Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• 2019 UK general election constituency.png
• UK 2019 General Election results by estimated 2016 referendum results.png
• UK 2019 General Election results by region.png
• UK General Election 2019 Labour.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Majority Size Shown as Difference Instead of Number of Seats Over 325

Under the exit poll it gives a majority of 86, which is the difference between the number of all opposition parties seats added together, against the Conservative parties total of 368. Why is a majority shown this way instead of how many more seats the Conservatives have over half the number of seats in the parliament? Which would then show their majority as 43. This is in the exit poll but also common for all displays of the size of the majority. Perhaps it should be made clear in the article that majority size is the difference between government and the rest rather than the number of over 325. Billgates2 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Because that's what a majority always means (in the English language and in respect to liberal democracy parliaments) - how would it work otherwise? The 326 seats is merely the point at which a majority is achieved. You cannot have "a majority of 10" if you have, say, 336 seats (10 more than that point) as what you'd be saying is you have 10 more seats than a total number (326) which itself includes 10 members of that party! Hence the majority figure is always double the figure above the majority point. Sumorsǣte (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, of course, a minority figure works on the doubling principle too - if you have 316 seats you have a minority of 20.

Another way of thinking about it is, in order to have the 10 seats above the majority point there has to be a 'deficit' on the other side of that point, otherwise the total number of seats counted would exceed the actual total number in the house. Sumorsǣte (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't it say the size of the Tory majority in the intro?

This should be something people can find as soon as they click on the page. Ganpati23 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it has been added since you posted this comment, but the total number of seats, the size of the majority in terms of greater seats vs Labour, and the size of the majority in terms of majority above that required of the House of Commons are all in the intro. If you think there should be more information, feel free to adjust the intro for more clarity. eeveeman (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian interference

Why is there no mention of the documents referring to Russian interference? Stinks of corrupt billionaires' influence, which is an interesting move for a website that's begging for donations. Dyaluk08 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you suggest some reliable source coverage we should be using? Bondegezou (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That depends on whether it was a debated item during political campaigns by the main parties. GUtt01 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Analysis of turnout?

Given the importance of the election, I think a turnout of 67.3% is pretty low. I miss an analysis of that. Wammes Waggel (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you suggest some reliable source coverage we should be using? Bondegezou (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Neale Hanvey

Are we adequately describing the situation around Neale Hanvey? He was selected as the SNP candidate and listed on the ballot paper as SNP, but they suspended him from the party during the campaign. He says in this tweet that he is heading to Westminster to sit as an independent MP. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

He is under the "Withdrawn or disowned candidates", but then has an entry under "reason for withdrawal" when he wasn't withdrawn. He was on the ballot paper as SNP, and nearly every RS has him included in the SNP totally so I'm fine with that. I suggest separating him out in the "Withdrawn or disowned candidates" to clarify that he was still down as SNP on the ballot, but is an independent now. Jopal22 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

All the candidates in the "Withdrawn or disowned candidates" section were still on the ballot paper as their respective parties, as the text explains. That's what the section is for. Maybe that could be made clearer? Feel free to edit. I'll look as well. Hanvey counts as a disowned candidate. He was the only one to get elected though. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, okay my bad! I think it's fine. It might be worth adding the same note in the infobox next to SNP and Labour (speaker) to the main table at the bottom, but apart from that I think it is okay (to anyone who bothers to read it unlike me!) Jopal22 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Row order on infobox

After looking at the infobox for this election, I've proposed some changes at Template talk:Infobox election#Row order for legislative elections. The party sections currently seem to me to prioritise less important (sometimes barely relevant) information and bury the most important details. TSP (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

[Edit]: I've moved my response to this over to Template talk:Infobox election#Row order for legislative elections - please could we keep discussion over there rather than divide it between there and here, unless you think there's some reason it should be discussed separately on this page? TSP (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead - Need for citations

Someone is questioning the need for citations in the Lead of this article. Should there be any in it? Please give reason for either YES or NO GUtt01 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@GUtt01: the lead should be a summary of the article body, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't already covered in the article body. And as we know, the article body content should be verifiable from reliable sources. Logically therefore, the lead doesn't need references, except, perhaps, for contentious or controversial material. See MOS:LEAD for more information on writing leads. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Although there is some truth, MOS:LEAD does state there are no rules for or against citations in the Leads. Sometimes citations can be included but under a case-by-case review to determine this. GUtt01 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@GUtt01: if you can establish a consensus for any of those cites to be added, then that's fine, but until that time the normal convention is to omit them. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Understood. GUtt01 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019 - Swing Definition

You have mistakenly stated that the swing in this general election was 1.2%. This represents this % increase in the Conservative's share of the vote, whereas the swing is calculated by adding the Conservative vote share gain (+1.2%) to the loss in Labour's share of the vote (-7.9%) and dividing by 2. The result is a 3.35% swing to the Conservatives, overall. It's worth looking at this both regionally and nationally. 2407:7000:902E:EE67:A008:601B:3AC1:C00F (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

