Talk:2020 Labour Party leadership election (UK)

Definitely 2020?
I know it's almost inevitable that the election will indeed take place in 2020 but considering that the date hasn't actually been confirmed yet by the party, should we maybe think about renaming/ redirecting the article to "Next [...] election" until it is? Like everyone else I find it difficult to believe he'll hold out until 2021 but let's not get ahead of ourselves before an official announcement of the date of his departure. 77.99.89.230 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Portrait gallery
I'm not that keen on having any photo galleries at all until we have declared candidates, but a large gallery of candidates listed as potential seems inappropriate. It gives undue weight to candidates who probably won't stand, and it's a lot of photos for a short article. We should remove the photo gallery for potential candidates. Ralbegen (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed them pending a consensus. – DeFacto (talk). 09:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It would be too many images for speculated candidates, only those who have declared they are standing (so far only Emily Thornberry) should get images in my view. Lancashire2789 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan's inclusion
Can we please keep mention of non-MPs out of this article? It's the Ruth Davidson situation all over again – it's one thing speculating he could run for leader *if* he became an MP again, but the fact of the matter is he isn't. Thus, it's hard to say he "declined" the opportunity to become leader when the opportunity is, as it stands, not his to take. The article used as a reference doesn't even mention an intention to stand for MP at all, so it's not like his eligibility could change soon either. 77.99.89.230 (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As non-MPs aren't eligible for the Labour leadership there is no reason to include them in the article. Lancashire2789 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Format for Declared Table
I've noticed the format seen in the page for the 2016 leadership election for candidates who declare they are running in leadership elections to be the per say on wikipedia so have adjusted the table here to fit that mold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Labour_Party_leadership_election_(UK)&diff=727649372&oldid=727645164

Saxonvsjones (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've brought it back to more like what it was before. I think at this point we can keep it to the portrait and political offices. We can include birth details if that's what people want, but I'm not sure it's that interesting. I definitely don't think that candidacy announcement dates are useful to cover in the table, but work better in prose. Endorsements are currently covered in another section of the page. It seems sensible to me that we should hold off including nominations in the main table until the nominations period actually starts, and then we can include as separate columns MP/(potentially) MEP nominations, affiliate nominations, and CLP nominations. We should be thinking about what's useful to include in the table that's best summarised in the table. Much is better served as prose! Ralbegen (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeline
A timeline has been included in the article as of the current revision at time of writing. I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria for events in it are. It seems to just be a lightly curated list of things that have happened in politics since 2017. Most of them aren't about the 2020 Labour Party leadership election. Have they been linked to the leadership election? And what benefit is there to displaying the information in a timeline rather than in the prose sections Background and Campaign? I think we should restrict the timeline format to the official timeline of campaign events, nomination periods, and so on, which can be listed as a subsection of Procedure. Any events that relate to the leadership election that the article's about should be covered in prose. Ralbegen (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. I removed some 2015 and 2016 irrelevant events which were related to previous leadership elections but not to this one, and there are many events listed which are about Brexit rather than about the leadership election. I'm not opposed to a timeline in such a form being used (these are of use in 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, for example) but these should pertain to events that have a direct incidence in the election, rather than cherry-picking in a rather synthetized way which events from day-to-day politics are of relevance and which ones aren't. Impru 20  talk 12:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Declared candidates have been removed
Why is the inclusion of Rebecca Long Bailey now relegated and that of Conor Mcginn completely missing? RLB is listed as endorsed without even being a candidate according to this article! RLB and CMG has both at the very least "expressed interest", if not declared. What is the distinction between those listed as expressed and declared at this time? Applications have not begun so at this time Lewis and Thornberry are certainly not apart from Nandy, Starmer, Long-Bailey and McGinn. 77.99.44.132 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Lewis and Thornberry have said that they're standing. Rebecca Long-Bailey and others in "expressed interest" have said that they might stand. Conor McGinn has been discussed as a potential candidate for the deputy leadership, and he's listed in that article. Ralbegen (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When RLB says she is standing, why is that an expression of interest? 77.99.44.132 (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because she hasn't said she's standing: That is why I’m not only considering standing to be leader[...] in her Guardian piece. Ralbegen (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed nomination boxes in table
Hi, I think WP:COLLAPSE allows for the nomination boxes to be closed in the table as the material is available uncollapsed elsewhere in the article: Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text. If you think that's not good enough, then I think we should be looking at another way of displaying nominations in the article. Ralbegen (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * yes you are correct, I missed that bit. But do we really need all that in the table too when it follows in the next section? – DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that isolating out procedural nominations from other endorsements is a good way to structure the article. Though there are probably better ways that stuffing them together with the main candidates table. Nominations could be its own section with its own table, with nominating MPs listed beneath the table? What do you think? Ralbegen (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Job titles
Hi : MOS:JOBTITLES also gives us and is not a reworded description. The short forms of roles don't get capitals. Not only is this the Manual of Style's approach, it's also the case in reliable sources including the Telegraph, the Guardian and LBC. The fact that other articles on Wikipedia fail to cohere to the Manual of Style doesn't mean that we should ignore it! Ralbegen (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed I didn't ping you properly, sorry. Please see the above. Ralbegen (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m still not convinced – in both Guardian and LBC examples you cite (Telegraph is behind a paywall for me), the job titles are preceded by a definite article (eg. ‘the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry’). I think the style guide is talking about this specific sort of rewording, introducing a ‘the’ or an ‘a’, which would make job titles lower case. If in doubt, I think it’s best to go with precedent in this case – you could randomly pick any Wiki article on a British politician and it will capitalise their ministerial or shadow ministerial titles, long and short form (one eg. Boris Johnson is referred to as both the ‘Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs’ and the ‘Foreign Secretary’, which I feel would look slightly off if it were in lower case?). Thanks for opening up a discussion though! CHill1045 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging, ! The line of MOS job titles that you're referring to says that it's acceptable to capitalise when a position is being discussed in and of itself (which it's not here, they're relevant because they've been held by the candidates) and it's not a reworded description, which is a separate reason than the use of an article. So they should be in sentence case. Lots of Wikipedia needs to be made MOS-compliant, and there's no reason to ignore it here because other articles fail to follow it. Sentence case is used for the short-forms of UK political job titles in modern style guides outside of Wikipedia too (and for pretty much all job titles in any form on, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The excess capitalisation looks very old-fashioned. Please can we conform to the standards of the MOS and return to sentence case? Ralbegen (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations for re-tweets
What is the appropriate way to cite a supporter whose re-tweets clearly indicate support for a candidate? The example I am thinking of is Yvonne Fovargue, whose Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/Y_FovargueMP) indicates support for Lisa Nandy, retweeting tweets by Nandy and her campaign team. But there doesn't appear to be a way to cite this that clearly references Fovargue's own support. Is it appropriate, for example, to link to her feed without linking to a specific Tweet? I hope this makes sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.232.85 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really endorsement or nomination, even if it seems reasonable to assume she'll support Nandy. She might say so explicitly herself, or a reliable source might report that she's supporting Nandy. There's no rush, especially when we'll know for certain in less than a week! Ralbegen (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

