Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018/Archive 1

Should the 'endorsements' list contain only notable endorsements?

For 'notable' take 'has article on wikipedia' or who are also candidates. A yes/support means all non-notable endorsements of *any* candidate would be removed.

• Support Non-notable endorsements are not of encyclopedic value and add no benefit to the reader, as well as being routinely excluded to prevent article bloat, possibility of undue weight etc. However, it should also be made clear that the list is not exhaustive. Doing follow standard practice on other election articles including the page for the 2016 Green Leadership Election and WP:CSC Digestive Biscuit (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• (Mostly) support: we can discuss specific cases here if people think there are particular reasons why any endorsement should be included, but the rule-of-thumb that has served many Wikipedia articles well is that an endorsement is notable if and only if the endorser is notable. I note also that we should remember the cautions of WP:PRIMARY. Bondegezou (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Having every non-notable endorsement would be overkill. If I were to tweet an endorsement for one of the candidates, I wouldn't expect it to appear on this page. Only endorsements from notable people should be included. CarlDurose (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a rule of thumb. I think there are exceptions — if an endorsement from an otherwise non-notable figure or organisation receives reliable secondary source coverage, then it's probably worth considering. I think the council leader endorsements on Welsh Labour Party leadership election, 2018 could be defended on that basis. Ralbegen (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. David Malone is a notable person in the green party, he did consider running for leadership again but declined to do so. Shahrar Ali has a Wikipedia entry linking his Candidacy to that page seems to me too be un-controversial? I will not revert the edit as after the long debates od 2016 the talk pages proved the most productive forum to avoid editing wars! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Endorsements by either Malone or Ali are considered notable as both individuals are notable. The question is about endorsements from people who do not have Wikipedia articles. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to David Malones Endorsement of Shahrar http://davidmalonegreenpartycandidate.weebly.com/blog-for-comments-and-new-content/shahrar-ali-for-leader-of-the-green-party-of-england-and-wales-for-2018-2020

Is this sufficient to be added and in which format should endorsements be both linked to and cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 10:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou is engaging in an edit war deleting endorsements for Shahrar Ali that are notable within The Green Party. This includes the chair of the national executive, leaders of Wales Green Party and Councillors (who occupy the most senior positions for the party. Each are notable. This is a small party. If not these senior members of The Green Party - who?

|David Malone
Pippa Bartolotti
Anthony Slaughter
Cllr Martin Phipps
Cllr Kaltum Osman Rivers
Emma Carter
Benjamin Smith

I and another editor, Digestive Biscuit, removed these because of the discussion above and the consensus against adding non-notable endorsements. We explained that in edit summaries. We are following WP:BRD.

The usual rule-of-thumb on Wikipedia election articles is that an endorsement is notable if the endorser is notable, as indicated by their having a Wikipedia article. I think there is willingness to consider other endorsements as being notable if they are of particular significance within the context and, preferably, there is reliable secondary source coverage of their endorsement. If you would like to go through the people you have suggested and explain why you think they are notable, we can work from there.

You ask if not these people, then who? There are several Green Party politicians who have Wikipedia articles because they have general notability, e.g. Caroline Lucas, Natalie Bennett, Derek Wall, Jenny Jones, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, Molly Scott Cato, Peter Tatchell. Those are among the most notable people within the party, not the people you wish to add. Nor are any of the people you wish to add leaders of the Green Welsh Party: they are deputy leaders or former deputy leaders. Bondegezou (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Green Party of England and Wales politicians and sub-categories should list every Green Party politician that Wikipedia currently feels is notable. Endorsements from any of these would be appropriate content here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Notable means something different here to simply relevant. It means that somebody would meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for having a Wikipedia article, such as WP:GNG. I'm sure these people are relevant in the Green Party, but none of them are notable individuals. Personally, I'd consider coverage in a reliable secondary source a good justification for including other endorsements, with other endorsements considered on a case-by-case basis.