- The swing in the infobox is a swing taking into account all parties - aka a percentage change. Perhaps the name should be changed from Swing to something else, but the 1.2% figure should remain, as this is the statistic it should represent. Only having a CON-LAB swing in the infobox doesn't really seem sensible, as it ignores all other parties' change in voteshare. Happy to discuss to try and resolve the issue eeveeman (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Swing is confusing and inaccurate. This should say change, but there doesn't seem to be such a parameter. Valenciano (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup - in British elections we use swing to mean the relationship between two parties. This should say "change". Sumorsǣte (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed it should say "change". Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"To be Appointed Prime Minister"

The infobox implies that Johnson is "to be appointed Prime Minister", but this is false. He was and remains PM until he resigns or is dismissed. There is no re-appointment. 216.8.131.5 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. I've changed it to just "Prime Minister after election". TSP (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone must have changed it. Have changed it back to "PM after election". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We use Appointed Prime Minister for all the UK general election articles. This included incumbent prime ministers, aswell. Please respect that or open an Rfc on the matter, if you want it changed for all of them. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

new item

new article created, 2019 in United Kingdom politics and government. I know it's pretty late for this year, but this might be useful for items in 2020.--Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Type of Tense on Opening Line of Lead

Question - Although this article covers a political event, a national election, should the opening line begin in the past tense?

"The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on..."

Doesn't the Lead of an article start in the present tense? (i.e. "The City of London is a borough within Central London...") GUtt01 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is about a past event, not a present place. It's quite obvious that it should be written in the past tense. 213.253.7.254 (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, definitely should be in the past tense. Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"His 43.6% of the vote was ahead of Theresa May’s only by 1.2 percentage points."

Simon Jenkins in The Guardian has just published an interesting statistic. Despite changing from a minority to a majority government, the Conservative's share of the vote in 2019 was only 1.2% higher than in 2017, representing an increase of 304,000 votes: The Guardian - Simon Jenkins - The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband, 16 December 2019: His 43.6% of the vote was ahead of Theresa May’s only by 1.2 percentage points ... But the Lib Dem vote soared by 1.3m or 4.1 percentage points, while Corbyn’s fell by 2.6m. Johnson’s rose by only 304,000.     ←   ZScarpia   19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"...published an interesting statistic" - well, it's been "published" on this Wikipedia article since the results were known, in the infobox. Really not remarkable, except to those who wish to find excuses. 213.253.7.254 (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia, you could look at working something into the analysis section using Jenkins' article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the tables lists the percentage of the votes changes for each of the parties, but the analysis doesn't mention the Liberal Democrat result at all, including Simon Jenkins' point that the drop in the Labour vote was more due to a Liberal Democrat recovery than an increase in votes for the Conservatives. The reason I called the statistic interesting is because of the perception that the 2017 vote was a disaster for the Conservatives and the 2019 one a triumph, yet the change in the actual vote for the party was pretty small.     ←   ZScarpia   00:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Independents

In the results section and in related articles we do not have an independents section like last time. Given NI had an independent MP last time the change in MP figures don't add up. I think we need to add an independents section. Do people agree, does anyone know a good source for the number of independent candidates/votes etc? Jopal22 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

jump in views for this article

just thought you might be interested to know that this article jumped to 500,000 hits recently. nice work everyone!! below is a link to the graph of page views. I included some other similar 2019-related pages just for comparison, but they got much less traffic. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• LINK: Link to article page views recently. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Blank and invalid votes

As far as I know the page show the definitive results, so where are the total of blank and invalid votes? Surely the UK electoral commission would have released such a number, right? We can't know the exact turnout until we got it.--Aréat (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Media coverage until election day

I'm just calling attention from editors here that there's a new academic report on media bias in the UK media extending until election day. The findings are broadly in line with the more limited study already mentioned in the entry, but I know we need an update, as well: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-5/ Rafe87 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Useful resource

"General Election 2019: results and analysis", a House of Commons library briefing. Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Infobox, concerning post-election PM

The consensus is to change the description in the infobox to Prime Minister after election.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For years irregardless of whether the post-election prime minister was the incumbent or not, we've been using Appointed Prime Minister in the infobox. Recently (in this article) that's been challenged (note: A related dispute occurred at 2019 Canadian federal election concerning incumbent pms, which has since been resolved) as some want the description changed to Prime Minister after election.
So which should it be? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A) - Appointed Prime Minister
or
B) - Prime Minister after election

Survey

• B "After the election" better matches "Before the election" and makes more sense at a glance. "Appointed" carries a misleading tone to it. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option B sounds more natural and maintains consistency with "Prime Minister before election". "Appointed" would only lead to continuous clashes over whether it should be regarded as an "appointment" or an "election" or whether there is any appointment at all when the electoral results lead to the current PM being kept in office without any intermediate action. Impru20^talk 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• A or B - I'm content with either option, as long as that option is adopted for all the UK general election articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option B Simpler and straightforward, which I think is important in an info box. Also avoids technicalities like the fact that an incumbent PM is not appointed to office after an election. They carry on based on their previous appointment. Agree it should be the same for all. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• B for this election and others where no new PM was appointed as a result. However, I think forcing consistency is a bad idea. In a parliamentary system, the new PM may not be appointed until days or even weeks after the election takes place, so the PM after the election and the person appointed as a result of the election may be different.