% of total vs. % required
Per, I would like to propose that the table for nominations include the Percentage of Nominations required, rather than just the % of the total PLP/PLEP membership. Since 22 is the operative number for a candidate to continue participating in the process, I feel like including this information is important. For comparison: I fail to see how this is confusing.  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The text at the start of the section says that candidates need 10% of the PLP/EPLP to nominate them, equivalent to 22. This is equivalent to the number of nominations in the table being more than 22, or the percentage of the PLP/EPLP being more than 10%. There's no need to add anything else to that. No reliable source talks about a candidate having 86% of the required number of nominations, and it doesn't help the reader to understand. The reader can just look at the percentage and see if it's greater or lower than 10%. So, this change doesn't really solve any problem and just makes the information that's there less clear. Ralbegen (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Giving people more avenues to understand and visualize information isn't a bad thing. I prefer that to "give them less and let them figure it out".  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But this doesn't help the reader to understand anything and makes the information available less clear. An alternative that I'd be more open to (if not completely sold on) would be a column with a ✅ for candidates who've passed the nomination requirement. Ralbegen (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Something to indicate that a candidate has passed the requisite threshold is better than nothing.  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Official Numbers
Are we generally using the | official figures as listed on the Labour website (are there problems with using primary sources?) or is it preferable to use sources like Twitter. Also, do only nominations count (i.e. a twiter post with a photo of an MP's nomination form) or are 'expressions of interest' allowed too (@ExampleMP said: I'm pleased to announce that I am supporting Candidate XYZ to be our next leader...) or are these too vague to be of any use? I think it would be good to come to some sort of consensus about this as lots more nominations are being released in the next few days. PinkPanda272 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFSOURCE means that someone announcing their support is a good source for their support. But there doesn't seem to be a real reason not to just use the party's numbers, which again are fine as primary sources. But if we want secondary sources, there are some publications which are covering them thoroughly, like the New Statesman. Ralbegen (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Clive Lewis
Why is he listed as having four nominations when only three names appear in the list? Can candidates nominate themselves? Headhitter (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he has. Ralbegen (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact all of the candidates (bar Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry) have nominated themselves PinkPanda272 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

North West Young Labour
The article currently lists as an endorsement for Rebecca Long-Bailey "North West Young Labour". I've removed, has re-inserted. Thus, Talk discussion.

Look more closely, and you will see that the blue link isn't actually to an article about North West Young Labour: it's two links, one to North West England and one to Young Labour. The standard approach to endorsements is that endorsements are notable if they are made by a person or organisation that is notable. This is particularly true when, as here, the endorsement is only to a WP:PRIMARY source (a tweet).

That rule is satisfied by every other endorsement in this article. North West Young Labour, however, do not have their own article, because they are not notable. Ergo, they should not be listed. (If they are listed, we shouldn't be careful with linking so it does not give the impression that all of Young Labour have endorsed RLB or that North West Young Labour are a notable organisation in themselves.) Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Notability, measured by being the subject of a standalone Wikipedia article, has to be the minimum standard for inclusion. Ralbegen (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Headhitter (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The Young Labour page does have a section specifically dedicated to local groups. Just because North West Young Labour does not currently have a Wikipedia page does not mean it is not notable in of itself. Scottish Young Labour is included as an endorsement of Rebecca Long-Bailey and Welsh Young Labour is just as significant, yet Welsh Young Labour does not currently have a Wikipedia page. However, I doubt many people would say Scottish Young Labour is more significant than Welsh Young Labour or that an endorsement by them should not be included if SYL is. Also the endorsement by Scottish Young Labour is via a Tweet. Helper201 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect to Young Labour subsections, if you think they're individually notable, write articles for them (demonstrating sufficient independent reliable source coverage). If you think Scottish Young Labour isn't notable, propose an AfD. Otherwise, I think it's safer to accept the wisdom of the Wikipedia crowd that Scottish Young Labour is notable and the others aren't. I'm not saying the if-it-has-an-article-its-endorsement-is-notable rule is a perfect rule, but it's clear and fair to apply.
 * We could look at removing all endorsements based on primary sources (including tweets) and just cover those in secondary sources. And if secondary sources were talking about these Young Labour subsection endorsements, I'd be happy to talk about them. But they're not. It seems very WP:OR-ish to be digging around for tweets from non-notable groups. Bondegezou (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn colour
Lewis' withdrawn colour on the timetable does not match the colour depicted for a withdrawn candidate on the legend. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bold on highest nomination number?
I took the bold formatting off Starmer's number of nominations in the infobox, with an edit comment explaining "Take bold off Starmer's figure – I think it gives a misleading sense that there is a win at this stage. Really the only mark here is achieving or not achieving 22 nominations." restored it without an edit comment.

I think that it's misleading to present the nominations stage as something that can be 'won', especially as several MPs explicitly nominated people they do not support (e.g. Barry Gardiner here) and some have criticised candidates for continuing to seek nominations over 22.

Any thoughts? (This also applies to 2020 Labour Party deputy leadership election.) TSP (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * my bad, I didn't see your edit. In the 2010 Labour Party leadership election and 2005 Conservative Party leadership election pages, for example, the figures obtained by the different winners of the separate rounds shown in the infobox are highlighted, hence why I highlighted them in this article and the deputy leadership one – following precedent. But I don't really mind either way.--Executiveop (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is an arguable point – though in each of those other examples, it looks like that is recording an actual vote, where only the winners went through to the next round.
 * Part of my concern is the not entirely encyclopedic worry that this may encourage candidates and supporters in future elections to see nomination round as a pseudo-election, which would be likely to decrease diversity in nominations; which isn't any of Wikipedia's business, which is why I wanted to check other people's opinions. TSP (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support not bolding. There is no meaning to "winning" this stage: it is simply about achieving 22 or not. As Corbyn showed, getting MP support/nominations is no predictor of winning overall. Indeed, I would favour removing these numbers from the infobox entirely. The Conservative leadership election has very different rules, so how that worked shouldn't guide what we do here. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've removed the bolding for now at least.
 * Personally I think nominations number is relevant enough to list, but it's not a wildly strong feeling. We could look at what sources do I guess? TSP (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support not bolding, but I do think the numbers are relevant to list there. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominations shouldn't be bold, and they shouldn't be in the infobox. They're not a round of voting, they're a qualifying hurdle. They were covered a lot, though, so some mention in the lead wouldn't be a bad idea. Ralbegen (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to bold – keep the numbers during nominations stage Hoffie01 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca Long Bailey as the continuity candidate?
Rebecca Long Bailey (or Long-Bailey – that's for another Talk page discussion!) was described in the Campaign section as being "seen as the continuity candidate". That was then changed to "is seen by some observers and party colleagues as the continuity candidate". I changed that to "is seen by most...". That's been changed back to "some", and I've just changed it back to "most".

