG is what makes it notable. Having succeeded electorally is a sufficient, not a necessary, condition for notability. Revert warring over a notability tag and threatening a third AFD a mere three weeks after the previous well-attended one makes the two of you appear like you think your individual opinions are more important than the community's overall consensus, whether or not that is your intention. — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

They do not meet GNG. doktorb _words^deeds 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It has multiple independent non-trivial sources. As others have said, this was established by consensus at AfD. Nothing has changed in that respect in this time. A few months from now we can reassess. If we want something to discuss in the meantime: Freedom Alliance (UK). Jdcooper (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll try with NIP at AfD again after polling day. And yes, I did think about Freedom Alliance, they are sending all my klaxons off at once. I might get it logged now and then get some sleep. I did put their Election Box Metadata on the talk page and then wondered if I should have done that with my concerns about notability. Oh well. Here goes. doktorb _words^deeds 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify I'm not threatening an AFD for right this very moment- rather that in line with WP:NTEMP it might be worth reassessing that notability (as so much of it was tied to the by-election which they aren't really contesting now, or the local elections they also aren't really contesting now). Although as Jdcooper notes, it would be better served in a few months or (as Doktorb suggests) after the by-election itself to have any substantial discussion. I do apologise for coming across like I'm trampling any consensus- it was just that with that back and forth over that tag, it's healthier to have the discussion be here than in a prolonged edit war that may escalate to an immediate AFD. BitterGiant (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems a fair and reasonable conversation to me. Great work on this and Hartlepool article by the way @BitterGiant:. Jdcooper (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There are still plenty of parties that have been covered by reliable sources and have actually registered on time that don't have a Wikipedia article of their own. The only thing that seems to make NIP more notable than them is their Twitter following. Sure, they also have an ex-MP supporting them but there are parties led by former MPs that don't even have Wikipedia articles either, George Galloway's Workers' Party of Britain or Frank Field's Birkenhead Social Justice, for instance. Who's to say NIP are more notable than these parties? Check back after polling day and we'll see how much this vocal Twitter following has translated into actual votes. 185.69.144.103 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources and the coverage say they are notable, not us. Not related to whether MPs support them or how many votes they've got. If no-one writes anything about them ever again then it's one event and this coverage will eventually become insufficient. If there are reliable sources about the Workers' Party of Britain or Birkenhead Social Justice, write them by all means. Jdcooper (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to argue those parties were notable, quite the opposite. If NIP fails to gain any traction in the local elections (if they've even registered in time considering their track record) then their qualifications for 'notability' will absolutely be in doubt. 185.69.144.103 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh they absolutely haven't registered in time (nomination papers have to be in tomorrow/today, IIRC), but if any of their backed candidates do win (they should be registered by then, it's usually a two-and-a-bit week process and they resubmitted on the 24th)/anyone defects to them, that would give them notability- there are plenty of parties (even several within Hartlepool!) that only have notability thanks to having had Cllrs, after all. BitterGiant (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Could we possibly just not? They satisfied WP:GNG well enough 2 weeks ago when the community overwhelmingly supported their inclusion, there have since been many more articles in RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

An unregistered political party which marginally was able to survive an AfD after being recreated based on the fact that it was contesting a by-election doesn't have "overwhelming support". --RaviC (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right, which is why the notability tag must stay. They have not achieved notable status - they are not known outside Twitter and Wikipedia, perhaps two of the most infamous walled gardens in the Internet. Let them achieve a notable election result, and then we can have a different discussion. doktorb _words^deeds 18:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Being registered as a political party does not have any bearing on WP:GNG. It seems a little weird how much difficulty people have with this extremely simple concept.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether the party has achieved a "notable election result" is largely irrelevant when they have been the subject of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. If you want to take it to AfD again at some point in the future then please feel free, but the notability tag serves no purpose in the meantime. Sam Walton (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If this back and forth continues, I will take it to AfD tonight. doktorb _words^deeds 18:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: While I'm sceptical of NIP's notability, a third AfD only 2 weeks after the last one ended is rather absurd. It will likely end with a speedy close. — Czello 19:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I can see my advice went down well. — Czello 19:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: is being a member of the Liberal Democrat’s who are polling worse than the Northern Independence Party in Hartlepool clouding your judgement? Maybe you need to stay away from this page.

