Talk:2015 Oldham West and Royton by-election

Oldham West & Royton
by-election, 2015
Triggered by the death of Michael Meacher
	Location of Oldham West and Royton constituency within Greater Manchester

Oldham West & Royton
by-election, 2015
	Location of Oldham West and Royton constituency within Greater Manchester
Member of Parliament before election; Michael Meacher; Labour	MP ; TBD;

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Additional Reading"

I have removed several "additional reading" links as I don't consider them to be relevant to the article. This is an article about a by-election, so links regarding the local towns, other elections and polling are relevant, but the twin town, Baron Byron, Lancashire, etc, are not relevant. Frinton100 (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There's a problem with the way the template is set up. There is no incumbent MP. Sadly, this is because he's deceased on this occasion, but in any case, there's technically never an incumbent in a British constituency, as the Member has to effectively resign or die in order to trigger the election. Can it be changed for "Previous"? --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Pinging Rcsprinter123, Returningofficer, who may be able to help. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the template, I think the easiest options are to either remove the 'ongoing' tag for the election, or to remove the results section at the bottom and add a sentence about Meacher's death earlier on in the box. Both options shown below. Returningofficer (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Member of Parliament before election" is what we have tended to use in the past, as in the left hand version above. Frinton100 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either works for me! --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the former. Bondegezou (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writ

I'm not sure that "parliamentary writ" is correct, given that parliament does not issue the writ - though the process is called "moving the writ", the HoC are actually instructing the Speaker to issue a Warrant which is delivered to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. It is the Clerk who actually issues the writ in the name of the Queen. I have never seen the term "parliamentary writ" used to describe a by- or general election writ, so I just think "The writ was moved on......" is better. Frinton100 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelina, will you please stop capitalising "writ" - under wikipedia's manual of style (WP:MOSCAPS) things like "writ" are not capitalised. Both are correct in common usage, but the MOS veers away from capitalisation in cases such as this, unless the object is a proper name. See also http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/writs/ Frinton100 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey qv. www.stanford.edu I have made a big attempt to uncapitalise writ and to make it read properly in the English language but there seems to be a counter-effort to go by standard multiple sources (which should be realised as being a self-fulfilling prophecy of dumbing down to whoever's internet version gets commonly accepted). It is either a Writ in a particular instance (not just any old writ issued by anyone) or it is a parliamentary writ (in the general sense) so let's not mangle the language even further & then suggest this is consensus because everyone says it..... RSVP M Mabelina (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Stanford article, it may well have been a parliamentary writ. I just don't think an election writ can be described as such. As for capitalisation, it's not consensus but MOS. If you have some evidence to back up the claim that writ is not capitalised when preceeded by the word "parliamentary" but is capitalised when on its own, then we can consider it. I don't think anyone would disagree that both "writ" and "Writ" are widely used in British English; in these cases, we have to choose one to go with over the other, and on wikipedia we go by the MOS. Other sites/publications will have their own house styles, but we use wikipedia's style on wikipedia. Frinton100 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being voted down because (it's really not worth the bother) but within a very few minutes various are on the case in this matter. I have written at length on the matter of MOS elsewhere (much good it does my sanity - but it has done some good for Wiki) so please do not ambush like this and let things take their course. If you feel so strongly about it in the end, so be it, but meantime let me reassure you what I have stated is (both ways) correct. M Mabelina (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both this government document and this from the Cabinet Manual use "writ", lower-case "w", no "parliamentary". That form is also used by the BBC, the Telegraph and multiple other sources. As far as I can see, Mabelina is mistaken here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I say - so be it - I shall continue my discourse on what is proper and what is not lata! Meantime look forward to factual contributions (phrased well of course!) - M Mabelina (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove it, please show us with a RS that explains why "parliamentary writ" or "Writ" are right but "writ" is wrong (seriously). I don't doubt that l.c. or u.c. are both correct, but we have to stick with one or the other. I'm also not saying that there is no such thing as a "parliamentary writs", I'm just not sure that they are used to call elections. Jumping up and down and saying "I'm right because I know I'm right" doesn't really help. Frinton100 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touché

I was being serious, I was not trying to be clever or funny or annoying - can we assume from your response that you cannot prove it? Frinton100 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - but meantime let's concentrate on factual enhancement of Wiki (& I shall give you a considered reply once the hoo-ha has died down...). M Mabelina (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuttall and Woolfe

