Talk:2022 Wakefield by-election

Ed Balls section
As Ed Balls has now clarified that he will not be standing, I was wondering whether it would be worth keeping the section in the article? On one hand, for the moment it does no harm, but it is essentially an irrelevant rumour that has amounted to nothing. Any thoughts? Quinby ( talk ) 22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Delayed resignation
Is it worth noting that Ahmad Khan keeps delaying actually resigning, e.g. ? Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou I'd say yes it is worth it, as it explains the lack of a given date for the by-election and the low number of developments. I'm not sure where it should go - maybe the 'trigger' section? Quinby  ( talk ) 13:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Synth?
Might I suggest that the current text that reads, " In the 2021 West Yorkshire mayoral election, the Yorkshire Party came third in the Wakefield District, ahead of the Lib Dems and the Greens. " is a bit WP:SYNTHy? It's drawing an interpretation from a primary source. Has a reliable source actually advanced this line of reasoning? Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing for candidacies
Our standard approach for by-elections is to only include information for candidates when supported by reliable, secondary sources. Ergo, sourcing just from the party concerned or from a social media account is insufficient. This is because (a) that's what WP:RS says, and (b) we often see candidates/parties saying they'll stand, but they fail to actually do so. I note at present that Reform UK, Yorkshire Party and Workers Party of Britain standing are all only supported by primary sources. Can we find secondary sources or remove? Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * At present, none of these are sourced and officially selected candidates. There is minimal purpose in citing who is not standing. It is pure speculation, already denied.--NarrowBloat (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto potential candidates, who have not been selected by a party. Too speculative, and internal party selections would need to mention all. Can't cherry-pick a front-runner, since often opaque rules and backing mean Labour especially is difficult to predict reliably.--NarrowBloat (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think inclusion of news sources reporting potetial/declined candidates in UK by-election articles are not especially unusual, eg. the latest version of 2021 Batley and Spen by-election:
 * "On 12 May, The Guardian reported that Jo Cox's sister, Kim Leadbeater, and former Labour MP Paula Sherriff were among Labour's potential candidates."
 * "In June 2021, Reform UK announced that they would not stand a candidate in the by-election.."
 * "Paul Halloran, [...], also chose not to stand again, ..."
 *  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 07:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Update 'Candidates' to 'Candidate Selections'? Which would cover up to Nominated Candidates. After which, not much point in 'might have' candidates remaining. Change back to 'Candidates'. Would be concerned that primary sources are removed before; since newspapers only know who candidates definitely are, after such a list is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbingdonAbbie (talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We're meant to be writing an encyclopaedia article, not just a directory of election results, so we absolutely should have content beyond merely who the final candidates are. It is relevant and useful to discuss "might have been" candidates, if appropriately sourced. It is relevant and useful to discuss candidate selection processes likewise. This is what we have done on other by-election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with . We should always be keeping in mind future researchers who are interested in reading about the context, not just the data. Sometimes the people that don't stand are the most notable/interesting thing about a by-election. The Labour selection dispute discussed below being a perfect case in point, and valuable information for anyone looking into internal Labour politics for this era. The caveat being, of course, and as always, that we should only include information from reliable independent sources. Jdcooper (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

