Talk:2014 Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election

SoPN
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/5715/statement_of_persons_nominated-wythenshawe_and_sale_east_constituency

46.64.158.190 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Can you redo the box? It is Di Mauro NOT Mauro. 194.46.178.76 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Ciaran


 * Di Mauro should also be before Kane, as per the SOPN. I've tried changing it, but am getting database errors and my edit isn't going through. Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got that done now. So, merely in passing, I note this is the fewest candidates at an English by-election since Leicester South by-election, 2011. Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Philip Cross's edits
I have reverted two separate edits of Philip Cross and have refereed him to this talk page.
 * 1. His first edit involved adding something about the UKIP candidate that was completely irrelevant to the candidates section.
 * 2. He then complained that "Why is the UKIP candidate the only one aloud to have a comment". This is not true, the comment came from the same source the candidacy announcement was in. If he or anyone else wants to extract a similarly brief comment for the other candidates, please, by all means do so. Philip then chose to delete relevant sourced material, so I reverted the edit. It is against wikipedia policy to delete well sourced relevant material. The material Philip added was not relevant to the individuals candidacy, nor was it even part of the same source as the candidacy announcement.
 * 3. This is not the first politically partial edit I have seen made by User:Philip Cross today and I hope that this does not become a regular habit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a blog. lets keep it impartial. By all means give the other candidates comments, where appropriate but do not remove sourced material or make politically motivated edits. Owl In The House (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted the statements on the grounds of balance and giving the UKIP candidate undue weight. Any comments by the candidates from the three larger parties, or the other candidates, are as likely to be as predictable as those given by the candidate for UKIP. Philip Cross (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Philip Cross's initial addition to the article was well sourced to a recent article. If the Manchester Evening News feels the matter is relevant to the UKIP candidacy, then it is appropriate for us to follow that, so I disagree with Owl's point (1) above. That said, I also think it is fine to have some quotes from candidates (as I've said previously), so I agree on point (2). I have no comment on point (3).
 * Ergo, I would like to suggest restoring Philip's original edit. However, I've refrained from making any change so as to allow others to comment. Bondegezou (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What Philip Cross added was sourced from a credible media source and is relevant to the article. Brief points about apparently contradictory behaviour by candidates is relevant in my view. Owl in the House is accusing Philip Cross of bias which appears to ignore WP:GF. There is no reason to suggest Philip made the edits out of political motives. I think the edit should be restored and statements by candidates be allowed as well. LordFixit (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We should definitely all assume good faith in each other. I guess I'd feel more confident about the MEN article if it was picked up more widely or the story kept running. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally accept that MEN is a reputable and indeed reliable source. I just fail to see what something that happened years ago has to do with the announcement of candidacy. It's a bit like me adding to the Labour candidate's paragraph that his wife collects garden gnomes - if I could find a reliable source for that, do you think it would be appropriate to be added to the candidacy section? I think most reasonable people would not. The question is not whether this is reliably sourced or not but whether it is relevant to Mr Buckley launching his candidacy...I think not. However, if this article is to have a Campaign section, I could potentially see how it could be incorporated into that, as I am aware that this is something that opponents have tried to use against the candidate. In that sense it could be relevant but it adds nothing to the candidacy section. With regard to adding a campaign section; I'm open minded to this, we've had them in other by-election campaigns. That said I am concerned that editors may seek to politicise it. Owl In The House (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"Campaign" section
Sure, let's have a Campaign section. Bondegezou (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly think we need a Campagins section (look at Mid Ulster to see how we managed a controversial part of that by-election). However the concerns about politicising are valid. We can't be seen to invite, or just plain invite, supporters to ramp their candidates whilst opponents battle from the other side. What I suggest we do is find day by day reports from the MEN, with any added extra bits as might have made the national titles. Let's not rely too heavily on Twitter, for obvious reasons. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with User:Doktorbuk on this one. My main objection though is to over relying on one source, i.e. the MEN. By all means use it (it is considered reliable and could be a good tool to us) but lets not use it as our main source, we need a good variety of sources. If MEN gets used every day, then we need to find at least 2 rival sources to use every day, even if they have to be national outlets. Owl In The House (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur that we should not be overly reliant on single articles in the MEN. That might constitute undue weight. We would be in a stronger position if issues covered had broader coverage to support them (additional newspapers, or at least coverage over more than one day in the MEN). Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lots of potential material for a campaign section in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Lord Ashcroft poll
Just to respond to Owl in the House's concern, the poll commissioned by Lord Ashcroft was carried out by a British Polling Council registered firm in a sound manner. All the polling Ashcroft has commissioned is recognised as being reliable by psephologists generally. Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which BPC registered company? In any case the source is insufficient as the source is not from a BPC company, it is an Ashcroft publication. Also just to confirm there are no Ashcroft polls on any other election or polling pages. Indeed I believe Ashcroft did some for Eastleigh and they are not on Wikipedia. We need to be consistent. Owl In The House (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly recall adding Ashcroft polls to other pages and would be happy to see them on other pages. I think the page cited passes WP:RS (specifically WP:BLOGS), but I will look for the full data tables from the polling agency. (And the match of poll to result rather demonstrates that the poll was reliable!) Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional RS cite for poll. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Polls carried out by YouGov and Populus, according to Michael Ashcroft article. Both are BPC registered. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see where you are coming from and the addition of the NS source is helpful. However, it would be good to try and find YouGov and Populus's data tables, or a source from them. If this was conducted by two separate polling companies, then surely they should be separate polls and Ashcroft may have merely combined the two. If this is the case, two polls would certainly be better than one merged poll. Owl In The House (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ashcroft has used YouGov and Populus for different polls. This poll would have been by one or the other; there was no combining. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I will try and look for some sources. Owl In The House (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

LibDem drop in vote
It has been suggested that the article lede should note that the LibDem vote share decline was a record. A recent edit suggested including, "recorded the largest decrease in their vote in a parliamentary by-election since the party's formation" while a previous one said since 1945. This appears to have first been commented on in a tweet by Mike Smithson of Political Betting. However, I've not seen a reliable source make this claim and I feel we should require that so as to demonstrate why this particular record is notable and accurate. Smithson also tweeted about this being the worst UKIP result for a period - should we add that?

As far as I can tell, the record is accurate since the party's formation (although the LibDem vote share decline in the previous Manchester by-election was very similar: 17.2% rather than 17.4%), but WP:V, not WP:OR. I've not checked back to 1945. The record may also require a caveat: the LibDems could be said to have suffered a 36.8% vote share decline in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election because they chose not to stand. Bondegezou (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... can't find details for Bournemouth by-election, 1945... Bondegezou (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unclear if a Liberal stood in Ogmore prior to Ogmore by-election, 1946. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto re Normanton by-election, 1947. Bondegezou (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Insufficient detail at Pontypool by-election, 1946. Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto Jarrow by-election, 1947, but that's the National Liberals... Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The LibDems were only formed in 1988. The previous record was at Manchester Central, 17.2%. Wythenshawe is a new record of 17.4%. Haltemprice was not a drop in vote as there was no candidate, but to be clear it could be said "recorded the largest decrease in their vote in a parliamentary by-election contested by the Liberal Democrats since the party's formation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frinton100 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eddy O'Sullivan.jpg