I'm wondering if we should remove reference to Paul Nuttall and Stephen Woolfe from the UKIP candidate selection - the Spectator article mentions their names were "floated", rather than they were ever actually candidates. I feel it does them a bit of a dis-service as the article reads like they were defeated in a selection process by Bickley. Anyone know for definite the course of events? Frinton100 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - not relevant now - good point - thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. mildly amended until you agree on way forward - thanks

I don't think the Indy article adds anything to what the Spectator already told us. Indy says Nuttall (but not Woolfe) is a "potential candidate". I just feel that unless we know they actually applied for a selection process or publicly stated their interest in the selection, it is unfair on them to keep their names in this section.Frinton100 (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indy, meaning The Independent, was added further to Frinton100's citing a lack of sources; more can be provided if necessary. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't actually add anything. It does not say either Nuttall or Woolfe were candidates for the selection. You agreed with me earlier that there was a problem regarding their inclusion. Why are you now contradicting yourself - is it simply to be difficult as we are engaged in disagreement elsewhere? Or have you genuinely changed your mind? I hope it is the latter. Frinton100 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording added by User:Bondegezou is better, but I'm still not convinced they need to be on the article at all. Frinton100 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more articles online that may help, like this. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's much stronger than either of the ones we have had previously, as at least we have it from the horse's mouth that he was at least considering it for 24 hours. I think as it stands this section is certainly factually correct, which it wasn't before, so the question is merely one of relevance. If the general view is that it is relevant info, then let's keep it in. Frinton100 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed edits

Right, we have a couple of disputed edits:

MRLP candidate - where does he come on the ballot and what name will be on the ballot? There's already been a bit of a discussion at User:Mabelina's talk page. Section 21 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 supports the use of a "commonly used" name on the ballot. The SOPN supports his position at the top of the ballot, as per his surname "A-lot".

First line of "candidates" section - the candidates are now officially nominated, so I think it should no longer be "six candidates have declared their intention" it is now but "Six candidates will contest..." They will all be candidates for definite now (unless they die).

Any thoughts? Frinton100 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at User:Mabelina's talkpage in some detail, I fully agree with you, as do the facts. It is right to say they are all candidate. They cannot withdraw, despite what Mabelina has said. Putting conspiracies about Labour councils and "anti-UKIP" bias aside I cannot say any reason for this matter to be in dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your game - so be it. M Mabelina (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. consider that were Sir Oink A-lot to be elected by the constituents of the Oldham West & Royton constituency, the said newly-elected MP would have to be referred to as Sir Oink A-lot MP. I don't know whether you realise how preposterous your exuberant claims are, but let things take their natural course.

It may be preposterous. But that is his common name as indicated by reliable sources. No game. I, nor any other editor I suspect, has anything against you personally. You have made some good contributions, especially new pages. But please stop edit-warring over such trivial issues, especially when some significant evidence exists against your arguments. AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they would not have to be referred to as Sir Oink A Lot MP. The nomination paper still requires the candidate to give their full (real) name - this is also stated in Sec 21 of the Electoral Administration Act. When the ARO returns the writ to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery indicating the candidate who has been returned, it is this full name that will be used. Once in parliament, it will be up to the MP to decide how to style themselves. For example, an MP who marries does not have to use their maiden name for the full term. Frinton100 (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you think you have violated WP:3RR today, User:Mabelina AusLondonder (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a word in edgeways? Good - I have prepared at least six well-informed responses such is the ambush going on. Over to the Admins - because this is ridiculous (although fortunately for me Frinton has just helped my case significantly as above) M Mabelina (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Frinton100 says, MP's can style themselves as they wish. Boris Johnson is listed as Boris Johnson MP rather than Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson MP. Cat Smith is listed as Cat Smith MP rather than Catherine Smith. AusLondonder (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelina, if you are going to post smear and rumour about other users on the talk pages of third parties, it would at least be polite to let those individuals know so that they might have a right of reply. Frinton100 (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry if you take offence - I tried massively to placate you yesterday but clearly to no avail - yet again my edit is deleted by edit conflict - this is no way to conduct a serious discussion (unless of course that is what you want to avoid?). M Mabelina (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Cat Smith actually stood as Catherine Jane, whereas Boris stood as Boris. Frinton100 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Loony candidate is clearly as named on the official document, the SOPN; therefore Sir Oink A-lot (or possibly 'A-Lot'; it is unclear as it is fully capitalised on the SOPN).

