Talk:UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017/Archive 1

Premature infobox photos
I've removed all the photos from the infobox. It is inaccurate to list these people as candidates. No-one has yet been approved as a candidate: people declaring they want to be candidates is not the same thing. There is significant doubt, for example, whether Waters will be allowed to stand. Let's wait until 28 July when nominations formally close. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Citation suggesting Waters might not be allowed to stand Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have re-removed everyone from the infobox. Happy to discuss here though. Bondegezou (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it wrong to have peoples' pictures just because they have not been confirmed yet? Isn't it enough that they are declared at this stage? Is there a precedent or Wikipedia standard to follow?Weburbia (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with having people's picture. However, the infobox lists people as candidates and they're not yet confirmed as candidates, so I suggest that's misleading. Take a look at this older version of the LibDem leadership election page: . That gives a model for showing people's pictures while keeping the infobox bare for now. Perhaps something like that would work well here? Bondegezou (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

11 Candidates, I'm sure you can find some in bias pictures of some of them. Ukipleadership2017 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You have pictures for 2020 USA Election Ukipleadership2017 (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

John Rees-Evans
An IP editor and then have added John Rees-Evans as a potential candidate based on a Guido Fawkes piece. But surely Guido Fawkes (blog) cannot be considered a reliable source! It's far from clear that the article is even serious in its inclusion of Rees-Evans. I suggest removing this. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, but I don't think that's the only reference. He has spoken openly on social media which might suggest a bid, he was a previous candidate in the leadership election so I feel he should at least be down as potential until he either confirms or declines to stand. (Z2a (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC))
 * If there's a reliable, secondary source, as per WP:RS, talking about him as a potential candidate, great, let's use that. I feel it's unwise to rely on primary sources in the context of considering potential candidates: "potential" here has to mean that someone independent and reliable thinks they're potential, in order to accord with WP:DUE. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There is still no reliable source but has added him again. Apparently he made some announcement today but until there is a secondary reliable source that says he has declared he should not be in the list. The source provided is old and does not warrant the claim. Judging by his last campaign there will be videos and everything else you could wish for if he does declare, so no need to jump the gun. Perhaps there will be something tomorrow.Weburbia (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How much more reliable can you get than physically announcing it? He is looking for assentors to his campaign and he has announced he will stand here https://www.mugscroll.com/johndavidreesevans/videos/1115633785247631/ (Z2a (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)).
 * WP:RS is clear on what constitutes reliable evidence. Bondegezou (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the press is ignoring him, or he is ignoring the press, but I would accept the mugscroll link based on what WP:RS says about use of primary sources, so long as it is not used for quotes or other details. It does make it clear that he has declared. I'd like to see more agreement before the edit goes in. Weburbia (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * IBTimes says he has entered the race. That's enough for me now.Weburbia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the IBTimes link. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Flag in infobox
I've seen this as a point of contention in election articles before: Bondegezou points out that WP:FLAG doesn't justify the use of a flag in the infobox as the election—particularly WP:INFOBOXFLAG in particular. Whilst accepting precedent isn't an argument on its own, I don't think there's any particular reason that some leadership election articles should have infobox flags and others not. I think that the two arguments in favour of the flag's continued use in these infoboxes are aesthetic (they look nicer) and contextual (they provide at-a-glance information about which country the election is happening in). I don't think either of these arguments in favour of inclusion is particularly strong. I'm not sure that the argument in favour of exclusion particularly strong either.

However, the following UK party leadership elections have national flags in the infoboxes:


 * Conservatives: 1965, 1975, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2016, Next
 * Labour: 1922, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1988, 1992, 1994, 2007, 2010, 2016
 * SNP: 1969, 1990, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2014

The following UK party leadership elections have party logos as infobox flags:


 * Labour: 1963,

And no leadership elections for the three parties above lacks an infobox flag. I don't feel strongly enough about this to go back and strip all of them of their infobox flags, but I also don't think that this article should uniquely lack one. Sorry to have gone on a bit! Ralbegen (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- a very efficient analysis! MOS:FLAG argues against all of these, but it is common for editors to ignore MOS:FLAG. I'm sticking with it! I'll try removing some of these other flags. Bondegezou (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Is Alt-Politics now a WP:RS? I thought it was just a blog. Harfarhs (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence outside the alt-right blog that Mike Hookem or Aidan Powesland (sic) are standing. There are primary sources for David Allen


