![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As Ed Balls has now clarified that he will not be standing, I was wondering whether it would be worth keeping the section in the article? On one hand, for the moment it does no harm, but it is essentially an irrelevant rumour that has amounted to nothing. Any thoughts? Quinby ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it worth noting that Ahmad Khan keeps delaying actually resigning, e.g. [1]? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Might I suggest that the current text that reads, " In the 2021 West Yorkshire mayoral election, the Yorkshire Party came third in the Wakefield District, ahead of the Lib Dems and the Greens. [1]" is a bit WP:SYNTHy? It's drawing an interpretation from a primary source. Has a reliable source actually advanced this line of reasoning? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Our standard approach for by-elections is to only include information for candidates when supported by reliable, secondary sources. Ergo, sourcing just from the party concerned or from a social media account is insufficient. This is because (a) that's what WP:RS says, and (b) we often see candidates/parties saying they'll stand, but they fail to actually do so. I note at present that Reform UK, Yorkshire Party and Workers Party of Britain standing are all only supported by primary sources. Can we find secondary sources or remove? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Update 'Candidates' to 'Candidate Selections'? Which would cover up to Nominated Candidates. After which, not much point in 'might have' candidates remaining. Change back to 'Candidates'. Would be concerned that primary sources are removed before; since newspapers only know who candidates definitely are, after such a list is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbingdonAbbie ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
To the IP editor who keeps re-adding material on Herdson without appropriate sourcing: Some sources that are considered reliable and not reliable are listed at WP:RSP. While I enjoy reading PoliticalBetting.com, it is considered to come under WP:BLOG. What we need is reporting in the Yorkshire Post or a national broadsheet or an established UK political news site like Politics.co.uk or the BBC. Those sorts of things. This is the same basic policy we apply on all Wikipedia articles: see WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
may be used as sources of information about themselves. However, standing a candidate is not merely up to a party, so it is not entirely
about themselves. What we have seen in numerous by-elections is that such-and-such a party says they are going to stand a candidate, and then they don't. Actually nominating a candidate is not straightforward. A party (or independent) can't just stand: they need nominations, they need a deposit and they need to complete the appropriate paperwork. Many announcements by parties never come to fruition; some are done purely for publicity without any actual intent to go through with the paperwork.
the material is n[ot] unduly self-serving. Clearly, candidacy announcements are self-serving.
evolveWikipedia's policy, take it to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and get community approval first.
follow. I quote WP:V: "[Wikipedia']s content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." If you think newspaper coverage is poor, fair enough, but Wikipedia is not somewhere to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
may be used), but doesn't require us to use such sources. I don't see a reason to change our approach now. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Related to the section above, I'm trying to gather consensus on whether to include this and how to word it neutrally: All 14 members of Wakefield CLP executive resigned after accusations that Labour broke its rules by removing local candidates from the shortlist [1] [2] — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
References
This Article is a mess, over the last 4 weeks there have been editing battles from various Wikipedia and Wikimedia editors in addition to members of the public who are all removing, changing, adding, and editing the description of various parties, as well as manipulating the formation & paragraphing of the article.
I think we need to start a discussion about this. Obviously as a major Election there are partisan biases and playing politics here- but this runs counter to Wikipedia's ethos and Values of honest, transparent, accurate free access to accurate and properly curated, unbiased information.
For example, perhaps the 5 largest parties by vote share within the Wakefield Constituency at the 2022 Local election all get a subheading in the "Candidates" section.
As the SOPN has been released today, allowing the 5 most successful parties by vote share to have extra information in the "candidates" section , as they are the most relevant with proven popularity parties going into this election. While the remaining 10 smaller, less relevent parties can be lumped into "other"
I believe this suggestion will improve the page substantially, and also stop the continuous editing battles and bias which is sadly plaguing this page.
Truth, Honesty, Accuracy, Impartiality.
- Concerned Citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.188.126 ( talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
With Respect, Bondegezou.
You in yourself are one of the most egregious examples of this Political Bias I mention, you have been attempting to distort and manipulate Wikipedia's rules in Bad-Faith to "own" the page.
You use your experience and history of *extensive Wikipedia editing and knowledge of procedures to excuse criticism and distract from the blatant evidence of your impartiality and bias, as you have done above.
This is not good for Wikipedia, Honesty, and accurate information transfer to allow a rouge user to act like he personally owns a Wikipedia page. That is wrong, Wikipedia is for all of us public.
You should recuse yourself from this page and declare your conflicts of interests.
(For observers/lurkers, check the edit log of the main page for proof and evidence which backs up my allegations, User Bondegezou is stalking the page and changing it's content according to his will.)