On the second issue, I thought I remembered there was a deadline for possible withdrawals, a few days after the publication of nominations but I can not see a timetable on the Oldham council's website. Nedrutland (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) For the second time in as many days - an edit conflict is a technological issue where two people have been editing at the same time. If person A and person B are both editing simultaneously and person A hits "save page" first, when person B hits "save page" they get the edit conflict error message. What you can do in this situation is hit your browser's back button, copy and paste the edit you had tried to make, then go back to the article page, open up the edit page again, and paste it back in. When this happens on a talk page, it is common for users to indicate this had happened by writing (Edit Conflict) or (EC) in brackets at the start of their post. It is nothing sinister, it is not anyone trying to stifle your posts, it is just two people typing at the same time. Frinton100 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See - an edit conflict happened to me. I was typing at the same time as Ned. Frinton100 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep typing & argue amongst yourselves. M Mabelina (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nedrutland, that is for local elections. Parliamentary, the only way out is if you die. I will just double check now that you mention it to make sure that didn't change under the Coalition (they brought in some timetable changes which lengthened the short campaign, but I don't think a withdrawal period was one of them). Frinton100 (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably shouldn't feed you, but you did say "I have prepared at least six well-informed responses" can we see them? AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder Frinton100 Nedrutland - it would be worth knowing how many watchlist notifications you each have? because I have none (zero), and this could possibly explain why my considered responses keep getting bounced out (when being hounded). I am not that bothered either because if this is the system then it is broken. Admins should give thought to this matter though. M Mabelina (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frinton100 Thanks; that explains my uncertainty about withdrawals. Therefore I would prefer "Six candidates will contest..." Nedrutland (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nedrutland Yes - here we go. [1]. It certainly hasn't changed since the GE in May - withdrawal deadline same as for submitting your nomination papers. Frinton100 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it would be worth knowing how many watchlist notifications you each have? Please advise M Mabelina (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what you mean. AusLondonder (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you AusLondonder have watchlists? I don't. M Mabelina (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Do you? AusLondonder (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none - zilch - zero. I prefer to make substantive contributions but that is for another day if ever. M Mabelina (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have 1,215 pages on my watchlist. But that doesn't prevent substantive contributions. I have created around 180 articles and 65 categories. AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the best article, in your view, that you created? M Mabelina (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 ways of looking at this: which is the one you are most proud of; or, which is the most informative?

Edit ConflictI am proud of how this turned out: Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 but it was very much a community effort. I fully made articles such as this List of Latin American and Caribbean countries by GDP growth. Book articles make me proud as well as they help share information more broadly. Book articles are one of my main interests. London Recruits: The Secret War Against Apartheid is one that I am very pleased with. See, I'm not all about arguments. I find the arguments time-wasting, actually AusLondonder (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Muy bueno y no soy así - muchas gracias y hasta la próxima AusLondonder. M Mabelina (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sin preocupaciones y gracias amigo / enemigo por sus elogios AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sé todavía M Mabelina (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMRLP candidate - a Googlewhack

The name of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate is given on the SOPN and the Loony Party website confirms the form Sir Oink A-Lot. The SOPN candidates' names and order will repeated on the ballot paper. The surname is A-Lot so he will be first on the ballot.

Currently A-Lot's name is italicised on the Wiki page and followed by "(properly styled: Sean Jones)". Jones is without citation and a search on a popular search engine for "Oink A-lot" AND "Sean Jones" produces just one result - the Wiki page - suggesting this is Original Research.

Other Loony Party candidates appear in constituency results under the name they fought the election without italics and without parenthesis; see, for example Huntingdon in 2010 for Lord Toby Jug.