 * Aidan Powlesland is standing. He was present as a candidate at the London debate. Marion Mason has been mentioned as a candidate. Stuart Agnew has stated that he is NOT standing but IS supporting Anne Marie Waters. No reliable secondary sources for any of these yet Weburbia (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur that Alt-Politics does not meet RS. I will edit accordingly, taken into account Weburbia's comments. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed Allen and Hookem (no RS given). We need a better source for Kurten, but I've left him in. We need a source for Powlesland, but I've left him in on the basis of 's report. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! Harfarhs (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I propose we add David Allen back in because the sourcing for him (UKIP Daily) seems as good as that for David Kurten and he was at the London hustings. I suggest we don't use improved sources if they just list candidates (e.g. Express) because they may have taken the list from Wikipedia without further verification. Weburbia (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I restored the "better source needed" indication for Kurten because the list in the BBC source cited looks like it might have been taken from this Wikipedia article so is at risk of WP:CIRCULAR. Secondary sources need to include specific details about the declaration or their own primary sources to confirm that they have not copied the info from here or other unreliable sources. Weburbia (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While we do have to be careful of circular referencing, I think you overstate the situation. The BBC article given seems fine to me as a reliable, secondary source, and we have other primary sources supporting his candidacy under Endorsements. I am, thus, not worried about Kurten.
 * I am worried about Allen, for whom we only have a source that fails WP:RS, and Powlesland, for whom we have nothing. Hopefully, this all becomes moot on 4 Aug when the vetting process is completed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Walker still a councillor?
This article http://www.asianimage.co.uk/uk_national_news/15441718.Ukip_leadership_battle_heats_up_as_nominations_close says he is a "former Ukip councillor", which can't exactly mean he is no longer a party member, so is he still a councillor or not? Harfarhs (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources indicate that he is a former councillor. He is not listed on the council website as a councillor. Weburbia (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Chris Wells
He's listed as having "Withdrawn"; however, the Kent News piece cited (reference 30) says he had been "considering launching a challenge" but then made a "decision not to proceed". If that's the best source—and the Kent Online one is mere speculation—surely he shouldn't be listed in that section? The other listed there, Etheridge, surely did launch a campaign. Harfarhs (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to distinguish between withdrawn and declined at this stage. We are not getting reliable sources for all declarations. I don't mind Wells being moved to the declined section, but perhaps it would be better if the two sections were merged. Weburbia (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd list Wells as declined and Etheridge as withdrawn. Bondegezou (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bondegezou, for as long as those sections are still relevant to the article. Ralbegen (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sections will be relevant for a long time if the September 2016 election article is anything to go by—indeed, if part of the point of an article like this is to tell the story of the election, they seem to me an essential aspect of it. Harfarhs (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant parts of it are better suited to the Campaign section as far as I'm concerned. The non-candidacies of Farage and Etheridge are both notable and should be written about; I'm really not sure about the others. The candidates section can then include other information relating to candidates, such as their endorsements. I think that's a briefer and less redundant way of organising the article, as in the admittedly minimal Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2017 article. That's a potential discussion for the future, though. Ralbegen (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements
All the sources for the endorsements section are just twitter links. I don't think this is very useful. Does anyone have a case against deletion of the section? Weburbia (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about endorsements sections based on primary sources (usually tweets), but that's what we do on numerous other articles (e.g. much of Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2017), so I would not support unilaterally deleting such a section here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that an example of where it was done before is justification. Perhaps Wiki Policy supports use of tweets as reliable sources in this case, but where is that explained? Another issue was that after some time the section only included endorsements of two candidates which does not seem very balanced. Does this reflect the actual pattern of endorsements? If these questions can be addressed I would happily support reinstatement of the section. Weburbia (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY accepts that primary sources, which would include Twitter, are allowed in some circumstances. I have restored all the Twitter examples. Thank you for finding some more endorsements. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFSOURCE is the relevant guideline as far as I can tell; a tweet endorsement is RS if it's not a joke and the account is known to belong to the person it claims to be. I try to only use tweets from verified accounts to that end. Endorsements don't tend to be balanced across parties, factions or candidates, and it'd be inappropriate to artificially level them. Ralbegen (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that people who speak on behalf of notable organisation can make notable endorsements even if they are not personally notable. Are we agreed? Weburbia (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is clear they are announcing an endorsement of the organisation, yes, sure. Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