I've restored the page to the status quo ante on the main page, given that we have a pretty clear consensus above in favour of gating endorsements by notability. Ralbegen (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ralbegen for restoring it based on consensus. I can understand the frustration of the anonymous editor given that a number of candidates have unnotable endorsements, however, I think it's crucial we follow WP:GNG to avoid it being seen as a popularity contest, especially given the importance of Wikipedia to be as unbiased as possible. Digestive Biscuit (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reported the IP editor for 3RR violation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:91.125.94.169_reported_by_User:Bondegezou_(Result:_). They were given plenty of warning about this. Bondegezou (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

IP editor blocked for 24 hours. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of the deputy leadership contest

Bondegezou removed the deputy leadership contest infobox earlier today with the edit summary Removing second infobox: there is no rule saying you must have an infobox per election. Clearly the leadership is the important election and an infobox is meant to be a brief summary of the article. Ergo, don't see justification for two. Nathggns has restored it with the edit summary The deputy election is likely to be the far more interesting and hotly contested of the two. No reason to include one but not the other.

There was some discussion on the Talk page for the last election. At that time, Bondegezou said I have a suggestion. Drop the deputy leadership box. The focus of the article is on the leadership. The full deputy results are covered in the text. There is no need to repeat the information at the top in this bulky manner. In that discussion, FriendlyDataNerdV2 and Andrewdwilliams also agreed; though that discussion has the caveat of coming after the election had concluded.

Personally I think it would be better to exclude the deputy leadership contest infobox. It clutters the article, duplicating material that's already there and covers an election that's not the primary topic of the article and has received significantly less reliable source coverage. Interested to hear the views of other editors to establish consensus. Ralbegen (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The claim that "the deputy election is likely to be the far more interesting and hotly contested of the two" is demonstrably not supported by current reliable source coverage. There's been hardly any of the deputy election. At time of writing, only one of the candidates even has a definitively reliable source that she is a candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Weather you think the Deputy leadership election is going to be hotly contested or not, it is still a separate election and should be treated as such. Maybe it could be put in a different place? (A separate page would be stretching it a bit). I still think it's important, in the name of democracy, to keep it open and clear.User:Brianbbrian

Claims that this is needed to defend democracy feel somewhat over-the-top, verging on WP:RGW! The deputy leadership election is clearly covered in this article. Infoboxes are an optional extra to repeat a summary of the main points of the article. They are not required in any article. They do not confer any special importance on events. Open and clear coverage in the name of democracy is achieved by good article content, not by having an infobox. If you want to improve coverage of the deputy leadership election, find some reliable source citations. The current content struggles to pass WP:V. Bondegezou (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The deputy leadership infobox at present is completely pointless and ugly. It merely repeats the content of the deputy leadership section. It impedes accessibility and makes the article difficult to read. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So having looked at the pages for other recent (since the 2015 General Election) Leadership Elections in other UK parties, it appears most of them have separate pages for Leader and Deputy Leadership Elections, such as the Labour Party (UK) deputy leadership election, 2015, even in the case of the Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2017 which only had one candidate, or in a case where it applies to a devolved party such as the Welsh Labour Party deputy leadership election, 2018. So is there, therefore, a case to be made to separate the pages to match the style of other UK Deputy Leadership contests, and which would then solve the discussion over the infobox? Digestive Biscuit (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The GPEW deputy leadership is a long way from meeting notability requirements for a standalone article, unlike existing Labour and Liberal Democrat deputy contests. This SNP article for coinciding leadership and depute leadership elections is combined with a single infobox for the leadership election, which is the main subject of the article, and tables in the body of the article for the depute leadership. The recent subsequent depute leadership election has a standalone article, but it didn't coincide with a leadership election and met notability guidelines. Ralbegen (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article would solve the problem, but I agree with Ralbegen that there is so little reliable source coverage of the deputy leadership election that it would be hard to justify a standalone article. Even the current content is questionable, being overly reliant on individual's own social media posts.

The current situation is a design montrosity: a large deputy leader election infobox just before a deputy leadership section with a very similar looking table. The arguments for a separate infobox do not stand up. I'm chopping it out again given only one voice here wanting it in. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the design point I did manage to justify the sizing reasonably well for Rashid and Andrew I think the addition of Rowe which was another editor caused a big mash up. If one picture is included it is only fair that all photos offered which comply to standards should also be incorporated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

We should incorporate all photos offered which comply to standards, but, RogerGLewis, you appear to have been adding photos without having the rights to do so. Please review what the standards are! Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The two elections are tied together by the gender balance rules, making it excessively complicated to run two separate articles, aside from the fact that the deputy leader one would barely be notable. Until there is some interest from the general media, there shouldn't be much content on the page. I don't see the need to duplicate photos from the article and the infobox; one or the other should be sufficient. Someone needs to sort out the formatting. MapReader (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I've rarely seen anything so inappropriate as a political party conducting a leadership election via Wikipedia. It's not a news service, it's an encyclopedia. In every example of the deputy leadership candidates, with the notable exception of Aimee Challenor, the deputy leadership candidates are cited to self-announcements on Twitter! If there's been no wider interest from reputable news organisations we shouldn't be listing candidates, endorsements, photos etc. Sionk (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Candidate photos discussion