Politically there are plenty of seats in the south of England than the Liberal Democrat’s could win - especially in a progressive alliance with Labour and the Greens, focus your energies there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not a member of the Liberal Democrats. I don't pay any party - liberal or otherwise - any membership fees at all. doktorb _words^deeds 21:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1:, please keep it civil and refer to Wikiquette before you make further insinuations towards this 'Lib Dem' conspiracy. It is not productive to any discussion on this page to dispense of WP:GOODFAITH on a whim and accuse another user of WP:COI, even if you disagree with them in the strongest terms. This is no place for personal attacks. If you believe that Doktorb has done something wrong, contact an administrator. Keeping civil and assuming good faith is the only way this forum can work. BitterGiant (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

After this farce, it is best that the article should not be nominated for deletion another 6 months, per procedure. Any change in notability will not be visible for at least that time. I will be extremely unhappy to see any renomination prior to that, as I would view it to be part of a concerted campaign to overthrow the consensus established at the second AfD. The arguments for notability were all based on coverage rather than electoral success, party registration, or connection with prominent individuals and that coverage will still be recent and significant after the May elections. Perhaps a case could be made for deletion if the party disappears from view by the 2021 elections. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. It meets GNG today, so it will always meet GNG. It doesn't matter whether it disappears from view tomorrow. I agree that we need no AfDs for several months—any more AfDs or notability tags would be a conduct issue that needs to be dealt with in the appropriate forum. However, the only reason that an AfD can ever be started is if both the party disappears from view without significant further coverage and there is a substantive agreement with no compelling disagreement (e.g. on this talk page) that the people in the second AfD were wrong at the time. — Bilorv (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This whole situation is ridiculous, if it has been affirmed several times as a 'keep' the it's keep there shouldn't be any further discussion on this. The word 'neverendum' comes to mind with this one, you can't keep pushing for votes until you get the result you want, let's suppose the next AfD came up as 'delete' what then? Do we have another vote to make sure that we really meant that? It's simply absurd and not the way we do things here. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have no problem with either of these viewpoints. I am a little surprised at how many users completely ignored WP:GNG on the AfD, am I reading this wrong or are there some other applicable criteria that I am unaware of here? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Bear in mind that WP:NOTDEM, so there's no 'push' for 'votes', because, well, that's not how wikipedia works. As Bilorv rightly notes, notability is not temporary, and indeed I would argue that despite having raised this question of notability, right now the NIP does pass notability (which is, again, why I was against a third, and I suppose now fourth, AFD for the time being) and an AFD would have been extremely too soon. ​But the reason this discussion is happening is ultimately over the application of a notability tag which called into question a reassessment of the notability. While WP:NTEMP is being invoked, it's worth bearing in mind that "while notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion". Again, I'm not saying we need now a fourth AFD- that would be absurd. But the concern JDcooper raises about the page running the risk of becoming a WP:ONEEVENT, in which the current coverage which made it notable becomes insufficient is a valid one. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about a noble cause. It is worth, within the coming months, considering notability, because only the sources and the coverage say they are notable, not us. And those sources told us that the NIP was notable because it was running in Hartlepool, which it is not. BitterGiant (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If someone adds {{notability}} then point them to the AFD discussions. Do not revert the removal of the tag. That is edit warring, regardless of how many or few times you do it. The tag wasn't "calling into question a reassessment", but the action of one person who does not have the power to override the second AFD consensus. Your other arguments are not correct: if the article could in any possible future be predicated only on coverage from one event, then it would already be predicated only on coverage from one event, and if a majority of people agreed with you that this criterion is relevant and applicable then the AFDs would have turned out different results. The reassessment sentence you are quoting is about contesting pages which have gone unnoticed or changing community standards since 2001 or bad decisions made in the past, not about a topic which is notable becoming non-notable. You can't lose notability over time, only gain it (if more coverage arrives). — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

article needs updated as leadership has changed

the article needs update as the party leadership has changed form philip proudfoot to David Heaven.

Soruce: https://www.freethenorth.co.uk/about

Rebelgender (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. There may need to be associated edits elsewhere in the article. Emeraude (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

yea, maybe but trying to redone this without being to parsan is a thing that i am aware of has been a issuse in the past on this page.

i know as of now (18/04/2023) they are running two canadates so they are an active party all be it a small party. Rebelgender (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Membership

The claim of 1400 members seems inconsistent with only managing two candidates in the 2023 local elections and the lack of evidence of large scale activities and spending. Self-sourcing, or taking the word of a leader in an interview, is not suitable for a claim which is self-serving if an over-estimate. 2A00:23C8:7E0F:5001:70C6:6F4E:3D37:6F48 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)