tweets are endorsements in USA Politics, leave Twitter endorsement there Ukipleadership2017 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Anne Marie Waters: Geert Wilders, Anke van dermeersch, Ingrid Carlqvist, Jack Buckby, Paul Weston, Debbie Robinson Australia Liberty Alliance, Tommy Robinson. Kurten:Alan Craig, Arron Banks, Leave EU, Paul Joseph Watson. Ben Walker : Jonathan Arnott, Ukipleadership2017 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Applicants
A list of 11 applicants has been provided by the returning officer as reported in the Evening Standard. These are still subject to vetting and verification. The final list of candidates from this list is to be announced on 11th August. Weburbia (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The 11 applicants have now all been confirmed as candidates who will appear on the ballot paper. Weburbia (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Statement from Returning Officer: https://twitter.com/jackgevertz/status/896072819561308163 FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"the highest-ever number to have contested a UKIP leadership ballot" is surely an understatement. Has any leadership contest of any party in any country ever come anywhere near this number? The problem is that the cited reference does not mention this aspect of the election so it is technically original research and not a notable fact until a reliable source writes about it. Weburbia (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone will write about it at some point—the dramatic thing isn't just the number of candidates, it's that there are so many candidates under a FPTP leadership election. The minimum possible winning voteshare is under 10%. There are international examples of leadership contests that have had more candidates, including recently the Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017, but none I can find in the UK or that are under FPTP. Ralbegen (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox problem
The template for the infobox only displays up to 9 candidates at any one time. 11 have come forward. Any ideas? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Something tabular, like Template:Infobox legislative election, could work. At a stretch we could select for the infobox off the back of endorsements until there's polling, given it's a special case? I'd be very wary of that, though. Ralbegen (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my thought but I couldn't get the code to work for candidates rather than parties FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we ask a template editor to edit it? (Template editor) Weburbia (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how we do that but in the meantime I've gone with this --->. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is better and could be improved further. The election infobox uses American terminology which is not ideal for a UK election.Weburbia (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the way that they dealt with it for the Conservative Party of Canada's leadership election this year. I don't know if people think that's a better way of organising it, but it is an alternative. Ralbegen (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but it doesn't show candidates. Weburbia, what sort of things would we need to add? My thought is we keep the current one until the results and/or 2+ candidates drop out (then we switch back to conventional infobox, as at least two candidates will win less than 5% of the vote) FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think an infobox with pictures, candidate name, deputy name (where given). Given the numbers it may work better in the body of the article rather than as a side infobox. It may be least hassle to build a raw table instead of looking for a template. Should results go in the same box or a different results table? If it is true that voting is by STV with three choices the presentation of results could be more complex than usual. Weburbia (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For sure those things are ideal! It's just quite hard to build one. My thought is that when the results come in, we switch to a conventional table as at least two candidates will get under 5% of the vote. Voting is by first past the post incidentally from what I've seen. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Certainly the rules and the original intention are/were for FPTP, but there have been suggestions on social media that this will now change to some form of instant-runoff voting. I guess we should just keep a weather eye open for announcements. Harfarhs (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It has now been confirmed by the returning officer that FPTP will be used. The reason given is that not all candidates agreed to the proposed alternative. Weburbia (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As the number of candidates is now 7, I will change the infobox back to a conventional one. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dealing with this issue so well, FriendlyDataNerdV2! Ralbegen (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In-fighting
Is Mike Hookem's resignation as party whip (in response to Anne Marie Waters' candidacy) significant enough to be worth mentioning? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was BBC News "frontpage": seems WP:DUE to me and that's why I put it in. Bondegezou (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Libertarianism link
Perhaps that link will be controversial for some, but I've felt for a long time that the article needed such a link and I couldn't see a more obvious one to select. Harfarhs (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that right-libertarianism characterises the political view of these candidates. There are many other flavours of libertarianism with Wikipedia pages. The UKIP page links to civil libertarianism but that may also be too specific. Would it not be better just to link to the more general libertarianism page? Weburbia (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the phrase being linked is "economic libertarians"—and that only a particular faction of UKIP is being described, not the entire party—I think right-libertarianism is the nearest description available by link. To my mind, the only difficulty in using the term could be to exaggerate the closeness of these UKIPpers' position to anarcho-capitalism. I don't want to get into a WP:OR mess but Bill Etheridge, by accounts I have heard, doesn't seem to be a libertarian in any social sense. Harfarhs (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying but we must remember that The Guardian is a very left-wing paper that wants to depict UKIP as very right-wing, yet some of the libertarian candidates say they do not want to be constrained by the left-right agenda. There is a page on Faragism. Would that be a more suitable link? Some updates to that page referring to this election might help but I agree that we should wait for a reliable source to provide some political analysis to avoid original research.Weburbia (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If that page gave a fuller account of Faragism, it probably would be a better link—but unfortunately it's little more than a stub article. Thinking about it again, perhaps 'right-libertarianism' is a little too precise for the meaning being conveyed, and the best thing to do is link to 'libertarianism' and rely on the reader to interpret it correctly. Harfarhs (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Who's the before leader?
Who should be shown in the infobox as the "before" leader? It currently shows Crowther, who's the interim leader. This seems wrong to me: I changed it to Nuttall, but this has been reverted. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we could compromise and say "Crowther (interim) / Nuttall (resigned)" or some such, but as I said in my edit summary, to mention the interim leader is to follow precedent. Harfarhs (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Labour usually have acting leaders, and articles for their leadership elections have used the combination format - I've changed it to both, in the style of Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015. That seems most appropriate to me - having just the interim leader is inadequate. The choice that makes most sense to me is between last permanent leader and the combination format. Ralbegen (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as I also said in my edit summary, interim leaders are real leaders, so omitting them must perforce also be inadequate. I think the combination format provided is fine. Harfarhs (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with showing both. I'd still prefer to omit the interim leader completely. When people list a party's leaders, they don't generally include interim leaders. Crowther has done nothing of note, he doesn't get mentioned in news reports, he is not a significant figure. The election is about replacing Nuttall. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "When people list a party's leaders.."—in terms of a 'down the pub' conversation, perhaps, but this is an encyclopaedia! See Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Leader of the Labour Party (UK). Anyway, I'm glad we're agreed on what to do for the infobox. Harfarhs (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Candidate section
Hi; I thought you might appreciate a more thorough explanation of my reasoning for the change in the format. I've changed it back because I think it holds up. From what I can tell from your edit summary, your objections are that it doesn't match UK leadership election formats and that it's less readable. UK leadership elections don't have a consistent format. The most recent Conservative leadership election and Labour leadership election both have candidate sections that are tabular. Even so, we should do whatever is best for the article, ignoring all precedent. The French socialist primary table seemed most appropriate to use here, as it can incorporate the endorsements and main political role whilst keeping all of the information from before. The tabular format draws more attention to the candidates section and more clearly delineates information, by separating names from political roles. I'm happy to discuss further if you disagree or if I've been unclear here. Ralbegen (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the tabular format and don't think we should be constrained by consistency with other elections. However the table could be improved. I don't think the show/hide feature is very clean. Can we just show everything? I think photos should be clipped/scaled to a fixed small size. Hopefully we can get some pictures for other candidates. Weburbia (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with you about the photos. It'd also be good if we could get better pictures for those we have photos for, as the current ones aren't ideal. I've moved endorsements out of show/hide, though I quite like the show/hide feature for political role given that it puts focus on the current role, though this could effect could be kept by displaying other roles in non-bold. Ralbegen (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hopefully some better photos we can use will turn up from the hustings soon. Endorsements look much better now. The show/hide for roles is in most cases hiding one line. I think people need to see it all at a glance without clicking. Your idea of using bold emphasis sounds better. I think we should standardise descriptions, make sure dates are there in all cases. Can we say "Parliamentary candidate" or "candidate MP" for clarity where appropriate? Is "PCC Candidate for Kent in 2015" a better and more consistent structure? Is "role" better and more British than "office"? Do we need to include details such as change of party, I think it would be cleaner without them? Weburbia (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some good questions there. I'll do some more research on the candidates to try to make the role histories more complete and more fully dated. I think "Parliamentary candidate" could work for clarity, though I'm not sure it's worth the length. I don't think that "PCC" is a common enough term to justify abbreviating (compared to "MP" or "UKIP"). I agree that "role" is preferable to "office". I think changes of party are relevant - I have the impression that there is a cultural difference between UKIP people who were first elected as Conservatives (or Labour) and those whose first political activity was with the party. I'll try to implement those changes now! Ralbegen (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I just didn't find it very readable at first but happy to concede, and you make fair points. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

