This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating toelections,electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visitour project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPolitics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe 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
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsocialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
As of 13.00 30/06/16 there is no leadership election. I appreciate that this could change, even within a few hours, but it seems a bit early to be doing this.
Neutral would be nice. Your proposed title is not neutral. The word coup is very opinionated.
Here's a few dictionary definitions of crisis (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crisis) A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point.An unstable situation, in political, social, economic or military affairs, especially one involving an impending abrupt change.A sudden change in the course of a disease, usually at which the patient is expected to recover or die.(psychology) A traumatic or stressful change in a person's life.(drama) A point in a drama at which a conflict reaches a peak before being resolved.
Comment There is nothing that violates NPOV in "Labour Party (UK) leadership crisis, 2016." Attempted coup however is clearly a loaded and partisan description. I strongly oppose any further attempts to move the article without talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk)04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I moved to the current name from the clumsy "Speculated..." title. "Crisis" seems NPOV to me: it doesn't lay blame on either side, but reflects the severity of the situation and how it has been reported by reliable sources. "Coup" is a word used primarily by pro-Corbyn supporters and would not be neutral.Bondegezou (talk)06:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word coup is in 13 of the citation headers, it is actually a coup that has created a crisis. All the organized timed one by one on the hour resignations. Actually, currently, this whole page is piffle and without a declared leadership candidate is political short term fluff.Govindaharihari (talk)05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was an organized leadership coup that failed, is and will be the long term notability of these circumstances - unless there is a major change that is not apparent right now.Govindaharihari (talk)06:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph has a list of the 60 frontbench resignations as of 2 July, just in case it needs referencing somewhere. The article itself is unrelated, I just saw the list at the bottom and thought it'd be worth saving.[1] Since the article's publication, Fabian Hamilton's resignation on Monday was described as the 65th resignation the following day byThe Guardian.[2]Therequiembellishere (talk)21:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there are no declared leadership challengers - it is also worthy of its own header, please don't attempt to merge this fact, it's well worthy of primary focus..;
The point of section headers is not to highlight particular facts.WP:MOS has guidance, I believe. It seems to me clear from the article as a whole that there are no declared leadership challengers and no actual contest (yet).Bondegezou (talk)09:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with you totally, the whole article is designed to create the impression that there is a challenge, and there is not at all, just press and political attempts to get the voted in democratic leader to resign. Corbyn will never resign, he is too focused on democratic process, Imho he will never resign due to undemocratic pressure, any contender will need to beat him at the ballot and he will totally accept that if he loses.Govindaharihari (talk)07:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the article still creates somewhat an impression of a challenge. That was certainly how it was initially setup, anticipating an election starting any day. Hence the initial page name "Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016". There has been row-back from that, but I still feel it's not a proper historical review yet.Rwendland (talk)08:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Possible candidates" section should be completely rewritten and prosified. The situation has moved on. There is still a "crisis" - the article title does not need changing - but the initial thought that there would be a simple leadership challenge has been at least partially superseded by other ongoing discussions in relation to the role of the party leader and that of the parliamentary party. The current approach of listing "possible challengers" is far too reductive for an encyclopedia article such as this, and needs to be revised.Ghmyrtle (talk)08:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, its laughable that such as dan jarvis has expressed interest is in the page, and multiple otherpersonal promotional trivia - Ow , although I have no chance of winning and will actually never stand I express my interest, please promote me and report as much as possible. I've also removed more rubbish from the article, add it back if you like it. I have trimmed the article to what imho is the real important details.Govindaharihari (talk)10:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.I see userUser:Bondegezou has just replaced the rubbish, laughable - such bias makes wikipedia a laughing stock.Govindaharihari (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As this page is currently move protected until the end of August I think that it might be useful to establish a consensus that if Angela Eagle (or any other person) does formally challenge Corbyn for the leadership (as it appears will occur on Monday) that this page be moved toLabour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. Showing some pre-move consensus would allow for an admin to unlock the page without worrying about the potential outbreak of perpetual page moves.Ebonelm (talk)00:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though there is a case to be considered for separate articles. Would all the preliminary history in this article be appropriate for an election article - it would be a shame to lose some of the history recorded here. And even after the election, there is likely to be continuing associated notable events (eg at conference) better recorded outside an election article. Furthermore the election article is likely to be large, given the interest of editors in this topic; so keeping some info outside the election article has some merit. Altogether not a strong case, but worthy of consideration.Rwendland (talk)13:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much more on the crisis we can add to the article once the election starts. I think that if we keep it all in one place it would make a much stronger article. If we find that it's getting too big then we should split but initially I think we should keep it all in the same place. At least half of this article would need to be copied into a new election article anyway.Ebonelm (talk)22:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the argument that it will be a stronger article if kept together. The Tory leadership (with many more twists and turns), has had a single article, with only notable events added to Leadsom/May etc main biog articles and no seperate 'campaign' articles, though those might have come into being had their campaigns continued. This isn't a US presidential race, in scale or time duration.Pincrete (talk)21:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are conflicting media articles over the number of nominations needed for 20% of MPs+MEPs, some 50 but recently more saying 51. We need to decide what to do about this.
