Talk:2024 Blackpool South by-election

Possibility of May/June General Election

• It would mean there would be no need for this by-election and therefore this page would have to be deleted. 2A02:C7C:CBBF:C700:4DB7:3129:1EC1:E092 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. Until then, though, we work with what we've got. No general election, no deletion. doktorb _words^deeds 02:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  See 2017 Manchester Gorton by-election which was superseded by a general election. We maintained the article. LukeSurl ^t c 08:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, there's obviously not going to be a May general election! Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV language

Hi Bondegezou, regarding the following phrase "Issues in the by-election include "levelling-up", social deprivation, homelessness, low investment and child poverty." I understand that my edits don't mean the same as "low investment", but surely describing it as "low investment" is NPOV language, whatever the source says? If my suggestions were not acceptable, how can we phrase it differently in a neutral tone? Jdcooper (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say. That is what the source says. If you think the citation given is not reliable, that would be an argument to remove the text. If you think there is range of views across reliable sources, so choosing that one source is misleading and violates WP:BALANCE, then we could consider that. If you want to make those arguments, go for it, make your case.

Another approach would be to say something along the lines of "this source describes low investment", so taking it out of Wikipedia's voice.

But, no, I don't think the phrase "low investment" is NPOV, if it's true. If you have reason to believe it's not true, you need to make that case. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How can it be true or false when the phrasing itself is subjective? "We follow what reliable sources say", sure, but we rewrite it in encyclopaedic, neutral wording. The truth conditions for homelessness and child poverty are objective, but one person's "low investment" is another person's "the free market working its enlightened magic as Thatcher intended". If you can't see any problem with the wording I'll leave the discussion here, but it seems NPOV to me. Jdcooper (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how “low investment” is a particularly subjective phrase. There is an amount of investment. It is higher or lower. A Thatcherite might feel low investment is not a problem, while a Keynesian is more concerned, but I think they could agree on the reality of how much investment there has been. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

@OGBC1992: Why? The article for him clarifies that he's a Conservative. GOLDIEM J (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

At the time of his resignation Benton was suspended from the Conservative Party and was therefore an independent MP.

The article body can give more detail but the infobox just has to be technically correct. LukeSurl ^t c 19:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @LukeSurl, that's exactly my reasoning. Although I've now added a note to the infobox to give greater clarity, as a compromise. OGBC1992 (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bar chart wrong….again

Displaying the wrong figures again. This happens during EVERY by election. Please correct them. 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:503:A45:EB74:2658 (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)