John Rees-Evans quotes
I removed a statement taken from press reports which said that John Rees-Evans' policy was to pay Indians and Tanzanians to leave the country to reduce "unnecessary population" I have watched the video and this is a misrepresentation of what he said. In particular he did not mention specifically Indians and Tanzanians or any other nationality, nor did he use the phrase "unnecessary population" as implied. It was a proposal for encouraging immigrants with dual nationality to set up import/export businesses back in their home country. Weburbia (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't base decisions on a primary source. I'm not sure where the phrase "unnecessary population" came from, but the specific reference to Indians and Tanzanians is mentioned in the Guardian. The interpretation of the proposal as paying Britons who can get hold of another nationality to leave the country—which isn't a leap from the words he said—was made by the Standard and the Times as well. Perhaps a better phrasing could avoid referring to "unnecessary population" and instead to his stated aim to reach net emigration of a million a year (mentioned in all three sources). I'd suggest the following phrasing:
 * In August 2017, John Rees-Evans announced a policy proposal offering Britons with dual nationality or the ability to gain another nationality £9,000 and health insurance to move to countries where they have the right to settle, highlighting in particular British Indians and Tanzanians. This would be to help achieve "negative net immigration towards one million a year", and would be funded by cutting the foreign aid budget. He was condemned by rivals Whittle and Collins, with Collins and Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake comparing the proposal to the BNP's manifesto.   Ralbegen (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is more representative but did he actually highlight Indians and Tanzanians? I listened for it in the video and did not hear it. Also, JRE himself seems to dispute it I think primary sources should be looked at to check for accurate reporting. The Daily Mail has been banned as a source but the left-wing tabloids can also be very unreliable, especially when reporting on right-wing politics. This was on both this election page and the JRE biography page. I think it would be best placed on only the latter. If everything reportedly said by every candidate in the campaign appears here it could become very long and eclectic Weburbia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The videos only include a small section of a longer event. The reference to Indians and Tanzanians were reported by the Guardian, Mirror and Times—of which only the Mirror is a left-wing tabloid. The Guardian and Times are both reliable sources, and the Times is not left-wing. My instinct is to include events that receive significant coverage in reliable sources. By that criterion, this announcement and the reaction to it deserve inclusion. Ralbegen (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I found a longer version. He does indeed quickly mention "let's say India or Tanzania or what have you" as examples, not really "highlighting" those specific countries when you put it in context. His goal is to generate international trade as well as reversing UK population growth. The news reports are not inaccurate but they choose to report specific points and quotes that make the idea seem even more ridiculous than it actually is.Weburbia (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that's exactly what I'd describe as highlighting. I don't think we should frame the proposal the way Rees-Evans does but the way its referred to in secondary sources. Personally I'd frame it more in the scope of wanting to remove "towards one million" first- and second-generation migrants each year (!), but that's overridden by my view that a summary of the way reliable sources talk about it is the only appropriate presentation of it for this article. Ralbegen (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All those details are in the Guardian article so it should be possible to come up with something that works. The important thing is to keep it balanced, but it also needs to be succinct. The danger is that in trimming down the details, only the ones that make his policy look bad are left in. If that can be avoided it should be fine.Weburbia (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