Doing news.google.co.uk search on '"angela eagle" "50 nominations"' shows up no WP:RS cites published today, and generally less WP:RS cites overall than '"angela eagle" "51 nominations"' which lists several WP:RS published today.
I cannot find a cite debating this issue in detail, but diving into some WP:OR the difference depends on the position taken on the 2 suspended but not expelled MPs, Simon Danczuk and Naz Shah; if they are excluded it reduces the number of MPs+MEPs from 251 to 249 (20% from 51 to 50). As is not unusual for it, the Labour rule book does not specifically address the issue of suspended MPs, but suspended ordinary members are not excluded from ballots (just meetings etc) so I would predict suspended MPs are not excluded. (Seerulebook Chapter 4.I.3) Assuming suspended MPs are not excluded the electorate is:
232 (MP general election, no by-election loss) + 20 (MEP) - 1 (Jo Cox) = 251
There are many developments not in the article inc. the 'Kinnock' claim that Corbyn himself insisted on NK getting PLP endorsements back when...Pincrete (talk)21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An hour and a half ago I would've said it would probably be fine to change it based on Eagle's announcement. With the surprise news from the Conservative election, I would suggest waiting until a leadership election is officially called, as it's not out of the realms of possibility further craziness might occur (May makes a victory speech, declares she will schedule an early election once she takes over as PM, Labour rebels decides that it will be impracticable to call a leadership election during a general election campaign and Eagle withdraws her challenge). We're living in exciting times.MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk)12:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iain McNicol, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, has officially confirmed that a contest will take place now that Eagle has the 50 nominations.Sceptre(talk)12:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the election process is formalised, presumably by the Labour Party NEC this week. There is no rush. A day is a long time in politics - at present, anhour is a long time in politics - and who knows what may happen before an election process is formally triggered.Ghmyrtle (talk)18:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's said it's been "triggered" but the "arrangements" are not yet "confirmed". I still think we should wait - there is still a crisis, but not an agreed election process quite yet.Ghmyrtle (talk)18:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cautiouswait. As above, wait until the election process has been formalised, presumably when you can find information about this on the Labour Party website. I say 'cautious' because, I concede, part of my reason for waiting might be because in my gut I think this election may be called off pretty quickly, meaning the page would have to move back again, but I'm aware that gut feelings are not valid arguments.MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk)10:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move since as far as we currently know, there is going to be a leadership election. Both candidates have clearly (for now!) said it's all go; and also I really feel like "crisis" is hardly NPOV!DBD23:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move. The election is now going to be held (with the timetable being confirmed), with three candidates having already announced their will to contest it.Impru20 (talk)13:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move. However we should be cautious that information is not deleted from the background section of the new article, as I think this current would probably form an article on its own.Absolutelypuremilk (talk)16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna throw this out to the talk page: we know there will be a leadership election before Labour conference this September. However, there is currently only one candidate that has enough nominations to appear on the ballot: Angela Eagle. I personally believe that we should leave Corbyn out of the infobox until the NEC meeting tomorrow makes a decision on whether he needs the nominations – and, if he does, leave him out until he has enough to appear on the ballot. What are everyone else's views on this?Sceptre(talk)23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this early stage, I see little value in an infobox. It doesn't summarise the article well. I'd leave it out until the official campaign begins with however many candidates have been nominated.Bondegezou (talk)07:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree withBondegezou. By including an infobox at this stage we are prejudging internal Labour Party discussions on the format of any election; and by including Eagle, alone, we arenon-neutrally appearing to take a position over whether or not Corbyn will automatically be a candidate. We should ditch the infobox until the situation is conclusively resolved.Ghmyrtle (talk)08:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CORRECTION: Does Corbyn need 50 signatures or 51???
Undoing my edit with the comment that you are fixing a paragraph is disingenuous Brucejoel99.On another topic, however,if Corbyn will be required to get nominations to be on the ballot, he will need 51, according to numerous articles, not 50. Here are just a few sources that confirm it. (I do not really want to numerous citations for this point in the article.)
Well, I think 51 is the number but admittedly a few media sources say 50, including the Telepgraph in some articles, but they say 51 in others.Peter K Burian (talk)17:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't one of the 51 nominations be made by the candidate being nominated, so when sources say a candidate needs 50 nominations, they mean nominations not made by the candidate.TedEdwards (talk)19:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the last leadership election, MPs nominated themselves. I understand the rules of nominating may have changed, but my idea would explain both numbers.TedEdwards (talk)19:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had found a dozen that said 51 ..... and a dozen that said 50 including the Independent, But the BBC still says 51. So I give up.
www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120
16 mins ago - Corbyn secures leadership rules vote ........ had vote had gone the other way, he would have struggled to amass the required 51 signatures.Peter K Burian (talk)21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corbyn's name to go on new leadership ballot - FT.com 2 hours ago - July 12, 2016 8:50 pm ... Jeremy Corbyn does not need to collect the backing of 51 ... (I have no idea)Peter K Burian (talk)22:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is much easier to find sources that say 51 vs. 50. Labour to decide on Jeremy Corbyn leadership ballot rules - BBC News BBC News - 5 hours ago Labour-commissioned legal analysis states Mr Corbyn needs 51 nominationsPeter K Burian (talk)22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Labour executive rules Jeremy Corbyn must be on leadership ballot ...