For example, Stanley Baldwin remained Prime Minister for a full seven weeks after the 1923 election, until his King's Speech was defeated in January 1924. So, the PM after the election was Baldwin, but the person appointed PM as a result was MacDonald. Kahastok talk 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• A, but with Caution - In my opinion, whoever is able to form a government when winning the most votes in the election, is not truly elected to the position as they have to meet with the current ruling monarch to be appointed into the role - so I vote for this, but with some caution. GUtt01 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  B - Changed my mind after reviewing the infobox for this article. I think the latter option is more appropriate, and per the Discussion below, it should be implemented on all UK General Election articles as soon as this debate ends! GUtt01 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• B for this election and other elections where the PM hasn't changed. Maybe B for other election articles, but I take Kahastok's point that the issue is more complicated then. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• B is better, and also I support the suggestion in the discussion that if it used it should be used for all elections, regardless of whether the PM has changed. FrankP (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• B for consistency and lack of contention. Number 57 10:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• None of the above, it should be omitted altogether, as the documentation for the infobox makes it clear that the 'posttitle' field should only be used if the title of the victor changes as a result of the election, and in this case it hasn't changed. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Omitting the parameter results in "Elected Prime Minister" as the text. This could be proposed as a third option, but I think would be objected to for UK General Elections as they do not technically elect a Prime Minister (particularly in the case of hung parliaments). TSP (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, so perhaps we need to get the template modified then, to allow for the common UK case where the result does not change the title, and allow an empty field. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure an empty field would make any sense? Then it would say on the left: "Prime Minister before election: Boris Johnson", and on the right, simply: "Boris Johnson". Surely it needs some kind of label on the right? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing. TSP (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  The difficulty is that the election is not for choosing a prime minister. There isn't really a need for a before and after, so a blank after should be possible, in which case there should be just a single entry shown for prime minister. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Well, in that case the whole thing could simply be left blank. I don't think that's helpful to our readers, though. In, say, 1997, there was a general election; as a direct result, the Prime Minister changed from John Major to Tony Blair. Yes, in an entirely technical sense the election doesn't in itself change the Prime Minister (unless they lose their seat); but I think you'd find if you looked at most sources they would closely connect the two events. TSP (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  @TSP: what I'm saying is that the template needs to be fixed so that it can give the correct information, depending on the circumstances. Currently, apparently, it cannot do that. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Could you clarify exactly what you think it should display? TSP (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• B (for the same reasons I changed it in the first place). A General Election doesn't appoint a Prime Minister. Who was Prime Minister after the election is the relevant fact, implying anything stronger is likely to be misleading. TSP (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• B' is a little bit better, as it doesn't set nails on whether sitting PMs are appointed. MozeTak (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

If option 'B' is chosen, I sincerely hope it will be adopted for all the UK general election articles, including those with 'new' pms after the election. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kahastok:, we can use a note in cases like the Jan 1924 election article. See how it's handled at 1985 Ontario general election & 2017 British Columbia general election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this makes sense here. Those appear to be cases where the government was "sworn in" and then quickly lost the confidence of their assemblies. Governments in Britain remain in post until they resign.

Also worth mentioning that the Baldwin case from 1923/4 is not unique. In the nineteenth century it was conventional for governments who lost elections to remain in post until they actually lost a confidence vote in the House of Commons (even if the opposition had won a majority). In these cases we'd list the outgoing PM as being PM "after the election", which might be technically correct, but would mislead the reader as to what happened in practice. Kahastok talk 18:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this RfC, GoodDay. I would go with Option B, at least where the PM before the election remains in office after election. The reason is that in that case, the PM is not appointed after the election. The PM remains in office and no subsequent appointment is required. There is no set term for the PM. Once appointed, they remain PM until they resign, die, or are dismissed by the monarch. A parliamentary election does not end their tenure of offfice. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A general election in the UK does not "appoint" a prime minister, it only appoints members of the House of Commons. The post of PM is in the gift of the monarch, who following an election summons the outgoing PM and invites them to form a government. If that person is unable (or unwilling) to form a government, the monarch will then invite them to suggest a person who could, if appointed PM, be able to form a goverment; and this is usually (but not necessarily) the leader of the party having the most MPs. Consider the 2010 general election: this was held on 6 May; and although it was known early on 7 May that the Conservatives had the most MPs, David Cameron was not automatically PM: Gordon Brown remained in the office of Prime Minister until 11 May; he was unable to form a government, so on 11 May he resigned and suggested Cameron, who took office later that day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that there's a consensus to change to Prime Minister after election. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Results of Rfc

Results have been implemented at all the GB/UK general election articles, by @Impru20: and myself :) GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Landslide Victory?