While RLB's campaign are saying she isn't the continuity candidate, their views are clearly not independent or secondary. Independent, secondary reliable sources routinely describe RLB in these terms. I haven't seen any that contradict that. Ergo, I think the text should reflect that, thus "most". Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just say "Independent sources..."? No need for sterile arguments about "some", "many" or "most".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Four sources, two from Sky, one from i and one from New Statesman, certainly don't demonstrate that "most" observers, let alone "most" party colleagues (!), see her as such—particularly when the only use of the phrase in one of the Sky sources is: Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey has declared she is "nobody's continuity candidate". The sources actually show that "some" party colleagues (2) and "one" opinion piece describe her as such, but she rejects the description. We need two or three sources actually saying words to the effect of Rebecca Long Bailey is regularly considered to be a 'continuity candidate' to actually include such a claim. I suspect such sources may exist. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are gazillions of sources:


 * https://politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108912/labour-leadership-rebecca-long-bailey-%E2%80%93-faltering "Amid struggles with her “continuity Corbyn” label"
 * https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-contest-ian-murray-rebecca-long-bailey-continuity-corbyn-1362133 "“Rebecca’s narrative so far has very much been as a continuity candidate and I’m not sure continuity is what the Labour Party needs,” the Edinburgh South MP said in an interview with i."
 * https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/12/rebecca-long-bailey-breaks-her-silence-pitch-union-support "The would-be continuity candidate" [...] "the putative continuity candidate"
 * https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/rebecca-long-bailey-goes-continuity-corbyn-in-leadership-pitch/ "Long Bailey is unapologetically pitching herself as the continuity Corbyn candidate." (This was earlier in the campaign.)
 * https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/labour-leadership-nominations-candidates-rebecca-long-bailey-race "Rebecca Long-Bailey is seen by many as the “continuity Corbyn” candidate"
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rebecca-long-bailey-will-continue-failures-of-corbynism-says-tom-watson-m0kg0fpgw "Rebecca Long Bailey has been criticised by Tom Watson as a “continuity” leadership candidate"
 * https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/17/angela-rayner-rebecca-long-bailey-form-pact-battle-labour-leadership-11919734/?ito=cbshare "Ms Long-Bailey, 40, is viewed by many in the party as the continuity candidate who would continue along the same policy lines as her ally Corbyn.


 * Further sources have RLB recently rejecting the label, but she only needs to reject it because everyone is using it! But we can have a line saying "Long Bailey has rejected the label"... etc.