To the IP editor who keeps re-adding material on Herdson without appropriate sourcing: Some sources that are considered reliable and not reliable are listed at WP:RSP. While I enjoy reading PoliticalBetting.com, it is considered to come under WP:BLOG. What we need is reporting in the Yorkshire Post or a national broadsheet or an established UK political news site like Politics.co.uk or the BBC. Those sorts of things. This is the same basic policy we apply on all Wikipedia articles: see WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. Bondegezou (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The Yorkshire Party website satisfies self-sourcing rules - see the post from 8.18am today and the link. It even says tweets/facebook/etc would do, so a long-established party website should be fine. There are numerous tweets and posts to back it up too. Numerous betting websites list the party as 3rd, 4th or 5th favourites (I'm not meaning political betting, btw, there are a few others). William1980b (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Our longstanding practice on UK by-election articles is to wait for reliable secondary sourcing before including information on candidates. This follows WP:RS. WP:ABOUTSELF says primary sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. However, standing a candidate is not merely up to a party, so it is not entirely about themselves. What we have seen in numerous by-elections is that such-and-such a party says they are going to stand a candidate, and then they don't. Actually nominating a candidate is not straightforward. A party (or independent) can't just stand: they need nominations, they need a deposit and they need to complete the appropriate paperwork. Many announcements by parties never come to fruition; some are done purely for publicity without any actual intent to go through with the paperwork.
 * Announcements by parties are, of course, self-serving. They are done to promote the party. WP:ABOUTSELF only applies if the material is n[ot] unduly self-serving. Clearly, candidacy announcements are self-serving.
 * If a candidacy is serious, it will receive reliable secondary sourcing in due course. There is WP:NORUSH and we are WP:NOTNEWS. We do not need to jump on self-serving social media announcements. Let's continue what we've done for years and wait for proper sourcing. If a political party can't get even the Yorkshire Post to mention them, then I don't think Wikipedia is doing a disservice to readers by not mentioning them.
 * When the actual candidates are announced in the SOPN, that will be well reported and we will cover all the confirmed candidates then. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is 'Unduly self-serving'? Copying and pasting an entire press release which said how good a candidate was would certainly be so, but merely taking the information on who the candidate is? The word 'unduly' suggests more than a statement of a single fact, or else almost all self-sources in all scenarios would not be allowed.
 * Judging from your replies, you seem to accept that the Yorkshire and Reform Parties sources are genuine but question whether they're really intending to stand or will be able to meet the deposit/signatures requirements. The former contradicts the inclusion of Galloway - this is very possibly a false claim of thinking about standing to gain publicity. The latter could be levelled at all parties; even the Conservatives, Labour, Lds and Greens have been known to mess up paperwork or withdraw candidates late in the day (e.g., Greens in Batley & Spen). Yorkshire and Reform have stood in many such elections and should be treated equally on that basis, in this respect. A solution would be to label the section 'Prospective Parliamentary Candidates', a common term used at hustings before the SOPN has been published.
 * You place a huge weight on whether newspapers publish candidacies. Their motive is to sell papers - Galloway is a controversial celebrity and so has no problem getting published - even though he may well not stand. Smaller parties feature on betting websites (numerous in the case of the Yorkshire Party), a sign that those businesses are taking them seriously, ranking them 3rd, 4th or 5th favourites. But papers may not publish those more likely to stand, out of commercial preference. This is where an encyclopaedia should be better than newspapers and not merely follow them.
 * If you do what you've always done, you don't improve - Wiki has always looked to evolve. So far, Galloway, who may well not stand, has been published, whereas Yorkshire and Reform candidates, who very likely will (they both stood in the Mayor election, £5000 deposit, 100 signatures), have not been. I hope these points are considered. William1980b (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am deciding what to include based on whether it is covered in a reliable secondary source, as per Wikipedia policy at WP:V. Wikipedia's epistemological approach is to outsource decisions over the accuracy and validity of information to reliable sources, which we then follow. Making decisions based on judgements of our assessments of how serious particular parties are or are not would constitute WP:OR and is not allowed. Re-writing rules on what we consider reliable sources, as when you suggest we should put betting sites above newspapers, is not something we can do unilaterally on one article. If you want to evolve Wikipedia's policy, take it to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and get community approval first.
 * But Wikipedia is expressly designed to follow. I quote WP:V: "[Wikipedia']s content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." If you think newspaper coverage is poor, fair enough, but Wikipedia is not somewhere to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * (The idea that betting sites including a party is good evidence that they will really stand is preposterous. It is in a betting site's commercial interests to take bets on a party that then doesn't stand, because then they won't have to pay out! They've got no financial interest in doing due diligence on who will really stand. Offer them money and they'll give you odds on anything. I note the odds for the Yorkshire Party winning are around 100:1, so it's not like the betting sites actually think they're a significant player.)
 * I welcome the input of other editors to broaden this discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my main points are:
 * to challenge your use of 'unduly self-serving'; as explained above.
 * and there is a contradiction with including Galloway, who likely won't stand, but using the possibility of parties falsely claiming that they will stand as a reason to reject self-sourcing.
 * On the minor points:
 * Define 'significant player'. The Yorkshire Party got 840 in Batley & Spen. The winning margin was about 300 and Labour's analysis of key polling districts suggested in tipped the balance (that may not have been the objective of the party but perhaps it was the outcome and it can encourage other parties to chase your votes with similar policies). On a more general note, UKIP never had more than 2 MPs but they got what they wanted by controlling votes - so a 'significant player' is not necessarily a contender for winning (btw the odds were 40:1 on one site yesterday).
 * The real point about betting sites is that they don't list every party - no rejoin, UKIP, etc - many list just five including Yorkshire (or 6 with Reform too). I take your point about profiting if such parties didn't stand but I would suggest they expect Yorkshire to. I'm not putting them ahead of newspapers since they are not 'reporting' contradictory facts. William1980b (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On the 'unduly self-serving' point, I must disagree, it is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF to include the announcements of the political parties and/or independent candidates that have reliable WP:ABOUTSELF sources attached. If a party that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page announced as a candidate on it's official channels, and then it turns out that no candidate from that party ends up on the Ballot paper, that is worth including on its own merit. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think, given your COI as below,, you shouldn't be editing this article at all. However, you are welcome to comment on the Talk page, as you have done here.
 * Past experience has been that primary source claims of candidacies have often not materialised. The usual approach we've taken as an editing community on UK by-election articles is to wait for reliable secondary sourcing for candidacies, or for the Statement of Persons Nominated. This is consistent with WP:V/WP:SECONDARY. WP:ABOUTSELF allows some leeway (may be used), but doesn't require us to use such sources. I don't see a reason to change our approach now. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Labour's candidate selection
Related to the section above, I'm trying to gather consensus on whether to include this and how to word it neutrally: All 14 members of Wakefield CLP executive resigned after accusations that Labour broke its rules by removing local candidates from the shortlist  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I support including this information. Perhaps I can suggest a slight re-wording? "All 14 members of the Wakefield Constituency Labour Party executive resigned accusing the national party of breaking its rules by removing local candidates from the shortlist." Is that better? We could then expand on that as more commentary becomes available. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a little more complex than this. The sources there are reporting a vote of the Constituency Labour Party to all resign, however, the Youth Officer didn't as reported in a statement given to LabourList (https://twitter.com/elliot_chappell/status/1525831319330205702?s=20&t=WzFFIzg7jHJrpNSs10wM_g) by a member of the executive (For context, Youth Officers are externally appointed by the local Young Labour groups, where formed). Therefore, only 13 people actually resigned, this later statement, however did not get covered by the majority of other sources, so I'm not sure if it is enough to correct what happened. I will not edit this as I have a WP:COI on this specific matter being on the Executive Committee of Wakefield Young Labour, but I do think that it's clear from this clarification statement given, the original reporting is not accurate. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have clearer reporting on this, but in this context, a report from the editor of LabourList is acceptable, I think, to support adding a clarification to the text, which I have now done. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Serious Issues with Political Bias from Wikipedia editors- And a Suggested Solution to this problem.
This Article is a mess, over the last 4 weeks there have been editing battles from various Wikipedia and Wikimedia editors in addition to members of the public who are all removing, changing, adding, and editing the description of various parties, as well as manipulating the formation & paragraphing of the article.