Two recent edits have disagreed over whether the Conservative victory should be described as a 'landslide'. As there is no prescriptive definition of landslide, my concern is that describing this victory as such is too editorial. I think that it should not be described as a landslide unless it is commonly referred to as such in the long term.

If it is to be described as a landslide, then it should be added to the Landslide victory page. I am interested in other editors views on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perokema (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

there is stronger evidence to support the idea that the SNP won a landslide victory in Scotland (winning 48 out of 59 seats) but when I have tried to add that information it had been deleted Birtig (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What you need is a WP:RS that actually describes it as a landslide. Otherwise, it's your own opinion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

How about "Scotland Election Results 2019:SNP wins election landslide in Scotland" [1] Regards Birtig (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Blank and invalid votes

It seem we still have no data of the blank and invalid votes on the page. Does the UK not count those?--Aréat (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

They are certainly counted (I've been an election agent multiple times) but there isn't a systemic collection and reporting of the data. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Brexit Party be among the parties in the Infobox?

Currently there is only the Tories, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems. But the Brexit Party picked up a significant share of the vote in many seats and were thus quite important to the resulting seat distribution, even if they got no seats themselves (due to spoiler effect etc), so I think it might be good to include them purely for the sake of showing their popular vote share. —ajf (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realise BXP only got 2% of the national popular vote, which means they seem less significant in that way. I guess that's because they didn't stand in very many seats. But they were considered to have contributed to Labour managing to hang on in some seats, right? —ajf (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A party with a better claim to be included would be the Green party of England and Wales - it got 2.7% and 1 MP compared to the Brexit Party getting 2% and no MPs. Birtig (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Massive infobox

@Ρουθραμιώτης and Nub Cake: There's been some to-and-fro about the presence of a much-expanded infobox on this page, featuring the fortunes of 9 parties and their leaders. (See this revision) I've got to say I like the "massively complex" infobox, as if offers a panoramic view of the UK political landscape, including the fortunes of the minority parties, one of which once held the poltical balance -- but I can appreciate it that others don't share this view, and prefer the older 4-party one. (See here). Let's also take this to talk before this becomes a major issue. -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nub Cake: I'd say you also need to make your case for removing that change, rather than just relying on claiming "consensus". The bigger infobox is clearly the result of a good faith edit by another editor, and unless I'm missing an earlier discussion, consensus is not the same thing as a prohibition of further change. Yes, it's big, but it's also informative, and I think overall a positive change. -- The Anome (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say changing this infobox before building consensus here is wrong. The 4-party one is currently the one that has consensus. Secondly, never has any UK election article contained minor parties with a mere 100,000 or so votes and just a few seats, and for good reason. The only one that came close was the 2017 one, which did so because the DUP played a significant role after that election as a confidence-and-supply partner. For 2019, no such minor party had a significant post-election role to play, especially not ones with mere single seats. Adding these parties makes the infobox massively complex and if anything reduces the 'panoramic view' offered by the 4-party one, which is a much more concise and helpful 'view' of the general and overarching major trends in British politics without having three rows of pictures, numbers and percentages. Information overload is not informative, especially when that information exists somewhere else. A full list of results is fully provided in the results section, which is what a reader looking for results for a specific party can consult. Nub Cake (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say you also need to make your case for removing that change, rather than just relying on claiming "consensus" [...] consensus is not the same thing as a prohibition of further change. WP:CONSENSUS means that there was already a process of discussion after similar changes were already attempted in the past. That there are people that would like for a massive infobox to be shown is not a new issue, but current consensus already addressed this with the involvement and agreement of many editors. Obviously, there is little else to say against the current 4-party infobox short of a new, different consensus being achieved, but unilateral edits, no matter how good faithed they are, are not enough to overturn consensus. Impru20^talk 12:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to add that it is somewhat underestimated just how many people view wikipedia from their phones, where three-party infoboxes look horrendous as it is. Multiply that by three rows of 3 parties and you have yourself a formatting disaster - hardly informative if you ask me. Nub Cake (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I take your point. The 9-party infobox does not take well to being viewed on small screens in the mobile view. -- The Anome (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The current 4-party infobox is rather big, contrary to MOS:INFOBOX. A 9-party infobox is way too big. However, a 4-party box fails to cover important parts of the election and we get problems about subjectivity and bias. The answer remains clear to me: switch to Template:Infobox legislative election, as used e.g. here September 2019 Israeli legislative election. Much more compact. Includes the important information. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a new kind of template to accommodate for the democracies that are neither two-party nor ten-party. Such as UK where two major parties vye for government, or three once every 25 years, but where there are plenty of parties because of peripheral regions.