 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/08/rebecca-long-bailey-loyal-jeremy-corbyn-supporter-says-isnt/ "It is a title Rebecca Long Bailey has been trying to shake in her bid to become the next leader of the Labour party. ‽ "I am not anybody's continuity candidate," she said in a recent interview, after it was put to her that she would continue on Jeremy Corbyn's pledge to have a "proud socialist" heading up the party. ‽ Yet the 40-year-old MP for Salford and Eccles did little to distance herself from Mr Corbyn and his party's disastrous election campaign when she announced her leadership bid. ‽ Not only did she rate Mr Corbyn's leadership "10 out of 10", and say he was "one of the most honest, kind, principled politicians","
 * https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-s-rebecca-long-bailey-accused-of-staggering-hypocrisy-in-antisemitism-row-1.495125 "Ms Long Bailey – who has been accused of being the "continuity Corbyn" candidate" [...] "Ms Long Bailey insisted she was "not anybody’s ‘continuity candidate’” but said of Mr Corbyn: "I’d give him 10 out of 10, because I respect him and I supported him all the way through”." Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That's classic original research synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
 * To say "X is seen by most Y as Z", you need a source that actually says exactly that – and ideally, in a WP:BLP, has actually surveyed the majority of "observers and party colleagues" to establish that they hold that view. You can't just pile source upon source and say at some point you can synthesise "most" – that's exactly what WP:SYN says you can't do.  You can justify "most" only if the sources literally say "most", and I can't see a single source that says that.
 * I've changed to "many", which I think can be justified (and is used by several of the sources you've provided). TSP (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to contextualise your interpretation of WP:SYNTH. WP:BALANCE states, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." We have a very large number of sources that describe RBL along the lines of her being the continuity candidate (or Corbynite candidate). Most of those aren't saying "many" or "most" people say that: they just state it as truth. Indeed, I can't really find reliable sources that describe her in any other terms. We need to reflect those sources and we need to reflect them "in proportion to their prominence". We then have this recent push back from RBL + team to distance herself from that description. Every reliable source I can see reports that as "this is what RBL said"; none accept it as fact uncritically. I have also found a small number of articles in left-to-far left publications that have explicitly argued against the description: how many would satisfy WP:RS, I don't know.
 * Saying "many" is not reflecting what reliable sources say in a manner that satisfies WP:BALANCE. The weight of RS clearly support a description along the lines of "continuity candidate". I would favour just saying something along the lines of "RLB is the continuity candidate, although she latterly pushed back against that description".
 * If editors feel that is not appropriate, we need some wording to reflect "viewpoints in proportion to their prominence": one way of doing that is to say, "Most sources describe her as..." That's not a WP:SYNTH violation: that's a description of WP:RS coverage that satisfies WP:BALANCE.
 * Or show me some RS reporting that describes RBL in contradictory terms, coz I ain't seeing it. Bondegezou (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe something like "Long-Bailey is seen as the continuity candidate by commentators(many refs) and many in the party.(Metro) Although she initially presented herself in those terms,(i, Spectator) she latterly rejected the label, saying "I am not anybody's continuity candidate".(Telegraph, Jewish Chronicle) However, she was noted as saying she would give Corbyn "10 out of 10" as a politician.(many refs)" Bondegezou (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To say "X is seen by most Y as Z", you need a source that actually says exactly that – and ideally, in a WP:BLP, has actually surveyed the majority of "observers and party colleagues" to establish that they hold that view. This is precisely the point I was trying to make. Thanks for saying it more eloquently, . There's no academic definition of what "continuity candidate" means (in contrast to, say, a political ideology) so saying this in Wikipedia's own words when the subject disputes it is very inappropriate (a WP:BLP violation). The sources show "some" or even "many" but a source needs to say "most" for us to use "most", when there are obviously thousands upon thousands of people with opinions on this subject. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the wording I suggested immediately above, I do not use the word "most". Might I ask what you think of the text suggested?
 * Reliable sources call RBL the "continuity candidate", Wikipedia reflects what RS say, so I don't see a problem. There is no need for an "academic definition": Wikipedia's epistemological basis is to say what RS say, not to require academic definitions. The current wording in the article does not reflect RS and is, thus, problematic. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've looked at archives of news coverage over the past decade and seen "continuity candidate" used as a term in a few different elections, so I guess it's a widely enough used political term for us to use it in Wikipedia's own words. When I talked about an academic meaning, I was concerned about us using a term with no concrete meaning in Wikipedia's own words (i.e. without quotation marks), but I now see that that isn't the case, so I'm happy with the current text used, Long-Bailey is seen by many observers and party colleagues as the continuity candidate who will continue to take the party in the same direction as Corbyn. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The current text does not reflect the overwhelming position of reliable sources and thus fails WP:RS and WP:BALANCE. What about the revised text I suggested? Something like, "Long-Bailey is seen as the continuity candidate by commentators(many refs) and many in the party.(Metro) Although she initially presented herself in those terms,(i, Spectator) she latterly rejected the label, saying "I am not anybody's continuity candidate".(Telegraph, Jewish Chronicle) However, she was noted as saying she would give Corbyn "10 out of 10" as a politician.(many refs)" Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You cherry-pick the caption of an image from Prospect; the actual article analyses her nominations from MPs and draws a much more nuanced conclusion than that she's a continuity candidate. The article's very title, Why Corbyn-backing MPs aren’t all supporting Rebecca Long-Bailey, tells you this. I don't have time now to read all of the sources and see if they are fair and representative quotes, but I see immediately that i and Spectator give two opinions (correct me if I'm wrong that blogs.spectator. are columnists' opinion, whilst spectator. is news reporting) that are not strong enough for us to say that RLB "initially presented herself in those terms", and the Prospect usage is not good. I see a number of other potential issues as well, so I oppose your suggested revision. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not cherry-picking: I'm giving an illustrative quote of particular language because I'm not going to fill the Talk page by cut and pasting the whole article. I'm all for more nuance. That's why I'm proposing to expand on the current, not very nuanced text. By all means, suggest some text based on the Prospect article.
 * I provided a mix of sources, a mix of news reporting and commentary, and a mix of first person voice and quoting others' opinions. We should, of course, recognise that these are different sorts of sources. My point here is that all the discussion is in these terms, and we should reflect that discussion. Neither you or anyone else has presented reliable sources that present some alternate narrative.
 * I suggest it is somewhat bad form to say you haven't read sources and then to express an opinion on how we represent those sources. If you don't have time to read the sources, perhaps you should wait until you do have time before expressing your view of what the text should say? Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Further RLB/continuity analysis
There is a large volume of material discussing RLB as a continuity candidate. At least one editor is struggling with the volume of material. If we should be concerned with quality over quantity, I've gone through some recent articles and here try to highlight the best sources. We prefer tertiary reporting and analysis over straight news reporting, and we prefer news reporting over commentary (except in so far as commentary speaks to what commentators are saying). Preference is sometimes given to news reporting from outside the country in question: greater distance can give better objectivity. Here are some recent articles that better fit those criteria:


 * 16 Jan, New Statesman, analysis, “[Nandy] also implicitly criticises those pitching themselves as candidates of continuity – namely Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey.” […] “On Brexit, anti-Semitism, factionalism and the 2019 campaign, she [RLB] leads with her chin. The subtext is clear enough: ideological continuity need not mean repeating unforced errors.” https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/what-labour-leadership-candidates-are-telling-grassroots-and-why The New Statesman is friendly to the Labour party and considered to have good, well-informed reporting on Labour Party affairs. This piece is an explicit and detailed analysis of the leadership candidates' messaging, potentially of use at multiple points in this article.


 * 15 Jan, New Statesman, commentary/analysis, “Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Corbynite continuity candidate despite her protestations otherwise, is campaigning on the basis that Labour voters who rejected Corbyn’s message were mistaken, so it is they – not her party – that must change.” https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/why-left-keeps-losing This is a long-form piece, although somewhere between analysis and commentary.


 * 15 Jan, The Conversation, “the woman who some have labelled the “continuity Corbyn” candidate.” http://theconversation.com/labour-leadership-race-survey-shows-rebecca-long-bailey-only-just-scrapes-majority-among-momentum-members-130000 The Conversation publishes academic analyses written for a general audience.


 * 17 Jan, Politico.EU, non-UK, news reporting, “The 41-year-old former solicitor is seen as the “continuity Corbyn” candidate — a label she rejects.” https://www.politico.eu/article/the-battle-to-succeed-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-is-more-than-just-that-keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey-emily-thornberry-lisa-nandy-jess-phillips/

I offer these to editors who may wish to suggest text for the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CLP/affiliate nomination columns
So I added columns to the overview table for CLP/affiliate nominations and if the consensus is that people don't like that, that's fine, but thought there should be something. The 647 number is correct as far as I know (533 for England + 40 for Wales + 1 for Northern Ireland and + 73 for Scotland, using Holyrood constituencies), but I don't know the total number of affiliates and trade unions, or if that's something we want to add. Input is appreciated, thanks.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the Labour website there are 20 Socialist Societies and 12 Affiliated Unions, so 32 affiliate nominations available in total. TSP (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Momentum ballot
I added some initial text about the Momentum ballot and their support for RLB at (sorry, I was not logged in – I was on a shared computer somewhere). Another IP editor then removed this, saying, "Not relevant in context of campaign". I would like to argue for its return (happy to see the precise wording amended or developed).

