Talk:2020 Liberal Democrats leadership election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Orphaned references in 2020 Liberal Democrats leadership election

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2020 Liberal Democrats leadership election's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc":

  • From Nick Clegg: "Nick Clegg outlines plans for electoral reform". BBC News. 5 July 2010. Archived from the original on 8 July 2010. Retrieved 27 October 2010.
  • From 2019 Liberal Democrats leadership election: "Liberal Democrats start leadership contest". BBC News. 24 May 2019. Retrieved 25 May 2019.
  • From Labour Party (UK): Grady, Helen (21 March 2011). "Blue Labour: Party's radical answer to the Big Society?". BBC News.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defectors

I think it's worth noting the defections to the party under Swinson, and that none of the defectors were elected. It's something that's been noted in coverage of the Liberal Democrats performance in the general election. It's also noteworthy in that Chuka Umunna was favourite to be the next party leader as recently as October (though that's not a link worth including in the article yet; I've not seen RSes link it to the election result or leadership election so far). I appreciate that I might have included too much material about it, though! Ralbegen (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When announced

The table of candidates claims Jardine announced (was announced?) on 30 January. This is not true. An article was published on that day that we are taking as sufficient evidence that she is intending to stand that we're listing her here, but it wasn't a formal announcement. Jardine didn't announce anything. I think this is another example of editors trying to force a messy reality into a neat table. I suggest removing the column, but I can see others not liking that, so what do others think we should do? Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like an important enough part of the election to give the weight of a place in the table. Things like the dates of campaign launches can be covered comfortably in prose. Ralbegen (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

Forgive me, as I admit I’m not the most experienced editor, but I’m slightly confused by the new endorsements policy, particularly with regards to this contest.

I added the endorsements section after Layla Moran declared as I spotted that she had been endorsed by Lynne Featherstone (a peer and former MP, endorsed via Twitter) and Antony Hook (a former MEP, cited on Layla’s website as being her promoter). However my edit has now been reverted for failing these new criteria.

Whilst I understand *how* my changes failed these criteria, I worry that these criteria will lead to most significant endorsements by former MEPs and peers not being covered. In essence, I’m not sure these criteria are the best fit for smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats.

Media coverage for this contest is not likely to be as high for this election as the previous one, given the party’s current polling, so news articles about endorsements are likely to be limited to serving MPs and particularly notable peers and ex-MPs. Given that Antony and Lynne have clearly endorsed Layla, I don’t see why we should wait for articles covering endorsements when they are unlikely to appear.

Essentially, I feel like these criteria could lead to the support of former MEPs — all of whom have Wikipedia articles — being ignored despite them expressing a clear endorsement. Or, alternatively, *some* former MEPs may get articles written about their endorsements — for example the former leaders and deputy leaders — whilst others may not.

Would anyone be able to clarify this approach for me?

(I should add I have no affiliation to any candidate and would have added endorsements for Wera too had I noticed any.) Tsjmcgrath (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premature 'Campaign' section

I propose to delete the Campaign section which consists of people "not ruling out" standing (which is non-news) and others confirming or declining (duplicated elsewhere). We can make a fresh start with this section when the candidates' campaigns get under way. --Wire723 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose such an edit. There was a campaign under way, even if it has now been put on hold. With respect to duplication, we are meant to write articles with prose, as per Wikipedia style guidelines. Ergo, if you want to get rid of duplication, get rid of the "Candidates" section: it's surely out of date now anyway. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'll make no changes. --Wire723 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

I removed Tim Farron and Alistair from the "declined" list as part of a larger edit here. Putitonamap restored them here with the edit summary not sure why these two were removed. Wendy Chamberlain was additionally added later, and I removed all three here, with the edit summary If nobody speculated that a candidate would run, it's not worth including them as declining. Same approach with larger parties' leadership elections. Bondegezou reverted my removal here with the edit summary In a context where we have a very small number of eligible candidates, it's reasonable to cover those who haven't been the subject of any speculation; I realise this is different from larger parties' elections, but it makes sense here, I think.