This could be done simply by 1) using the list of Template:Infobox legislative election 2) adding the pictures and names of the two Prime ministerial candidates above.

I made an [in my sandbox] for Israel (being a very sectorial democracy), but I put the pictures and names below the list, not above, which in retrospect seems to be a mistake. So take it as a very early draft, and re-use the code as you please. Kahlores (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The argument for an Israeli-style infobox has been made since the 2015 election and has never gained traction for the same reasons every time. The UK is not sectorial like Israel. The electoral system sees to that. The four parties on the infobox literally account for 96% of the seats and 90% of the vote. An Israeli style infobox will add nothing by including a couple of extra parties with 4-5 seats that do not have much of a part to play in the wider context. That being coupled with the fact that the Israeli style infobox will result in a lot of information loss (such as leader's seat, last election, leader since and leader image) for no apparent gain. If someone wants to see the detailed results of parties winning just a couple of seats, they can go to the results section, which is what it is for. Nub Cake (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I have always thought that an infobox, by definition, is intended to summarize, not to show every party securing seats, unless there is a good reason for doing so. For example, that could make sense in an Israeli-like system where parliament is very sectorial and where it is not so much the results of individual parties that matter, but that of ideological blocs. In the UK, having a party with 1-5 seats and 0.x% of the vote in the infobox next to parties with 200-300 seats seems out of place. Impru20^talk 12:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

In the last UK Parliament, the parties with a few seats really mattered. In this Parliament, it barely matters how many seats anyone has rather than the Conservatives. But I think to adequately summarise the story of the election, you need to cover all the parties considered major parties in UK reliable source coverage (e.g., the Ofcom list) who won seats, which is all the parties that won seats.

The idea that leader's seat and leader since are vital fields that must be preserved makes no sense to me. They're pretty trivial. The leader's seat has never been of import in UK elections. It should go from the infobox because of basic infobox rules, whatever infobox we use. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The DUP, maybe. All others, no. Unless of course you mean the point where even the DUP support was of little help because of the number of Conservative defections and splits, but that has little to do with actual election results, and more with the ensuing parliament's evolution through its term, which is not for a previous election article to cover and much less a topic for such article's infobox. Impru20^talk 14:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit late in providing input, but I was the first to revert our Greek friend, and have to agree with Impru20 on the DUP, who were the ones to support the May ministry following the June 2017 election. As to the smaller parties...for infobox purposes, as an example, the average reader is less likely to care about the GPEW's Berry and Bartley (the party co-leaders) than Caroline Lucas, the party's sole MP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit unclear on what can and can't go in all infoboxes, never mind just ones for elections. I think that if a party gets over 2% of the popular vote, then they should be included. This would mean all of the following being included: the Conseravtive Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Green Party of England and Wales and the Brexit Party.Dylan109 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"South Wessex, Brighton and Hove"

I don't know whether this is the right place to say this, as it's a descriptor used as an inset in many GE results maps, but I can't find anywhere else better.

"South Wessex, Brighton and Hove" seems to be a description that's overlong and arbitrary at best, and factually wrong at worst.

• Wessex begins at either Land's End or Devon and extends east as far as Hampshire, which is about halfway across this inset map. This means that the inset map only shows a small portion of Wessex, a portion which is as close to the north as to the south of the region. The map is actually of south-eastern Wessex and southern Sussex. (You could of course arbitrarily say Wessex includes Sussex, as it did after the conquest of c.825, but that's not the usual use of the term - after all, Wessex conquered as far north as the Wirral shortly afterwards, and no-one describes the Wirral as being "north Wessex".)
• There's no need to mention Brighton and Hove at all. If we are using descriptors from before 1066 then whatever we say includes B&H. If we insist on mentioning the cities then we should include Southampton and Portsmouth as well, especially as they are historically more significant. It's arbitrary to include cities, but even more arbitrary to include just one.

Perhaps I could suggest "southern Hampshire and Sussex"? It's more succinct and is more obviously correct. It does ignore the Isle of Wight, but the map is not there for the IoW, which is one of the few constituencies clearly discernible on the map of the whole country. Knole Jonathan (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just have "South Coast", thats specific and accrurate. MoonlightTulsi 07:04, 22 May 2020

"South Coast" is a good alternative, perhaps also "South Central" but both are better than South Wessex. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with either of those suggestions. But I don't know how one goes about getting such a change done... Knole Jonathan (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Results in constituencies

It would be meaningful to list the results of each constituency (electoral district) here or (maybe even more suitable) in the respective election articles for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, at least the percentage of votes for the leading candidate, perhaps also for two or three trailing ones. I believe that is more relevant than, for example, county averages. The same would apply for futre elections. Meerwind7 (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Russian interference confirmed

The documents Corbyn paraded around in the election debates were indeed acquired by 'Russian actors.' Section added. This interference manifested itself through a hacked document pertaining to the NHS that Jeremy Corbyn used to damage the Tory Party by showcasing at election debates. Reaper7 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Russian hacking