I think we need to start a discussion about this. Obviously as a major Election there are partisan biases and playing politics here- but this runs counter to Wikipedia's ethos and Values of honest, transparent, accurate free access to accurate and properly curated, unbiased information.

For example, perhaps the 5 largest parties by vote share within the Wakefield Constituency at the 2022 Local election all get a subheading in the "Candidates" section.

As the SOPN has been released today, allowing the 5 most successful parties by vote share to have extra information in the "candidates" section, as they are the most relevant with proven popularity parties going into this election. While the remaining 10 smaller, less relevent parties can be lumped into "other"

I believe this suggestion will improve the page substantially, and also stop the continuous editing battles and bias which is sadly plaguing this page.

Truth, Honesty, Accuracy, Impartiality.

- Concerned Citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.188.126 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Article content reflects coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you wish to suggest some sources covering the various candidates, that would be welcome and can be used to build article content. We are not allowed to write our own rules (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS): we need to follow the same basic principles of all of Wikipedia, e.g. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE. Bondegezou (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

With Respect, Bondegezou.

You in yourself are one of the most egregious examples of this Political Bias I mention, you have been attempting to distort and manipulate Wikipedia's rules in Bad-Faith to "own" the page.

You use your experience and history of *extensive Wikipedia editing and knowledge of procedures to excuse criticism and distract from the blatant evidence of your impartiality and bias, as you have done above.

This is not good for Wikipedia, Honesty, and accurate information transfer to allow a rouge user to act like he personally owns a Wikipedia page. That is wrong, Wikipedia is for all of us public.

You should recuse yourself from this page and declare your conflicts of interests.

(For observers/lurkers, check the edit log of the main page for proof and evidence which backs up my allegations, User Bondegezou is stalking the page and changing it's content according to his will.)

Acts like these are why Wikipedia's reputation is on the decline. We must be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.188.126 (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Firstly: We do not add anything to Wikipedia articles without a reliable source. This is to ensure that it is both true and notable. Twitter is not a reliable source. Party websites are not (on their own) a source establishing notability. Leaving out information which might be true is a direct consequence of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Despite repeated explanations of this policy, editors have tried to add information without proper sourcing. If no reliable source can be found to cite this information, it shouldn't be included. Now we have the SOPN, we have a reliable source for the raw list of candidates. Any further information would also need, again, a reliable source.
 * Secondly: We assume good faith among other editors. I do not see a single instance of using bias, or attempting to own the page. This user is simply applying the long-established and much-discussed consensus policies of Wikipedia, especially the need for everything included in articles to be sourced to community standards. Blaming individual editors for these policies is not polite or justified. Jdcooper (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 92.13.188.126, if there are edits you are unhappy about, please be specific as to which ones and everyone can discuss them here. It helps to include a URL of the diff of the edit: go to the History tab to find what you want. See Help:Diff for more. If you want to complain about me, you can go through WP:ANI. While I am quite pale, I would like to note I have never used rouge. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New poll
See Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Primary-sourced tittle-tattle
Do we need the primary-sourced trivia about Lord Frost standing in the article? If we do, it surely needs secondary sources to give it due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The material is sourced to a Spectator article, which is a secondary source. This is not primary-sourced. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. So shouldn't it be sourced to the Telegraph, not the Spectator comment piece? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept the Telegraph as an RS for this, so have removed the tag. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No pies
Can we dump the pie charts? We already have the election results in three other formats. Do we really need them again? Pie charts are generally considered to be a poor way of displaying the data, e.g.. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2022 (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) 02:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Simon Lightwood MP (cropped).png