Bondegezou , hi that photo of Ali is a much more recent one it is public domain etc, The Bartley/Berry one is actually pretty screwed up too. Can we not get them both sitting nicely in the boxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, first, can you please not mark edits as minor that are not minor. See WP:MINOR for help. Secondly, if you can see your edit has not worked for some reason, can you revert it and then seek help rather than leaving the article with broken edits in it? That all said, yes, that new Ali photo is better. I'll see if I can help with formatting. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou|Bondegezou , no problem, I have been trying to sand box and use the talk page like i Learned last time, Thanks for helping with the formatting, it is very kind of you. I appreciate it.( is this minor)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Can other editors help please? I have changed the picture of Ali in the nominated candidates section to the picture suggested by RogerGLewis. However, I do not understand the "CSS image crop" syntax being used and have not followed that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Andrew Cooper Twitter Bug.jpg (discussion)
• Rashid pr.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

For Inclusion requests.

Here is a link to the official Candidates List from Green Party web Site. https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/docs/internal-elections-2018/gpex-intending-candidates.pdf (where do other editors think this should be linked?

On Photographs for Candidates, Could I suggest that the official photographs submitted for the electronic Voting prospåectus candidates submit to the voting committee submit their photographs here so they can be added to Wiki Commons and inserted properly in the Candidate Tables. Green Party Voting Turnout is very low and Candidates are severely prejudiced in that the Green Party Media Team support the incumbents but not the Candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be great to get photos, but you need to tell the candidates or their teams to make the pictures available, either with a relevant license, or by uploading them to Wikimedia. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You can read about the licensing requirements of the Commons here: Commons:Licensing. Ralbegen (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try and message them on their social media.RogerGLewis —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Article protection

Due to the edit warring I have place a three day protection on the article requiring editors to be at least autoconfirmed users. This protection may be extended and/or increased as necessary. Timrollpickering 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC) ---Hello edit warring is breaking out on the Shahrar Ali Page Brianbbrian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,642 bytes) (+1,142)‎ . . (→‎Leadership campaign: Added campaign-allegations against Ali) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) should be asked for consensus and 21:06, 11 August 2018‎ Headhitter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,234 bytes) (+289)‎ . . (→‎Controversy,: Comment unsigned) (undo | thank) should engage with the appropriate wording which should be put in both articles, This is not a news paper. Can tim and Bondegezou take a look please I think consistency etween the two pages is sensible.

Lewis quote

Re: this revert by Sionk -- the relevance of the Lewis quote is the point that Berry had (or may have had) advance warning that Lucas was standing down, giving her an advantage over candidates in terms of being able to get a campaign up and running quickly. That's why it jumps out at me as being useful info. (And we've got precious little coverage of this election as it is!) Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. It’s relevant, and it’s a fair summary of reliable source coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems odd to use one of the Camden News articles that isn't available online (many/most of their articles are) to use a lengthy quote from an opposition councillor. In contrast, there is a great deal of major news coverage about Lucas standing down at this election, with her reasons for doing so, but nothing at all about this. It is unbalanced, to say the least, to pluck a quote from a minor news journal criticising a candidate rather than concentrate on the important issues of the election. Sionk (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Provided they are properly and fully cited, we must allow offline sources to be cited with the same authority as online ones. This is really a question of balance - if there is more to be said about the resignation, we shouldn't delete the existing content - alternative or additional information should be sourced and added in MapReader (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with using an online source for the article. I hadn't noticed that had been changed at first. That's a separate issue from the content.

More on Lucas' reasons for standing down would be great. Sionk, please add, or at least point us to relevant articles. But, again, that's a separate issue. Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the material in question given Sionk appears alone in his/her objections. I have added an online link, although as it is a slightly different version of the article, I have retained the print citation too.

Sionk also removed the section on Tim Young's rejected nomination, arguing it was irrelevant. Do people have views either way on that?

As before, anyone with more reliable source coverage of this article, please do add content or make suggestions here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)