''In August 2017, John Rees-Evans announced a policy proposal offering Britons with dual nationality £9,000 and health insurance to move to countries where they have the right to settle. They would be required to start a business trading with the UK. This would be to help achieve "negative net immigration towards one million a year", and would be funded by cutting the foreign aid budget. He was condemned by rivals Whittle and Collins, with Collins and Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake comparing the proposal to the BNP's manifesto. ''Weburbia (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that phrasing! Ralbegen (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Indian law doesn't permit dual nationality for adults [] so Rees-Evans cannot have been referring to Indians. It is yet another example of defamation against UKIP by the left-wing Grauniad; Weburbia is completely correct in his opening contribution to this talk, where he identifies the article as a material misrepresentation of what was said. Tanzania wasn't mentioned either; it just happens to be a country which Rees-Evans has lived and worked in.Delors1991 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, Rees-Evans did refer to India in his speech, albeit briefly, so any contradiction between his proposals and Indian law is on him, not "the left-wing Grauniad". Harfarhs (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At 16:48 UTC on 20 August 2017, Weburbia already disposed of that hoary old chestnut, Harfarhs... Do try and keep up. Delors1991 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ben Walker's political roles
Would it be relevant to add the fact that Mr. Walker has also been a 2-term Mayor of Bradley Stoke & also Vice-Chair of South Gloucestershire Council (sorry I'm quite new so was wondering if someone could add these parts in if possible)