My view remains that it's not useful to include as having declined those MPs whose candidacy was never speculated upon. That is the approach we take in general for larger parties, and also the approach used in the article for last year's Liberal Democrat leadership election, when there was also a small pool of potential candidates. I think that listing only Daisy Cooper and Christine Jardine is better coverage of the election; I don't think that Tim Farron not standing is a useful fact for the reader. I appreciate that either way it's a small detail but I think the article would benefit from the usual approach. What are other editors' views? Ralbegen (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farron said he wasn't going to stand just the day after Swinson fell so by the time anyone started focusing on this contest he had already declined. However both ITV and the BBC did run with the decline - relatively young ex leaders still in the Commons generally attract such questions and speculation. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately we should follow RS, so, as per Timrollpickering, I think Farron should be listed even though he doesn't meet Ralbegen's rule. So the rule could be: anyone who reliable sources report as not standing; OR anyone who reliable sources have speculated about where primary sources now report they are not standing.
Given the very small number of eligible people, I am happy, as per my earlier edit summary, with listing anyone eligible where we have primary or secondary sourcing that they are not running. But I don't feel strongly either way or that. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My reading has always been that listing the criterion "The following candidates were speculated about in the media as potential candidates, but declined to stand" established the criteria for the list to avoid indiscriminacy and bloat, rather than the criterion being "The following candidates have said they won't stand". There's also an element of due weight, with Cooper and Jardine having received more coverage including news articles about their potential candidacy, whereas Chamberlain "assures me she has no intention of standing" in one line of an interview profile, not coverage of the election. But it doesn't look like there's consensus for the stricter criterion I'd prefer for that list here. Ralbegen (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jardine really should be in a "Announced then withdrew" section - her candidacy got to a different stage from Cooper's. Otherwise there needs to be a common sense consideration to filter the reasonably speculated declining from anyone asked the question in an interview - for instance nobody ever seriously expected a Jamie Stone bid. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so do you think we should have Cooper and Farron as declined, and Jardine as withdrawn? Farron's the only one whose declining received any dedicated coverage so I can see that it's reasonable to include him but I don't think that applies to any of the others, for whom not standing is covered in a more incidental way (or not covered at all). Ralbegen (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reality is complicated and doesn't always fit neat boxes. So sometimes we can use prose to better describe events. I'm not certain Jardine quite fits an "announced then withdrew" section because she didn't get to a formal launch. But I think more prose is the way to solve this rather than more subheadings in lists. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. I tried to summarise the Jardine situation in the prose as Christine Jardine said in January 2020 that she was planning to be a candidate, but withdrew in April, which I guess defies straightforward categorisation. Perhaps it'd be worth replacing the 'declined' list with prose wholesale? The last paragraph of the current campaign section, perhaps with a note about Farron too. Ralbegen (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Formal launches are more about grabbing attention and rallying the supporters than an official step into a contest and when the formal stages of the election are quite some way off there's little point wasting powder on an event so early. The coverage of Jardine here is "to stand" [1] and "pulls out" [2] - that's clearly a short-lived candidacy of the type leadership elections often have. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bondegezou's stance. In the 2017 leadership election, a small pool of candidates meant there was inevitably speculation about almost all of the eligible MPs at some point, meaning it was right to include one when they declined. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 2017, more MPs were included in "runners and riders" coverage, so more are listed as declined in that article. There's only been speculation about half of MPs this time, so it makes sense to follow that in the article, both in the prose coverage and in a bulleted list. Ralbegen (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Jardine

While Christine Jardine announced her intention to stand, she never actually launched a campaign and she confirmed that she wouldn't be standing before the leadership election was brought forward to August 2020, she wasn't an active candidate at any point, so I think it's more accurate to list her as declined. Modern184 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The formal period of contest is only part of the overall election. A candidate who announces they're standing is standing from that point regardless of how actively they campaign at that stage or if they withdraw before the formal process. For example the 2006 article had Kennedy's candidature of barely 48 hours as a withdrawal not a decline. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements (2)

This article - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-davey-liberal-democrat-leadership-contest-support-backing-odds-a9589156.html - lists a number of endorsements alongside Munira Wilson

"Wilson’s declaration of support means that the party’s acting leader has the backing of a clean sweep of the party’s senior elected representatives in London, including all three MPs - including himself - all three recent MEPs and the sole serving London Assembly member, along with mayoral candidate Siobhan Benita."

Should these five people (three former MEPs, London Assembly Member and Siobhan Benita) be included? Guyb123321 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's an independent reliable secondary source. It specifies who these people are. These people are all in themselves notable (possessing of a Wikipedia article). I don't think it matters that some of them (the Londom AM and ex-MEPs) aren't explicitly named. Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too and they were added but they've now been removed...Guyb123321 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If former MEPs are considered notable for Ed then they have to be considered notable for Layla too. Modern184 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
WP:ENDORSERFC sets out are that endorsements should be from a notable person, and covered clearly in an independent reliable source. It's not about which candidate they're for. If a reliable newspaper covers Moran's endorsements then this page can and should include them. Ralbegen (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How is it fair or accurate to include former MEPs for one candidate but not the other? Modern184 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair because the threshold for inclusion is the same for any candidate. It doesn't matter what an endorser's role is, only whether or not the endorsement has been covered in independent reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENDORSERFC
says you should list an endorsement if three conditions are met: (1) it's clearly an endorsement, not just some vague praise. (2) The endorser is in themselves notable: generally, that means they have their own Wikipedia article. (3) The endorsement is covered by an independent, reliable, secondary source: so that's not Twitter or a candidate's webpage.
If you want to add endorsements, look for independent, reliable, secondary sources about the contest. Bondegezou (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how that's fair or accurate. How can former MEPs be notable for one candidate but not the other? How can a candidate for Mayor of London or a member of the London Assembly be more notable than former MPs? Modern184 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an accepted standard on Wikipedia that we can only include information that is verifiable. It's not enough for it to be true. This is covered in the policy
WP:V
. Our standard for verifiability is generally that an independent, reliable, secondary source supports the claim. We also use what reliable sources cover to determine what information is worth including. Wikipedia is largely driven by what reliable source say.
Therefore, we make a distinction between something covered by an independent, reliable, secondary source and something that isn't. Therefore, I suggest you look for independent, reliable, secondary sources about the contest. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But since the Lib Dems are not one of the two main parties, endorsements in leadership elections from individuals other than MPs are unlikely to be covered by the media. Modern184 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is true that certain contests are less notable and don't attract as much reliable source coverage. This leads to this tension where we follow
WP:RS etc. that led us here. And I suspect more articles will crop up as the contest heats up. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe we should only include endorsements from MPs? Modern184 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a reason to do that rooted in Wikipedia policy. Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pink News