I have seen a lot of reliable source reporting of the Momentum ballot and its format, so I think it warrants a couple of sentences' coverage. There are plenty more citations than the ones I used. It seems entirely relevant to the campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that it warrants a good amount of coverage. This is dependent on what reliable sources say, but I would expect us to say: Momentum is a left-wing organisation founded in 2015, previously supportive of Corbyn; they had 40,000 members at time of vote; the members were balloted and asked whether Momentum should endorse RLB and/or Rayner (mention criticism of this); then state the vote tallies for RLB and that she was endorsed. Similar content, but with a shift in focus from RLB to Rayner, should then be copied over to the deputy leadership page. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements
Current editing is rejecting endorsements by individuals based on Twitter posts, but accepting endorsements by organisations based on Twitter posts. This seems odd. Let's accept all Twitter endorsements or reject all Twitter endorsements. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The closing statement at WP:ENDORSERFC established consensus that primary sources are not acceptable for individuals, but established no consensus for organisations. Are there any specific organisations which you would remove for a particular reason other than that the source used is Twitter? — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about the RFC. The main issue that prevented a consensus being reached on organisations in the RFC was about media (e.g., newspaper) endorsements, rather than about organisations in general. Thus, if The Daily Mirror, say, endorsed a particular candidate, that would be a primary source (i.e., an article in The Daily Mirror), but such an endorsement should be included. What we have here is non-media organisations based on a Twitter post. I would very much support treating these the same way we are treating personal endorsements based on a Twitter account. That is, by excluding them.
 * In the endorsements section, there are only 3 organisational endorsements. (There are many other organisational endorsements—unions, affiliated bodies and CLPs—elsewhere in the article.) These are all for Long-Bailey: Momentum (extensively covered by reliable sources) and 2 sourced to Twitter (Campaign for Socialism and Scottish Young Labour). So I think we should remove the latter 2. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what your reading of the discussion is, unless you wish to formally contest the closure, the closing statement says: For organizations this is no consensus, as in unresolved consensus, and not a consensus against. So arguing by criterion #2 is not sufficient here. Let's take a look at the organisations and see whether they're significant to include. Campaign for Socialism looks quite small, but it's a Scottish pressure group affiliated with and of a similar proportional size to Momentum (Scottish Labour is about 1/20th the size of Labour and CfS is about 1/25th the size of Momentum). Additionally, their endorsement was decided by a membership vote. Looks significant to include to me. As for Scottish Young Labour, I can't establish their size, they don't have particularly high profile social media attention which likely indicates quite a small membership and there's no mention of how they came to endorse RLB, so I'd remove that one. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC explicitly allows us to make a local choice either way on what to do with respect to primary sourcing for organisational endorsements. I am, thus, not arguing based on criterion #2. I am arguing based on logic (the inconsistency of not using Twitter endorsements for people vs. doing so for organisations) and by drawing on the discussion in the RfC.
 * Thus, I propose we decide to exclude Twitter endorsements by organisations. I think your approach of picking and choosing which Twitter organisational endorsements to include is problematic: you're delving into WP:OR territory by trying to do an analysis of how significant one body is compared to another.
 * In addition, I suggest that organisational Twitter statements are inherently less reliable than personal Twitter statements. At least if a person tweets, we know it's their opinion. An organisation's Twitter account may not even reflect a formal position, but could just be the opinion of the individual running the account. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing WP:OR about choosing which organisations are significant; it's the same way we decide what sources are reliable, what news articles deserve more weight than others etc. We need an a priori method to evaluate sources' reliability and significance or we literally could not write a single thing on Wikipedia. I oppose your suggestion to remove all non-media organisation endorsements via Twitter, so you've not got such a local consensus here. We're agreed on removing SYL, I guess, so I've done that. With the CfS, I still support inclusion; as I've already said above, the CfS Tweet is very much a formal position that the organisation holds, the result of a vote amongst their membership, so there's no point in talking about hypotheticals when I'm giving you a concrete case. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If most commentators call RLB a continuity candidate, you feel it's WP:OR to say "most commentators call RLB a continuity candidate" without an explicit citation saying that, as per your comments in an earlier Talk section. However, deciding the Campaign for Socialism's endorsement is noteworthy is something you can determine by you doing research and you forgo any need for an explicit citation saying that. This seems an odd stance to me. Generally speaking, the decision on what to write about on Wikipedia is led by the choices of independent, secondary, reliable sources. That's what I propose here: following independent, secondary, reliable sources.
 * You are completely right that we have not yet formed any local consensus on how to handle organisational endorsements only sourced to tweets. I hope more editors will input here. you inputted to the last discussion around what endorsements to list. What say you here? Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, more editor input would be well appreciated here. You have correctly summarised two of my opinions but you're comparing apples to oranges: one is a matter of whether or not to include a verifiably true fact; the other is a matter of whether or not a fact is verifiably true. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree with here. If we're going to require secondary coverage for individuals it makes sense to require the same for non-media organisations. A clear inclusion criterion feels sensible, and I wouldn't look forward to needing to discuss the relevancy of each organisational endorsement that doesn't have secondary sourcing. Ralbegen (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My view is that if something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page then a Tweet by that person or organisation's official Twitter account is enough to use as a citation for an endorsement. Helper201 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:ENDORSERFC decided that the former (a tweet from a person with their own Wikipedia page) is not sufficient. In that context, should we accept the latter, i.e. tweets from organisations with their own Wikipedia pages? Bondegezou (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've removed Campaign for Socialism as it looks like we have a weak consensus to remove it for now, though I still support inclusion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
Two points on the infobox:


 * Colour bars beneath candidates in internal elections don't distinguish them. This has come up before on more than one page and they were removed per WP:ICONDECORATION. They do not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function.
 * Nomination figures are a bar for ballot access, not rounds of the election. They are covered clearly with an explanation of their significance in the article, but aren't useful in the infobox and should be excluded. Once each round of nominations has finished, a mention in the lead would be appropriate and a much more effective way of communicating them to readers rather than using acronyms that the reader may not be familiar with to head numbers that readers need a lot more context for.

So I think that both of these should be removed. I'd appreciate the views of other editors. Ralbegen (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree on both points. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I get your reasoning on the first point, although they are a good visual reference. It is arbitrary having a bar that goes up to (using the affiliates column as an example) 32 when you only require three, and the percentage serves no purpose (see Bondegezou's discussion above). That said, I don't think we should get rid of it altogether, as the numbers themselves are not mentioned elsewhere and would be hard to condense into prose. I removed the acronyms earlier and replaced them with more descriptive terms, which should help readers who haven't read the definitions above. (And thanks to Bondegezou and Ralbegen for correcting my shoddy grammar!) PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC) (Misunderstood opening post, new reply below)
 * Hi, the infobox is the one at the top right of the article (see WP:INFOBOX). The nominations table is just a table. Ralbegen (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got the wrong end of that stick for sure. Now that I have looked at what you were intending, I agree with both points made. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't care that much either way about the colour bars – purely aesthetically, I think it looks a little better with them; and for a long time the Deputy Leadership page had them and this page didn't, so I think we should at least be consistent between the two pages. Every previous Labour leadership election also seems to have them (and all Conservative Party ones except the most recent), so I'm inclined to keep them in the absence of any indication they do any harm.  (They are clearly not in the scope of WP:ICONDECORATION – colours aren't images. We use colour for aesthetic reasons all the time on Wikipedia, especially in infoboxes.)