Refer to:

https://www.benwalker4leader.com/about-ben

https://www.voter-info.uk/candidates/14276/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdee42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Exdee42, thanks for raising that. Personally I wouldnt include the mayoralty as, so far as I can tell, it's a ceremonial position. I think we could include vice-chair of South Glos, though. What do other editors think? Ralbegen (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Mayoral position on a town or borough council is not purely ceremonial. He/she chairs the council meetings and has a casting vote. It is a political role. The WP article Mayors in England should be more clear on this (I will edit). Walker was Mayor of a town council. If it was a borough council it could be worth mentioning. The vice-chair of S. Glouc. is equivalent to a deputy mayor, only important when the Chair/Mayor is absent and just a minor feature of his Councillor position. The real test is whether reporting in reliable sources makes his role sufficiently notable. For these roles that would be unlikely.Weburbia (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've refrained from mentioning e.g. roles as council party group leaders because I felt there ought to be some filter. Similarly I've not included council candidacies. It's a matter of where the line is drawn. The current jobs list I compiled according to where I think that line should be drawn - if we're going to include another role for Walker, we'll need further roles for other candidates as well. Considering your points, Weburbia, I am now in favour of maintaining the status quo. Ralbegen (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. If anything there is a case for reducing or combining some of them. E.g. "stood as a parliamentary candidate three times" might be sufficient where applicable. More details can be added to the bio page if they are really needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weburbia (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Candidate photos
Hi - just noticed your new crops of the photos done using CSS code. Do you think we'll be able to use this for the infobox when we can make it a conventional infobox again? I've not seen it done before so I thought I'd ask in the talk page. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we lose one or two more candidates it should be better. You can always try it. Weburbia (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool - I'd never seen it done before so I didn't know if I needed to ask the photographer's permission or something FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Images in Wikipedia can be assumed to have been suitably licensed for use here. Cropping and rescaling should be OK so long as it only removes irrelevant details.Weburbia (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah cool! Thanks for the info :) FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is FriendlyDataNerdV2 deleting legitimate candidate photos? Please explain your reasons. There is no explanation on the edits. Is this pure vandalism or is there a reason? Tarian.liber (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Candidate colours
I thought I'd expand on why I think campaign colours are better than uniform party colours, and where I got them from. I don't think that using national party colours is useful when there's only one party contesting——it's superfluous information. They're useful in multi-party primaries or multi-party elections, but not for single-party leadership elections. Instead, I think it's worth using colours that candidates associate with themselves on their campaign literature, including in their websites. I've hence used background colours from campaign websites, manifestos and campaign materials here. I'm interested in the views of other editors both as to whether using focus colours is worthwhile, and whether the focus colours I've identified are the best choices from the campaign material available. Ralbegen (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your point about superfluous information is entirely correct, but I question whether the use of colours from the candidates' own media presences is worthwhile—because the candidates probably do not 'mean anything' by their choices of colour, and because the choices probably communicate nothing to the UKIP members or to the readers of this article, unless I am missing something. Personally, I would remove the colour column from the table. Harfarhs (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen a similar approach to the one I'm using here elsewhere, though I can't tell you where off the top of my head. Different colours are useful for charts, graphs and maps if any are useful (for instance, it's possible a candidacy timeline could be relevant if a couple more candidates drop out). If differentiating colours is a worthwhile goal, I think its fairest to draw them from campaign material rather than assigning colours given that colours can have political implications. I partially agree with you in that I'd prefer the colour column to be removed than kept with UKIP's colour the whole way through, but I still think that campaign colours are preferable. I hope that makes sense, even if you still disagree! Ralbegen (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be inferred from his page-creation and edit history that Ralbegen has some affiliation with the Liberal Democrat party, but that is irrelevant. He created their 2017 internal leadership election page at []. There, the same party colour is shown for each pre-nomination/potential candidate. But he has chosen to edit the UKIP 2017 leadership page [] inserting arbitrary colours for candidates (which he has drawn from all sorts of irrelevant sources - check out Pantone matching, etc. UKIP has a standardised Wiki colour. I put it in and I have had to manually put it back in due to intervening edits. I have checked with most of the candidates and they are absolutely at odds with this apparent vandalism (whatever the intention). UKIP has one wikicolour. Unlike perhaps with the Libdems, UKIP is colour-blind. --Delors1991 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of bad faith, Delors1991. You also spoke about Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2017 on my talk page, where I explained the difference of context. To repeat that: speculative candidates don't have campaign colours to draw from, I didn't make the table you're referring to, and I would have made that table differently.