@Friend-of-the-planet-99: I'm starting this thread as I know without it you'll continue to edit war. With your latest revision you said the revision was unjustified. This isn't true, as I provided a justification in my edit summary. Please read that: the citations do not directly support your claim that, as "it became clear that the Russia report would be published, the Conservative government then, made a selective disclosure of a hacked document". This wording implies the only reason that it was released was because they had no other choice. This is a case of WP:SYNTH. If one of the citations states this explicitly, please post it here in case I have missed it. — Czello 19:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who is deleting bulk sections of valid text, not me. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted something that wasn't supported by the citations. Please address that here. — Czello 14:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The text was supported by adequate citations. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote from the citations that support the claim. — Czello 14:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"This is the first time the government has acknowledged with such certainty that Russians interfered in the UK's democratic processes." From BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't address my concern. No one is disputing that the government has acknowledged there was interference, I'm disputing the wording and phrasing around it being because of Chris Grayling failing to get his post. Your version makes this implication. — Czello 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Minority vote

@Friend-of-the-planet-99: I'll start the talk page discussion for you to try to discourage you from edit warring. On the subject of the party winning with a minority vote: every single UK election ends up like this. Mentioning it here is WP:UNDUE. You'll notice that other articles where a party won a majority don't have this disclaimer: the reason being is that by saying "despite them getting a minority of the vote share" you're importing a PoV statement, probably in an attempt to make a point. — Czello 18:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: "every single UK election ends up like this". Incorrect, I suggest you refer to the 1931 general election. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That's your justification for including it here? By going back to the 1930s? This is clearly, as I said, a case of WP:UNDUE weight. A government winning a majority with the minority of the vote is normal and not in any way unique. Introducing it here is clearly introducing a bias into the article. Also, please do not edit war this: take a look at WP:BRD. You've introduced a claim, it's been disputed, and now is the time to talk. — Czello 18:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So you stated that "every single UK election ends up like this", and when I point out that you are mistaken, you then come up with another "objection". It's clear that you're determined to delete the minority vote text, and will just keep looking for excuses to do so. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to quibble over what I said, or actually engage in the discussion? Again, parties winning a majority with a minority of the vote is neither special nor unique. It's ordinary -- the very fact that you need to go back to the 1930s to try to justify its inclusion shows that it's out of place here. Why haven't you added it to every other GE article, for example? Using the phrasing "despite" also introduces a bias into the article, as if the Conservatives winning in this way was some how wrong. — Czello 09:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the view that it's non-sense to add this in the article, because this is absolutely normal under the FPTP system. In 2005, an almost similarly-big majority was won with slightly above 35% of the votes. The 1931 election being at example of an election where a party also wins a majority of the vote would be a reason to highlight such a circumstance in that article (which already is), not for us to modify the 19 subsequent election articles where a party won a majority of seats without winning a majority of votes, just to point out the obvious. Impru20^talk 09:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. — Czello 09:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Are you going to quibble over what I said, or actually engage in the discussion?" In case you hadn't realised, where Wikipedia is concerned "what you said" is relevant - in fact it's the only thing that's relevant. You made a statement, and I rebutted it.

The text referring to the minority popular vote is a statement of fact, written in a neutral manner. In the 1931 UK GE the Conservatives received a popular vote majority under FPTP; however in recent elections, Commons majorities have been delivered on only a minority vote. This is a relevant and informative addition to the Wiki article, in particular because the preceding text sounds like it was written by Conservative Party central office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

1924, 1922, 1918, 1906, 1895 are examples of "very recent" elections where seat majorities were won without a majority of the votes. And most of the others not mentioned in-between were hung parliaments. This is not relevant at all, unless you can actually bring sources from media outlets or academic works that actually highlight such a fact as relevant for this particular election. Otherwise it's just a bunch of misleading, POVish trivia. Impru20^talk 10:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You've not rebutted my arguments, for the very reason that Impru20 has said. You've actively dodged the fact that this isn't relevant, that and that it's WP:UNDUE. I'd also like to know why you think the text is written like it was by the Tory central office (especially given that your version seems like it's written by someone who opposes the Tories). Given your questionable edits to First-past-the-post voting it seems like you have a real WP:AXE to grind with how FPTP actually works. — Czello 10:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Friend-of-the-planet-99 feels superior enough so as to stop replying in this discussion to defend their disputed facts, but is still active enough to keep edit warring while assuming bad faith from others. And speaking of WP:3RR: this is your fourth revert just outside the 24-hour timeframe, meaning it'd still count as a 3RR violation. Considering this user's overall behaviour at First-past-the-post voting, here and the persistent blanking of other users' attempts at discussing the issues at their talk page, I'd say this can be considered as a WP:NOTHERE situation. Impru20^talk 13:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Impru20: I agree, and I've raised it with AN/I for this reason — Czello 13:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I see four reverts between 18:21 and 19:27 on 18 July ("reversion", "reverted", "undid", "reverted"), plus a fifth just over 24 hours earlier.