 * I think the number of nominations is significant and very widely-reported information reflecting a candidate's progress in the election. I absolutely agree that it's not a vote – and mustn't be presented as one, e.g. by bolding the highest number or ordering by them – but not everything in an infobox has to be a vote. It is very significant information, directly affecting whether the candidate even gets to face a vote; it's fairly easy to summarise in brief numbers; and my view is that the level of coverage it gets easily justifies inclusion in the infobox. Without it, someone glancing at this page would have had no impression this morning that there was any difference between Keir Starmer's position in the contest and Jess Phillips', which I think would be very unhelpful. TSP (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A user has been systematically adding colour bars to leadership elections over recent months. The colours look nice but serve no encyclopedic purpose, so they should be excluded. The number of nominations is significant but is much better communicated in the lead, where they can be properly contextualised. In the infobox, for a reader to get any benefit from them they'll need to already know what they mean. The lead is very short as things stand, and it seems a much more sensible place for a summary of nomination. The minimum you need to give context is something like: To get on the ballot, candidates need nominations from enough of the party's Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of European Parliament (MEPs), followed by support from either Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) or from at least affiliated groups. Five candidates, including Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips, Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry received sufficient nominations to proceed to the second round of nominations. Starmer had the most nominations from MPs and MEPs at 88, followed by Long-Bailey and Nandy with 33 and 31 nominations respectively. Phillips and Thornberry each got 23 nominations, one above the minimum threshold to proceed. Starmer achieved sufficient support from affiliates on 20 January, at which point he also had the greatest number of nominations from CLPs. Ralbegen (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanding the lead in this way would be good, agreed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While nominations are open, I think we should keep the numbers in the info box: it helps to see them changing easily, without necessarily having to dip into the full article. Colours, however, are irrelevant – let's remove them Hoffie01 (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with and  on expanding the lead section. Agree with  and others that the colours should be removed. I think the spirit of WP:ICONDECORATION supports this, even if one can argue over the precise letter of what it says. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead because that doesn't seem to be controversial. I'd suggest that there's a decent consensus to remove the colour bars from the infobox, and a more even split on removing nomination figures. and : are either of you happy with expansion of the lead (as the article stands at time of writing) as an alternative to listing nominations in the infobox? The argument being that the numbers need context that prose can give in order for readers less familiar with the internal organisational structures and jargon of the Labour Party to be able to understand them. Ralbegen (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to extend the lead, but the nice thing about having nominations in the infobox currently is that it is quick to see the relevant information – once nominations close and/or all remaining candidates have passed the threshold, then those numbers become less relevant and should be dropped from the box (IMO obviously) – On that basis, I would be happy for MP/MEP nominations to go, but can we keep CLP/Affiliates for the time being Hoffie01 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saw this edit. Shouldn't previous Labour election articles have their infobox colours removed as well? I am not particularly inclined either in favour or against them, but I think consistency should be maintained in those. Impru 20  talk 22:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely support removing all such colour bars where the same colour is used for every entry in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

%age of Trade Unions and Socialist Societies
In the Overview table, the number of Trade Unions and Socialist Societies nominating each candidate is given. Firstly, the correct plural is trades unions. But I'll change that in a moment.

Next to the number of nominating trades unions and socialist societies, there's a percentage: this is the number of unions and societies divided by 32, expressed as a percentage. I propose we remove this as it's misleading. The percentage of unions/societies carries no meaning in the leadership contest rules and is not reported by reliable sources. The rules do specify that nominations have to be from "at least three party affiliates that consist of at least 5% of affiliate members". In that context, people are going to look at the percentage we've put and they may think that the number given is in terms of the percentage of affiliate members covered. Which it's not. If we can get that number, let's use it, but otherwise, let's stop adding a percentage that has no meaning and no-one else bothers with. Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, but I'm not sure what the best way to displaying the aspects of the requirement are. Maybe a column for total affiliate nominations, a column for total trade union nominations, and a column for whether they fulfil the membership criterion? RS reporting is that the membership criterion is strictly fulfilled by a nomination from Unison, Unite, GMB, Usdaw or the CWU (but nothing I've seen includes the actual figures). Ralbegen (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Bondegezou, thanks for correcting the grammar mistake, I hadn't realised that 'Trade' should be pluralised. Secondly, I agree with the point you make about the percentage box, I presume someone added it to fit in with the other columns when the second nomination stage started. Even if we could find a reliable source for membership numbers, I presume just because an affiliate has endorsed a candidate, their membership would still have a free choice to pick for themselves, so maybe not such a good idea to include that one. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignore my last point, I now remember that a candidate requires 5% of the the affiliated membership, whether they vote for the chosen candidate or not. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry TSP, I wasn’t aware it was an issue JamesVilla44 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. I think we have consensus to fix this. However, the code for the table baffles me. Can someone else make this change? Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Bondegezou, I have now removed the percentage column for affiliates, as per above discussion. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone has re-added the misleading percentages. Can we re-remove?, are you available? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed them again. If has any objections, please discuss here. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ordering of candidates
Starting discussion on this, because it keeps being changed by diverse editors: I believe the candidates should remain in alphabetical order until the final vote is in, not be ordered by number of nominations or polling or anything else. None of these are votes. Any thoughts? TSP (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the infobox, the candidates section and the polling, I strongly agree that the candidates should remain in alphabetical order. Apart from the infobox, they should remain in alphabetical order following the election, too. In the nominations section, it makes sense to me that they're ordered differently. Candidates who have been sufficiently nominated at the top, followed by candidates who still need to seek nominations, followed by withdrawn candidates, with each of these secondarily ordered by PLP/EPLP nominations. Ralbegen (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical seems sensible to me. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided as to whether, at this point, the infobox is worth having. If it is, what is the rule being followed that implies that one should be on this page but one should not be on the page for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries? If there is an infobox before votes are counted, I would suggest sorting non-alphabetically, according to the following:
 * Sort first according to whether the candidate has met the requirements to stand;
 * The two groups could then be sorted either alphabetically, or by another measure of support (e.g. by M(E)P nominations, since this value cannot increase further, effectively making it a completed first round of voting, as in the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election, where candidates were ranked by support from MPs).—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think alphabetical is fine until the result is announced, as no-one has 'come first' in anything. It didn't matter whether a candidate got 23 or 123 PLP nominations, s/he were still able to qualify, so setting the order by these targets seems unnecessary. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we have consensus that, until we have results, the candidates should be listed alphabetically in the infobox. There is a growing trend to have minimal infoboxes not listing candidates (as per 's example of 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries) or not to have an infobox at all (as with 2020 London mayoral election) for forthcoming elections. I support that. The Manual of Style is clear that we should focus on the text, particularly the lead section, while infoboxes are entirely optional things. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice this is still being reordered – I see no logic behind KS being top of the list because he achieved nominations before LN. Lets just leave it alphabetical until people are eliminated, then the order should be that of their elimination Hoffie01 (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Policy Platforms of contenders for Labour Leader
Can these be sourced please? I just did an edit to the Nandy section where she was said to not support nationalisation of the Royal Mail but that's wrong based on her Neil interview. Can we either remove this section or put some citation neededs on every issue? This can be very misleading. 31.205.209.175 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