 * You seem to disagree with me both on using campaign colours and on the colours I've drawn out. I'm not entirely clear on what your disagreement is. You've said I drew the colours "from all sorts of irrelevant sources", and I'd be happy to discuss colour choices if editorial consensus is for using campaign colours. For what it's worth, I've taken them as the dominant colours on campaign websites and manifestos as far as possible. You've also said that you've "checked with most of the candidates and they are absolutely at odds with this", but that doesn't really mean anything in terms of editorial decisions. I'm aware that UKIP has a colour associated with it - as I've explained above, I think it's entirely superfluous to use party colours in an election in which all the candidates have the same party. Rather than remove the colour column, I thought it would be useful to draw colours from campaign materials. I hope that's made things clearer! Ralbegen (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding campaign colours seems unwise to me, too SYNTH-y, and unnecessary. Just take the colours out of the table entirely. Bondegezou (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appear to be in a minority of opinion. The consensus seems to be that the table shouldn't include party colours, so I'll remove them. Ralbegen (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your anti-UKIP campaign continues toay, I see... You are in egregious breach of WP:NPOV. Delors1991 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

list of candidates
We should probably have waited for the press conference set for Monday and better sources before reducing the candidate list to 7, but those involved are confirming on social media so in my opinion it is OK to move forward.Weburbia (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I think primary sources are fine for this, by WP:PRIMARY, as they don't relate to matters outside of themselves - that is, people are a good authority on whether or not they are standing down from an election. I reverted when it was a claim based on a blog post with no supporting primary sources, in line with WP:RS. Ralbegen (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Stuart Agnew
We know he's supporting Anne Marie Waters, but is he really her "running mate"? Surely that means someone who will be deputy leader if the candidate concerned becomes leader? Where's the evidence? Harfarhs (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's referring to the citation used for his endorsement of her. I don't think that particular source is acceptable here by WP:SELFPUB as it is a self-serving claim and a claim about a third party. However, there is a reliable source for the same claim in local press. I've substituted this in the article for now. Ralbegen (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! Harfarhs (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Henry Bolton AfD
Users on this page may wish to participate in the Article for Deletion of Henry Bolton (politician) Weburbia (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed your link. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)