I also think Friend-of-the-planet-99's accusations of sockpuppetry are in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links").

If, as you claim, you are certain someone is a sockpuppet, the correct way to address it is with a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, not using it as ammunition in an edit war. TSP (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest that the discussion focuses on how reliable sources talked about the election? If lots referred to this fact, we should include it. If not, we shouldn't. I think that's the more important determiner than discussing the 1931 or any other prior election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is a blatant attempt to get my Wikipedia account deactivated in order to enforce deletion of valid text from a Wikipedia article on a politically sensitive topic. My edits to the article merely pointed out using neutral and factual language that the Conservative Party did not obtain a popular vote majority at the last election. This text added balance to the article because as originally worded the article could easily leave a reader with the impression that the Conservatives have a massive level of public support, which is not the case as demonstrated in the general election result where they achieved less than 44% popular vote.--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As myself and others have repeatedly told you, mentioning the fact that they won with a minority of the vote is WP:UNDUE given the fact that the vast majority of elections happens like this (I notice you're only doing this for this article, by the way -- not other times a majority was won, like by Labour). It's not unique for elections to go like this, in fact it's both normal and ordinary. As for people being left with certain impressions: the infobox clearly shows the % vote that each party got. That's enough to let people make their own decisions. They don't need your help getting there. — Czello 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of the 32 UK general election held in the 20th and 21st centuries, 25 have seen overall parliamentary majorities being achieved, of which only 2 (1900 and 1931) saw a majority of the popular vote as well. Fotp99 keeps failing to providing any source where such a common fact (happening for 92% of the elections were a party obtained a majority) is specifically relevant for this election. This is not a "balance to the article", but actually seems done to give undue weight to a particular fact so as to demeanor the electoral result of a specific party, of which this user has already shown a specific POV. Impru20^talk 14:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated, my edits to the article merely pointed out using neutral and factual language that the Conservative Party did not obtain a popular vote majority at the last election. This text added balance to the article because as originally worded the article could easily leave a reader with the impression that the Conservatives have a massive level of public support, which is not the case as demonstrated in the general election result where they achieved less than 44% popular vote. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

44% and a 12-point margin over the next party is not a "massive level of public support", despite all sources claiming this was a textbook landslide victory. Ok. Impru20^talk 14:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Friend-of-the-planet-99, fortunately Wikipedia policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) is helpfully clear on this: we need to be guided by the sources. Can you suggest any reliable sources which make the observation that the failure of the winning party to achieve a majority was a notable feature of the 2019 general election? If it isn't in the sources, it can't go in the article. TSP (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, here's one example: The UK's first-past-the-post electoral system is failing democracy. But similar edits should be made to other Wiki GE articles because they also fail to mention the lack of popular vote majority by the "winning" party--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

But similar edits should be made to other Wiki GE articles because they also fail to mention the lack of popular vote majority by the "winning" party - This would result in a repeated, and completely unnecessary assertion over and over through hundreds of years worth of elections that XYZ winning party failed to win a overall majority of the popular vote; again, this is completely unnecessary as the popular vote has nothing to do with the UK's FPTP General Election electoral system which relies on a constituency by constituency basis. All your commentary regarding 'X failed to win the popular vote' is just political axe-grinding by yourself because you don't like the FPTP voting system, which is a fine view to have, but not one that has any place in the General Election 2019 Results page. Every single election would need another subheading specifically criticising FPTP under your interpretation of what should be included, which is political axe-grinding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.233.166 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

So, where is the example? That source you provide does not say anything even remotely related to what you intend to add to this article. In fact, it does back that the Conservative's win was stunning and that they romped to victory, disclaiming your own, earlier statement that "the Conservatives having a massive level of public support is not the case here". Impru20^talk 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be an article about the UK electoral system, albeit using the most recent election as one of its examples. If you find yourself saying that the same text should be added to all General Election articles, that suggests to me that in fact it should be somewhere like the Elections in the United Kingdom article, not in the articles on every individual election. The governing party not having a majority of the vote is a general feature of the overwhelming majority of UK General Elections, not a specific feature of this one. TSP (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Friend-of-the-planet-99: Before you address Impru20's point, please re-read very carefully what TSP said above: "Can you suggest any reliable sources which make the observation that the failure of the winning party to achieve a majority was a notable feature of the 2019 general election?" — Czello 15:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@TSP: The governing party not having a majority of the vote is not even a general feature of FPTP: many PR systems do actually result in parties being able to win overall seat majorities without a majority of the popular vote: last week's Galician regional election is probably the most recent case, but you can find plenty of other such cases such as this, this, this or this. I concur that this is an issue that should be addressed at each country's main "Elections in X" page, but that's not a particular feature of any election. Impru20^talk 15:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Article protection