List of nominations
Recently the lists of PLP/CLP/Affiliates nominating each candidate have been replaced by a drop-down matrix table, with headings for each group of nominations and a row for each candidate (see here). Any opinions on this? I personally preferred it before with the clearer headings, but have no major issues with the new formatting, apart from the fact that it doesn't show up as well in mobile view. Credit to, who made the edit, and I like the way they have split the 'Affiliates' section into 'trades unions' and 'socialist societies', which is helpful for readers unfamiliar with the difference. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it looks ugly, it's harder to get around and anything that doesn't show up well in mobile view should not be used given the high proportion of readers who view Wikipedia on mobile. Let's go back to what it was. We can add a trades unions vs. societies split. Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings. The current display seems more scalable if we're going to get 600 CLP nominations coming in, but perhaps the old formatting with a show/hide box for CLPs only (or for each category) would be appropriate. — Bilorv ( talk ) 04:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't work on mobile views, it doesn't work. Let's go back to what did work.
 * I take 's point about a possibly large number of CLP nominations, but, indeed, this can be handled under the old formatting, or pushed into a spin-off article. Or, here's a thought, we just don't list them: just give total numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been noted in a discussion above, MOS:COLLAPSE doesn't permit automatically closed collapsable templates. I think that just listing numbers and not naming each individual CLP nomination is the best call. Any trends in nominations that RSes draw much attention to can be better covered in prose. Listing individual MP and affiliate nominations seems a lot more manageable (and useful for readers on a case-by-case level) to me. Ralbegen (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think getting rid of them entirely would be the best option, maybe splitting them into a new article (like the nominations sections in this article) as suggested, with a summary of affiliate nominations/trends etc in prose as you mentioned. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Might it be worth considering a split, creating a new article, “Nominations and endorsements in the 2020 Labour Party leadership election”, or something to that effect? Currently it seems that, regardless of the format we choose, there will still be a huge amount of content. A split would certainly make the main article more navigable. Thoughts? Willwal1 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've created a draft article, here: Draft:Nominations in the 2020 Labour Party leadership election. Willwal1 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * this looks like a good start. If we are to go down this path, I wonder whether it is better to sort by candidate (as it is currently) or by type of nominator. Also, it maybe a good idea to include endorsements in the article, as was the case in 2015 and 2016, although we don't currently have many (especially now that we have removed primary sources). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, . Bondegezou (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we need 4 campaign articles?
created 2020 Rebecca Long-Bailey Labour Party leadership campaign, 2020 Lisa Nandy Labour Party leadership campaign and 2020 Keir Starmer Labour Party leadership campaign. then created 2020 Emily Thornberry Labour Party leadership campaign. There is, so far, very little in any of these articles that isn't also here, and there's nothing that couldn't be included here. I think it was a mistake to create these and we haven't followed WP:SPLIT. I suggest changing them all to re-directs back here, merging any usable content not already covered here. Bondegezou (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think Thornberry has enough content for a split; also she has yet to make it onto the membership ballot. I also think that there is further content that can be added to each article, so perhaps the Under construction template could be temporarily applied while these changes are made? Willwal1 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a campaign section in this article that editors can (and should!) add material to about the campaign. This article's prose size is barely a tenth of the point at which the article would need to be split and the subjects don't require separate articles. The bold splits should be reversed and discussion should precede any further split. Ralbegen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And I just wanted to add: I appreciate your work on this, it'd just be better directed within the existing article! Ralbegen (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ralbegen. Headhitter (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I created the Emily Thornberry article to counter any undue bias that might occur by leaving her out, and I agree that expanded entries on the main leadership page are the best way forward. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick go merging all the novel content from the separate leadership campaigns into this article. If others could check if there's anything else to be used, and then I would support changing all of the four leadership campaign articles into redirects here. As per, the content is appreciated , but I think it works better here.
 * I am also a bit concerned as to whether we're sticking to WP:RS enough. There's a lot of use of LabourList, which is perhaps only reliable in some contexts. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be worth starting a separate discussion on sourcing if there's any disagreement, but I'd agree with here. LabourList is a good blog source and seems to be reliable for statements of fact; but I don't think helps establish due weight to include any material. If an announcement or event is only covered by LabourList and not elsewhere then it's probably not useful to include here. The Guardian and the New Statesman both have a lot of coverage of the election, and there's plenty more material in other high-quality news sources including the FT, the Times and the BBC. Ralbegen (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had a quick look over the article, nothing seems to be missing. Nandy's section seems to be much longer than the others, but if it's all cited and relevant then no problems there. Happy to redirect, unless or anyone else has objections. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps given that the Nandy campaign article has considerable more content (plus is still under construction and I had intended to add more), it could be spared redirection? (and the transferred content on main election article could be cut down to match the length of the others?) Willwal1 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest working on material here. If material here expands to a point where there's too much, then is the time to create a separate article. If the leadership campaign articles are re-directed to here, they can be easily re-created/unre-directed should we get to a point of there being so much material. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have boldly redirected all four campaign articles here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The result of merging those articles into this one is that it now appears unfortunately biased towards Nandy, having much more information about her campaign than the others' (it might be that she's received a disproportionate amount of attention from the media, but I don't think that justifies it). There's only a brief paragraph each for Starmer and Long-Bailer's campaigns, and nothing about Thornberry's campaign whatsoever. I don't have the time to do so myself, but I'd hope that someone will be expanding the amount of content on the other campaigns to balance this out. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WIP – better to have good content, even if there's more in one section than another. Hopefully other editors will expand the text for other candidates. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the Nandy content a little bit where it seemed obviously overly detailed. Bondegezou (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Main image
Possible that use of one candidate (currently Rebecca Long Bailey) for the main article image is showing favouritism towards that candidate. Should this be an image of the 4 candidates? N-Gage78 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a default technical detail beyond our control; we don't manually choose which image is displayed for a hovercard, I believe. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , : I think it is automatically set to the first image on the page/infobox. We could add the Labour Party logo to the top, but I don't think it matters so much, especially as we will have the winner's face at the top by April. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Drop the infobox, or drop headshots from the infobox, and have some photo from hustings as the first image in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it is possible to set the headline image for the article on a mobile device without altering the infobox? We should find a good image of the four of them from a hustings. I don't see a valid reason for removing the infobox for an election article close to happening Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this hovercard issue, but I've uploaded a photo of the remaining 3 at the Bristol hustings that could be used, if anyone understands how to set and test the headline/hovercard image: c:File:Nandy, Starmer and Long-Bailey, 2020 Labour Party leadership election hustings, Bristol.jpg. Or I could make a crop of the 4, lowish-quality but good enough for a small hover image. Rwendland (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Emily Thornberry
I can't seem to find a source that confirms her being eliminated? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. I've done a big revert to restore the depiction of Thornberry as an active candidate until we have an RS saying otherwise. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I write, we now have multiple citations (e.g. this) published today (14 Feb) saying that Thornberry has not been eliminated yet., you definitely jumped the gun by marking Thornberry as eliminated this morning. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies all – I read that the deadline was at midnight and wrongly assumed that meant this morning, not tonight. Willwal1 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Date and Time Grammar
Can people please stop changing the time of CLP/Affiliate nomination closure and Thorberry's elimination back to the 14th. The deadline was until the end of the 14th to get the required nominations. This means it would have closed when it struck midnight of the 15th, so unless Thornberry had withdrawn before then she was officially eliminated at 00:00, 15th February. Apache287 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Timeline point
I'm not a hundred percent sure the UK leaving the EU should be included in the timeline. Yes, it is a big thing for the UK but it isn't directly linked to the contest or the Labour Party.Llewee (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Remove it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * RLB2020.png