WP:RSP. However, the citation in question is Lynne Featherstone writing about her own views, so would that be allowed even if Pink News is not reliable as a reporter of what others say. It's clearly Featherstone talking about Featherstone's endorsement. Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey
WP:ENDORSERFC. If Pink News were considered reliable then I think the subheading (?) Lynne Featherstone, a member of the House of Lords and former equalities minister under the coalition government, explains for PinkNews why she believes Layla Moran should be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats, and make history as the first openly LGBT+ leader of a major political party. would meet the threshold for inclusion by an independent source. I know it's angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff but I think that's the right interpretation of where the community's drawn the line? Ralbegen (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for your comments,
WP:ENDORSERFC
is trying to ensure. You've come to a similar conclusion with your reasoning around the subheading.
However, PinkNews is not the New Statesman.
WP:RSP says, "There is consensus that PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation." Reading through the latest discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PinkNews
, there's (a) some shifting of that position, and (b) a general acceptance that they can be trusted to reliably quote someone (thus the wording of the current RSP text). We could wait for the current RfC there to finish, but it seems to me that PinkNews has sufficient reliability that we can trust it didn't just fabricate an entire piece by Featherstone. Ergo, it seems to me that PinkNews is sufficiently reliable that we can believe Featherstone said this.
I also suggest that coverage in PinkNews provides sufficient evidence of the endorsement's notability: this isn't just Featherstone tweeting or effectively self-publishing through a channel with no editorial oversight. An editorial process decided to include this. I very much supported
WP:ENDORSERFC to be excluding. However, I acknowledge concerns have been expressed about PinkNews' reliability. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's an interesting line of reasoning. I think that would also permit letters and open letters published in reliable sources? In light of the RSN discussion you've linked (which I hadn't seen when I wrote my initial reply) I think I'd support including them as a source for Featherstone's endorsement pending the conclusion of the RfC, which looks set to soften the position. Ralbegen (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how I would interpret the rules. Some sort of editorial process has decided this is noteworthy.
I am content to wait for the current RfC on PinkNews to finish. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC on PinkNews is dragging on. But it is hard to see how it isn't going to recommend an increase in the reliability of the source. Bondegezou (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It'll probably see out a full thirty days. I'm loath to presuppose its conclusion, though, even if (as I !voted there) I think its reliability is unfairly underestimated in its RSP summary at the moment. Ralbegen (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Dem Voice

WP:ENDORSERFC purposes? Bondegezou (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi again Bondegezou! I wrote a much longer reply, but actually, why not? LabourList, ConservativeHome, Bright Green, Lib Dem Voice and Mark Pack's blog are all edited sources that I consider to be reliable for statements of fact, and often useful and important sources to fill in the gaps where coverage from larger outlets. Why can't this be one of those gaps too? Happy to be part of a consensus for those to merit inclusion under ENDORSERFC, and happy for letters, open letters and guest columns to merit inclusion. (I would strongly advocate for her to be referred to as Lynne Featherstone, though: being a peer is a job and not a name!) Ralbegen (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No titles function as names and peers should certainly be listed with them in political contexts. I'm a little concerned that an archived past RFC is being treated as a binding guideline - surely it should have been written up in a location where it could be further tweaked and clarified when necessary? Instead it's just something locked away in a talkpage archive. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above moot now we have an Independent citation for Featherstone. Bondegezou (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Lots of endorsements here. Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can only spot five or so new endorsements in the article itself that meet ENDORSERFC, as the full list of endorsements isn't given, I am not sure if it has been released to the public (a quick Google only yields the linked article and a similar one from the i. Probably not worthy of splitting just yet, but if the full letter can be found (and published by an reliable, independent source) then I see no problem in spinning what will be a list of more than 100 people off to a separate article. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 19:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The full list is here for reference, but it fails ENDORSERFC as it is only published on Ed Davey's campaign website, not in a RS. However some of the signatories are listed in this Lib Dem Voice article, so I've added these names to the article. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Liberal_Democrats_leadership_election&oldid=1196859422"