Talk:Veterans and People's Party

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

Conflicts of Interest[edit]

Conflicts of Interest chat[edit]

I would like to request a manual review of edits made by the above user, the edits made are inaccurate. For reference the website to this party is ukvpp.org, I am happy to comply with all Wiki guidelines but I am not prepared to accept false or inaccurate edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktwood2524 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktwood2524: I too am not prepared to accept "false or inaccurate edits", which is why I keep reverting the vandalism yourself and other keep making to this page. reverting vandalism is not "inaccurate" in the slightest.UaMaol (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THE LOGO IS INCORRECT, THE LEADER INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, THE PARTY IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN ISLAMAPHOBIC, THE WEB ADDRESS IS INCORRECT, ALL I AM ASKING IS THIS CONTENT TO BE UPDATED WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION. I AM VERY HAPPY FOR SOMEONE WHO IS INDEPENDANT TO CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE AND CONDUCT RESEARCH TO ENSURE THE CONTENT IS ACCURATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktwood2524 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The logo may be incorrect, but how do we know that the one uploaded by a user who claims to be of the party,[NOTE: User uploaded the image with a CC licence with the author as "Veterans and Peoples Party"] to actually be of the party or to be the owner/ have permission to use the image. It was rather suspiciously uploaded by User:TheOkoru with a Creative Common licence around the time you yourself started editing the article. In fact in between your edits they added said image. How do we know it has a CC licence, you are who you say you are or that the owners have given permission? We don't. As it is a logo, it is pretty clear it is not CC. If the leader info is correct, then you need to prove that it has changed with a reliable reference. The leader info comes from the Electoral Commission. Can you prove the lack of islamophobia other than the contrary evidence on the party's own website? There are three web addresses. How can we prove any of them are correct? Research has already been carried out, hence the citations. UaMaol (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest it is rather looking like you have a vendetta against the party! I don't want a spat with you I just want the falsities corrected. Perhaps we should escalate this to mediation. Feel free to contact the electoral commission to check the correct party leader, also feel free to contact the party in an official capacity to check the CC of the logo. It is becoming apparent that you are the one vandalising the accurate information not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktwood2524 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No such Vendetta exists. If one had existed, I wouldn't have created the article to start with. For an article to exist on Wikipedia it needs to be notable and covered in reliable sources (see WP:RS)Wikipedia requires reliable sources to be used when backing up content changes, especially where sources already exist. Removal of sources whether reliable or not is prohibited, especially where controversial information is present, although if the source is substandard then it can be removed. Your own website, as you keep mentioning, is the source for the Islamophobia case.
I will accept the logo change to the article, which I did not revert intentionally as I simply rolled back the entire article contents to my most recent version as is pretty common in the cases of articles with persistent vandalism. I could contact the party regarding the logo, but it's not my responsibility. I highly doubt the party want a CC licence for their logo.
I do not want a spat with you either, but until you can prove what's presented is incorrect with reliable sources, it remains. Regarding the Electoral Commission, such contact is completely unnecessary as it publishes the all registrations online. The registration for your Great Britain branch is here and the one for the Northern Ireland one is here. The Great Britain one is used in the article for the "Leader" and "Address" fields. To doubly confirm this, I could also add the Northern Ireland record also, as they are distinct entities but with the same characteristics.
As I have said before multiple times, accurate information MUST be backed up by a reliable source. Changing content, particularly of controversial topics, requires reliable sources to back up why the changes are necessary. Your own word will not be enough, even if you are who say say you are. Hypothetically, I could quite easily claim to be "Communications Officer" of any political party and make loads of claims about said party, and even set up a website with a varying name as alleged evidence. If the information is false, that's fine, but you can't change it because you think its wrong unless you can prove via reliable sources (RS) that it is such. You mentioned the issue of libel before. One of the reason we need sources is to prevent libel. You changes could very easily be considered libellous considering how subjective the concept is.
Removal of content from an article without a valid, backed up reason, including the removal of references, is vandalism, whether the content is correct or not. Reverting such vandalism is most definitely not vandalism, as such would be double negative. It's logically impossible to vandalise through reversion of vandalism. Thanks UaMaol (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 5 December 2019[edit]

{{request edit}}

Hi, I would like to request an edit to the Veterans'sand People's Party page.

The information on the page is inaccurate, false and damaging.

The party leader is no longer Robin Horsfall it is George Reid, the logo is the old one, the website has changed to ukvpp.org, the party is far from islamaphobic and is not far-right. The party is a minor Centrist party.

If someone would actually like to conduct their research correctly that would be great. ukvpp.org

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktwood2524 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia not warranted[edit]

Good Afternoon

Under Ideology you have stated Islamophobia based on a reference to the party statement of not having Sharia Law in the UK which is disingenuous and misleading. Just because someone wears tartan print doesn't make them Scottish! The link below is to an investigation[1] commissioned by parliament and involves Muslims as part of the review group. The report clearly identifies that Sharia Law has no place above, below or included in UK Law; what the report does recognise is the action that Sharia Council plays in mediation and VAPP have made no comment to preventing this mediation. Even the report suggest acceptance of the council but under more regulated standing. What the report also states is how marriage under Sharia Law will be recognised under UK Law to ensure the rights of women are supported as in any other licensed marriage in the UK. Unless you can cite other references to support Islamophobia as objective evidence then I request that this is removed. Otherwise all that is evidenced is a straw-man argument based on highly subjective and conjectured evidence from a single source that is not conclusive enough to formulate an ideologist category application.

Many thanks for you time to read this

[1]

Dingapottamuss (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only "straw-man argument" here is your assumption that the evidence is the mention of Sharia law. I do find it interesting how you brought it up however, but the topic and link has nothing to do with this article. Speaking of which, it may be worth noting in the main body. Mind you, if I did that, this will likely happen (again)...UaMaol (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're obliged to follow WP:NOR, no matter the subject of the article. This party's a subject that's scarcely covered in reliable sources, which limits how much material we can include in the article. To be honest, I'm not sure it meets the GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UaMaol (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stated Sharia as it is the only Islam specific element mentioned in the manifesto, unless you have other references to site that conclusively prove an aversion to Islam which I have failed to find. The reference I supplied was to show that it wasn't just the VAPP that was aligned to this thought. However, I see that Islamophobia was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingapottamuss (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update to VAPP Wiki page[edit]

Good morning

Hope all is well during the pandemic. I would like to provide some update on this page. I have found that the party registration with the Electoral Commission has superseded that notified in the page. The leader is now George Reid and the website has changed along with the party Logo. I feel it important to correct this so that the right information is displayed.

I can do it and provide the appropriate evidence to support he changes if that is ok. Dingapottamuss (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6719> <https://www.ukvpp.org/>

Many regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingapottamuss (talk • contribs) 09:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf

The above user is not allowing factual information about VAPP to be represented on the Wikipage. This is provided with correct links to the references such as George Reid <http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6719> <https://www.ukvpp.org/> as the party leader as is registered on the Electoral Commission website. By not allowing the correct information to be displayed you are being disingenuous to those reading about VAPP and to the party itself.

You are creating lies about a party by preventing factual updates; if this persists I will push to have the page removed completely, stop misinforming and allow the facts to be presented.Dingapottamuss (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veterans_and_People%27s_Party&oldid=1209767667"