Opinion polls section
Do we really need to include Cooper (who never announced a bid), Phillips, Lewis and Thornberry in the opinion polling section? It seems awfully weird having that many empty gaps in the table. Just a thought. маsтегрна таLк  18:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They used to be condensed in an others column before this edit. I'd support restoring it for at least Cooper and Lewis and probably Phillips and Thornberry too. Ralbegen (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , : Sorry, hadn't noticed this until now. I split them into separate columns as the 'other' column ended up having a higher value than Thornberry's or even Nandy's, which made it confusing, especially as each accompanying footnote was about 5 sentences long. I'm fine removing Lewis and Cooper, but I'd keep Phillips and Thornberry in separate columns as they had higher poll results, and were both in the running until relatively recently. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Nandy portrait
There are two official portraits of Lisa Nandy on the Commons, one from 2017 and one from 2020. We only have 2017 portraits (with blue backgrounds) for Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer. The standing version of the article used the 2020 portrait of Nandy. Recently, replaced it with the older image with the edit summary fits in better, presumably because the colour of the background and lighting matches the older portraits of Long-Bailey and Starmer. reverted to the 2020 version earlier today with no edit summary, and counter-reverted to the 2017 version with the edit summary As before. Fits in better.

My view is that we should use the 2020 version. They are all high-quality official portraits that we have the right to use, and it makes sense to me that we should use the most recent image available. I don't think that the colour of the neutral background should be a factor in consideration. Ralbegen (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe we should use the 2017 image for the sake of uniformity. Of course an ideal situation would have been to use the 2020 portraits for everyone, but oh well. On the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries article, the portraits used for each candidate were selected in order to be uniform for each candidate. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know why only some MPs got a new portrait taken after the last election? It seems strange that the rest have to make do with a photo taken in 2017. To answer 's question, It would look nicer to have uniform photos, but I think it is more important to have up-to-date images, even if only one is available. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that in the candidates section, that out of the six portraits, three are from 2017 and three are from 2020. It would be a backwards step to replace half of these with an older photo for the sake of uniformity. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Election dates
Hello, I noticed that there has been a disagreement over the past few days on whether to have the 'election end' date as the 2nd April or the 4th of April. I think it should be the fourth, as that is when the election will have officially 'ended', with the announcement of the result. In 2015 and 2016 it is listed as the day when the result was given. Thoughts? Pinging,  and  PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 20:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, I guess follow consistency and go with announcement date. Unreal7 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What do RS say? This one makes the distinction between, "Voting in the race to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour chief ends on Thursday", but "today, as the party’s three-month contest to replace Jeremy Corbyn draws to a close." The Independent says, "Voting ends on Thursday in Labour’s leadership election". The Press Gazette says, "On Saturday, [...] The Labour Party’s mammoth leadership election campaign concludes". This older Guardian piece says, "it ends on 4 April".
 * So some deviation, but I would interpret that as the election ends 4 April, while voting ended 2 April. Bondegezou (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the election ended today rather than two days ago. It wouldn't make sense to say that Starmer 'won' the election two days ago, so how could the election have finished by then? Ralbegen (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Colour
All of the previous Labour leadership pages have the red colour strip. Why not here? маsтегрна таLк  12:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's cosmetic, it's not important. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * there was a discussion about this a while back, see above. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The colours were added earlier this year, despite having been discussed previously, by a single editor who didn't engage in discussion about it. It's not a precedent and they should be removed from all articles where they don't distinguish candidates. Ralbegen (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is precedent! All of the past Labour Leadership election pages have red colour strips on them. No, they don’t distinguish the candidates yet they haven’t done any harm to the pages at all. маsтегрна  таLк  11:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As my comment said, the colours were added earlier this year by a single user who did not engage in discussion about it. I posted on 's talkpage at the time and he didn't engage. They had previously been removed after another discussion, and there's consensus on this page against their inclusion. They violate the spirit of WP:ICONDECORATION and should not be included. Due to the consensus on this Talk page and lack of evidence that consensus has changed, I have removed them again. Ralbegen (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that we should remove all of them, from this and similar party leadership elections. Respect WP:ICONDECORATION. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hover over links error
Just looked at the list of candidates and hovered over the 'Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury' link for Rebecca LB, to get a picture of the current incumbent Bridget Phillipson. Confusing, it looks like an autogenrated panel. But Wikipedia is such that it is way beyond may pay grade to decide whether this is wrong, let alone what the fix should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.185.122 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I don't think there is anything that can be done to change that, and the note in brackets underneath the link makes it clear (IMO) that she isn't in that role anymore. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)