I thought I would raise it here before changing it given the 'excitement' edits on the page have been getting recently. Nedrutland (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good research User:Nedrutland! Very interesting as well. I wonder if User:Mabelina could tell us where they got the name Sean Jones? Of course the facts support the use of the name Sir Oink A-Lot on the ballot paper in the order of the Statements of People Nominated. AusLondonder (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, the article page stated that his "real" name was Martin Hogbin (makes sense in a loony sort of way: hog - oink - get it?) Frinton100 (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mabelina, could you let us know why you added the name "Sean Jones" and where that information came from? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mabelina - you claimed that the Monster Raving Loony candidate, Sir Oink A-Lot's real name was "Sean Jones". Why have you now changed it to "Nick Delves"? Also, why have you changed the ballot paper order? AusLondonder (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in detail elsewhere, my edits to this page (which have been largely accepted) have caused consternation in certain quarters. A short but not unreasonable, rather than fleeting, period of reflection would be better than spending the next few hours locked in discussion. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of an explanation as reasonably requested by AusLondonder, I have reverted your edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Delves is Nick the Flying Brick, another perennial MRLP candidate. www.nickdelves.co.uk/loony_flying_brick.htm Frinton100 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that but is there any evidence this is the same person? Or just yet another attempt to remove MRLP from the top of the ballot? AusLondonder (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely not the same person - see http://www.loonyparty.com/author/r-u-seerius/page/2/ scroll down to the list of local election candidates from May. Frinton100 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to suggest Sean Jones was made up. I note User:Mabelina wrote that John Bickley's wife was Pam and then Lesley. I think adding false information to articles is a serious problem AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it used to say Pam - I thought I was going mad. It does make you wonder where this all comes from. I can't see any "real" name for Oink a Lot, which is unusual for the MRLP. Frinton100 (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is where Sean Jones has come from - https://www.facebook.com/loonyparty (see post from 2/11 at 06.56). Probably fairly reliable Frinton100 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only me! I am not going to win any favours here by showing my face so carry on into oblivion much like the Labour Party has recently spent much time doing. See User talk:Mabelina too should you so wish, but go on about it as much as you like edit conflict constant instantaneous reversions have made it nearly impossible to add anything meaningful about the topic of Oldham West & Royton by-election .... It is difficult to stop a bandwagon when it is rolling which is of course what makes this by-election so interesting! M Mabelina (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again User:Mabelina. Firstly, you have repeatedly and sometimes aggressively accused both myself and User:Frinton100 of displaying bias in favour of the Labour Party. Yet, here, you have yourself shown your POV by suggesting the Labour Party has "spent much time" carrying on "into oblivion". Ever heard of "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? Secondly, last time I checked it is not "meaningful" to add false names about candidates in an apparent attempt to change the ballot paper order to favour UKIP (by the way, changing it here does not change the actual ballot paper order). AusLondonder (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Mabelina you are yet to answer this: why did you add two different names for the MRLP candidate and why did you first call Bickley's wife Pam and then Lesley (both times completely uncited)? AusLondonder (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat myself again in response to your post elsewhere of a minute ago: you like to dwell on this point for the obvious reason that it highlights my perceived inaccuracy and avoids you getting down to representing the facts on Wiki. Both Pam and Sean Jones were mistakes for the simple reason that as always and as now I am being hassled during edits which I presume you delighted in because it now gives you good reason to go on about it. I had provided correct links even earlier which were deleted & which you now obsfucate - however, let's enhance Wiki and keep moving on. M Mabelina (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mabelina do you think you should voluntarily withdraw from articles related to the Labour Party given your apparent bias against Labour in favour of UKIP? AusLondonder (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - but I thank you for making a repeated effort to tell me to "move on". Haha - I am anti-UKIP which completely destroys your hypothesis but I am also very much pro Wiki displaying good info and not subverting topics particularly when over-evident pursuit like a pack of dogs comes into play. Balance AusLondonder, balance is what is needed. M Mabelina (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. don't you see that the more you try to enhance Jim McMahon and discredit others, it becomes lopsided?

(Edit conflict)I have never told you to "move on" regardless of whether I want to or not. If your editing is symptomatic of "anti-UKIP" editors I would hate to see how pro-UKIP editors would behave. AusLondonder (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably less well informed and ..!! not the place here to start this rambling again (haha - you nearly got me there - haha)! Facts have been established like it or not so let's have them available for readers to see. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. what happened since the other day when you were all nice as pie? Don't say, I'm in the way!

PPS. who in Wiki has the final say as to POV? It would be good test Wiki's resolve to achieve balance in its articles since there is a live political contest underway, ie. campaigning for the Oldham W & Royton by-election. Please advise. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted a number of edits by Mabelina which I can only class as disruptive. Among them was the assertion that A-Lot was Delves which had a citation to a page on the Loony Party website; I checked and while there is reference to Delves on the page there was no mention of A-Lot. Mabelina again fails to recognise the official status of the Statement of Persons Nominated which is a formal part of the election process, issued by the (Acting) Returning Officer. Nedrutland (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo previous statements, my view is that for the results table we should go by the Statement of Persons Nominated. If we can find a reliably sourced previous/common name for the Loony candidate, great, but that counts as additional information on the candidate, rather than an alternative name which should be used throughout the article. Returningofficer (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only source we have for the candidate's real name is the facebook post above. While I think that is probably accurate, I don't think it is really reliable enough to use as a source. Frinton100 (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]