Acts like these are why Wikipedia's reputation is on the decline. We must be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.188.126 ( talk) 20:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
See [2] Bondegezou ( talk) 15:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Do we need the primary-sourced trivia about Lord Frost standing in the article? If we do, it surely needs secondary sources to give it due weight. -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
primary-sourced. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Can we dump the pie charts? We already have the election results in three other formats. Do we really need them again? Pie charts are generally considered to be a poor way of displaying the data, e.g. [3]. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As Ed Balls has now clarified that he will not be standing, I was wondering whether it would be worth keeping the section in the article? On one hand, for the moment it does no harm, but it is essentially an irrelevant rumour that has amounted to nothing. Any thoughts? Quinby ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it worth noting that Ahmad Khan keeps delaying actually resigning, e.g. [1]? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Might I suggest that the current text that reads, " In the 2021 West Yorkshire mayoral election, the Yorkshire Party came third in the Wakefield District, ahead of the Lib Dems and the Greens. [1]" is a bit WP:SYNTHy? It's drawing an interpretation from a primary source. Has a reliable source actually advanced this line of reasoning? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Our standard approach for by-elections is to only include information for candidates when supported by reliable, secondary sources. Ergo, sourcing just from the party concerned or from a social media account is insufficient. This is because (a) that's what WP:RS says, and (b) we often see candidates/parties saying they'll stand, but they fail to actually do so. I note at present that Reform UK, Yorkshire Party and Workers Party of Britain standing are all only supported by primary sources. Can we find secondary sources or remove? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Update 'Candidates' to 'Candidate Selections'? Which would cover up to Nominated Candidates. After which, not much point in 'might have' candidates remaining. Change back to 'Candidates'. Would be concerned that primary sources are removed before; since newspapers only know who candidates definitely are, after such a list is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbingdonAbbie ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
To the IP editor who keeps re-adding material on Herdson without appropriate sourcing: Some sources that are considered reliable and not reliable are listed at WP:RSP. While I enjoy reading PoliticalBetting.com, it is considered to come under WP:BLOG. What we need is reporting in the Yorkshire Post or a national broadsheet or an established UK political news site like Politics.co.uk or the BBC. Those sorts of things. This is the same basic policy we apply on all Wikipedia articles: see WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
may be used as sources of information about themselves. However, standing a candidate is not merely up to a party, so it is not entirely
about themselves. What we have seen in numerous by-elections is that such-and-such a party says they are going to stand a candidate, and then they don't. Actually nominating a candidate is not straightforward. A party (or independent) can't just stand: they need nominations, they need a deposit and they need to complete the appropriate paperwork. Many announcements by parties never come to fruition; some are done purely for publicity without any actual intent to go through with the paperwork.
the material is n[ot] unduly self-serving. Clearly, candidacy announcements are self-serving.
evolveWikipedia's policy, take it to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and get community approval first.
follow. I quote WP:V: "[Wikipedia']s content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." If you think newspaper coverage is poor, fair enough, but Wikipedia is not somewhere to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
may be used), but doesn't require us to use such sources. I don't see a reason to change our approach now. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Related to the section above, I'm trying to gather consensus on whether to include this and how to word it neutrally: All 14 members of Wakefield CLP executive resigned after accusations that Labour broke its rules by removing local candidates from the shortlist [1] [2] — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
References
This Article is a mess, over the last 4 weeks there have been editing battles from various Wikipedia and Wikimedia editors in addition to members of the public who are all removing, changing, adding, and editing the description of various parties, as well as manipulating the formation & paragraphing of the article.
I think we need to start a discussion about this. Obviously as a major Election there are partisan biases and playing politics here- but this runs counter to Wikipedia's ethos and Values of honest, transparent, accurate free access to accurate and properly curated, unbiased information.
For example, perhaps the 5 largest parties by vote share within the Wakefield Constituency at the 2022 Local election all get a subheading in the "Candidates" section.
As the SOPN has been released today, allowing the 5 most successful parties by vote share to have extra information in the "candidates" section , as they are the most relevant with proven popularity parties going into this election. While the remaining 10 smaller, less relevent parties can be lumped into "other"
I believe this suggestion will improve the page substantially, and also stop the continuous editing battles and bias which is sadly plaguing this page.
Truth, Honesty, Accuracy, Impartiality.
- Concerned Citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.188.126 ( talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
With Respect, Bondegezou.
You in yourself are one of the most egregious examples of this Political Bias I mention, you have been attempting to distort and manipulate Wikipedia's rules in Bad-Faith to "own" the page.
You use your experience and history of *extensive Wikipedia editing and knowledge of procedures to excuse criticism and distract from the blatant evidence of your impartiality and bias, as you have done above.
This is not good for Wikipedia, Honesty, and accurate information transfer to allow a rouge user to act like he personally owns a Wikipedia page. That is wrong, Wikipedia is for all of us public.
You should recuse yourself from this page and declare your conflicts of interests.
(For observers/lurkers, check the edit log of the main page for proof and evidence which backs up my allegations, User Bondegezou is stalking the page and changing it's content according to his will.)
Acts like these are why Wikipedia's reputation is on the decline. We must be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.188.126 ( talk) 20:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
See [2] Bondegezou ( talk) 15:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Do we need the primary-sourced trivia about Lord Frost standing in the article? If we do, it surely needs secondary sources to give it due weight. -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
primary-sourced. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Can we dump the pie charts? We already have the election results in three other formats. Do we really need them again? Pie charts are generally considered to be a poor way of displaying the data, e.g. [3]. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)