www.theguardian.com › Politics › Labour party leadership 2 hours ago - Jeremy Corbyn should be put on the ballot paper without winning the support of at least 51 of ...Peter K Burian (talk)22:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles inThe Independent say he would have needed 50 while others say 51. Labour facing legal threat over Jeremy Corbyn's ... - The Independent www.independent.co.uk › News › UK › UK Politics 13 hours ago - to rule on whether the Labour leader needs to secure the nominations of 51 MPsPeter K Burian (talk)22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently trending on Facebook. Brighton and Hove Labour party (pro-Corbyn) has been suspended by the NEC of the Labour Party. The results of an election of executive members of the B&H Labour Party have been annulled. This should probably be in the article, and may warrant a stand-alone article as things develop.Mjroots (talk)06:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Where do you stop? Mentions of other MPs' family relationships (parent / sibling / partner) have been included in this article at different times in the past, and have subsequently been removed. They arenot relevant to this article - there is no sourced evidence that their relationships have any bearing whatsoever on who they support. We should be consistent throughout in not includingany mention of individuals' personal lives or relationships.Ghmyrtle (talk)13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The endorsements list various people and then give some basic info about them. For example, one line reads...
Seema Malhotra, former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2015–2016); MP for Feltham and Heston[70]
The citation given does not support all this information. There is no sourced evidence that having been the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has any bearing on whoever Malhotra supports. What we're doing is applying someWP:commonsense and given the reader some basic background on the endorser. This seems entirely appropriate to me.
Likewise, Maria's relationship to Angela is noteworthy: this isn't some obscure connection, they're twins. This isn't about a relationship with someone else: it's about a direct link between endorser and endorsee. Maria and Angela's relationship as twins is frequently mentioned by reliable sources whenever discussing the two of them together. The fact it keeps getting added back in to the article shows that it seems like an obvious thing to include to many people. (When I recently added it, I had not noticed that it had been added and removed previously.)
I entirely agree that lists like this can become encrusted with too many random notes. We shouldn't be adding stuff willy-nilly. We should try for consistency. But in your attempts at purity, I suggest you've gone too far. An obvious close family relationship between endorser and endorsee (that has frequently been noted by reliable sources) is worth noting.
I can see no problem in including information about each person's past and present roles in government, opposition, or the Labour Party - if sources need to be found, so be it, but I would have thought it's both uncontentious and relevant. What I find objectionable is including personal information that is simply not relevant. The fact that some sources habitually mention that they are twins has no relevance to this article - the only reason for statingin this article that they are related seems to be to imply that their personal relationship has some connection with their endorsement - and I haven't seen any reliable evidence that it is. The references to Jack Dromey's and Stephen Kinnock's relationships have been removed, and I don't see any good reason why this one should be treated any differently - we should be consistent.Ghmyrtle (talk)13:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dromey's and Kinnock's familial relationships were tangential, not between endorser and endorsed, as with Maria Eagle and Jo Johnson.
More broadly, you claim one set of facts is "uncontentious and relevant" and another is "not relevant", but this appears just to be your personal opinion. My personal opinion differs. When opinions differ, we can (a) seek further input -- so, others, please wade in with your views! And, (b) be guided by what reliable sources do, and reliable sources tend to note Maria and Angela's relationship.Bondegezou (talk)15:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors' views are welcome, of course - but it seems to me to be much more consistent, and in line with policy, to exclude any mention of personal relationships from this article, rather than to make just this one single exception.Ghmyrtle (talk)16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a separate endorsements article, so what endorsements should remain here? I think we should list very little here, maybe just a summary saying "most MPs support Smith, most CLPs support Corbyn". That said, what this article includes but the endorsements article doesn't is the historical record of who endorsed Eagle before she dropped out -- that should be preserved somewhere.Bondegezou (talk)10:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Corbyn photo used in this article had been colourised from the original, so his face is somewhat redder and darker and his jacket colour is a touch blown out - the intent I believe was to have a "stronger" photo. I'd prefer to go back to the original colourisation, as a more genuine portrayal. What is the consensus?Rwendland (talk)09:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Current re-colourised version in this article
My cropped photo close to original colours
(just FYI, a wider crop not used directly, sort-of The Original for the crops)
The YouGov poll from 25-29 Aug is reported as 62-38 to Corbyn, and that's what is summary of the PDF that contains the raw data, but the pollsters themselves point out that this result omits the "Don't know" answers. If they are included, the JC-OS-DK preference breaks down to 57-35-8. Shouldn't this be included in a separate row to reflect that. Especially now that there is talk of a greater landslide to JC, being as accurate as possible cannot hurt.
I have just modified 9 external links onLabour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
Done --NeilNtalk to me18:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply].jpg)
.svg)