The article has been protected at template editor access for three days due to heavy edit warring. Please discuss not revert back and forth. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sadly the edit warring has mostly come from one user; many of us are trying to discuss with him above. Hopefully this should settle things down. — Czello 17:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It depends. Maybe the issue settles down, or maybe we have just been granted a spare time of three days until it starts all over again. Impru20^talk 17:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

He should know that resuming edit warring so soon after a block would quickly lead to an indef. — Czello 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Theres a spelling mistake in the Russian interference section - "obverseen" should be "overseen", thanks LordHarris 15:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made the change. Keith D (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibility of finding other sources than the Guardian and Sky News, who were hardly impartial in this election>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.206.150 (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian Blackford leader

Can I suggest instead of Sturgeon being leader in the infobox it should be Blackford as he is leader in the House of Commons. (Airline7375 (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC))

Election articles list party leaders, not House leaders. — Czello 11:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

To add onto this, you'll notice there is a footnote next to "Leader's seat" which specifies that Ian Blackford is the House leader. — Czello 11:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sturgeon was in 2019, and remains, leader of the SNP. Her picture correctly features in the infobox. Birtig (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see why Nicola should be in the infobox, Blackford is the Westminster leader of the SNP and this article is about a Westminster election Ciaran.london (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Next election in the United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Next election in the United Kingdom. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Next election in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Next Untied Kingdom general election" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Next Untied Kingdom general election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Next Untied Kingdom general election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Landslide

It is questionable as to whether an 80-seat majority constitutes a "landslide". What even is the definition of a landslide anyway? The majority for the Tories was similar in terms of seats to the 2005 general election, but that is almost never referred to as a "landslide". This seems to me to be a rather loaded term designed to make the election result seem more comprhensive than it actually was. I propose removing the label, unless someone in support wishes to provide an appropriate justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.21.189 (talk • contribs)

The use of the word "landslide" is supported by reliable sources. And it was a pretty comprehensive victory. — Czello 06:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Could you elaborate a little on what sources you are using as the basis of this claim as it seems incongruous that the similar majority (in seat terms) of 2005 is not referred to as a landslide. "Pretty comprehensive" would be a fair description, but "landslide" refers to an utterly overwhelming victory such as 1997 or 2001, which I do not believe it can be said that the 2019 election was.

Two sources at the bottom of the article (here and here) both refer to the victory as a landslide. I recall seeing many others at the time, so I'm sure more could be added if necessary. — Czello 17:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that the article is presenting a matter of opinion as a matter of fact. This "landslide" does not match the scale of other elections considered as landslides (ie 1983, 1997). At the very least it should be changed to an additional sentence stating that some commentators branded it as a landslide victory, if any mention of the word landslide is to be on this page.

Seating Charts

How are the seating charts of the House of Commons at the bottom of the infobox made? If anyone knows please add to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

@ThoughtsQT: It appears to be made using this tool: https://parliamentdiagram.toolforge.org/parlitest.php. I've not used it myself before, though. — Czello 06:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention of attacks on Labour campaigners repeatedly reverted

[edit to this article] was reverted on the basis of "weasel words" and I was told to take this to talk. I fundamentally do not agree that there are any "weasel words" here - and if there are, somehow, this is factual information that should be represented in the article, and which is backed up with sources. I would be interested to hear what "weasel words" are included here and any suggestion for how this information could be included in the article while also not being immediately reverted. Foonblace (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Foonblace, it was reverted "per WP:BRD as you had not got consensus to add it after I reverted it the first time. The problem with it is WP:UNDUE, unbalanced, and let's call the "multiple" OR rather than weasel. Lets start with the OR bit: a couple of random attacks cannot be characterised as "multiple", you need a consensus amongst reliable sources saying there were "multiple" to support that claim. Next, it is undue to add a couple of obscure local attacks of non notable people to an article about a nationwide event involving millions of people. And, even if everything else was okay, it is unbalanced to only include attacks on members of one party when several parties took part in the event. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"Multiple" is objectively correct - these were also not "obscure" but were reported in national media. It is absolutely worth mentioning these attacks in an article about a national event which was comprised of the activities of hundreds of local campaigning organisations. If you think that attacks on members of other parties should be included then these are also worth including and you should add these rather than removing all mention of attacks on Labour members that factually happened and were evidenced. Foonblace (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Foonblace, calling two "multiple" is not "objectively correct". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And you haven't responded to any other part of what I said either - there is no reason for this information to be removed from the article totally even if you somehow find "weasel words" in how I wrote it. I'm completely unclear from what you've said how this information even could be represented without you reverting it immediately, and it feels unfair that I have to somehow find "consensus" to include it whereas you don't have to find any to remove it totally. Foonblace (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The main reasons I disagree with its addition are that adding it gives undue weight to it, and it is non-neutral, and as I said above, I dropped "weasel" in favour of OR. To add details of just two local and relatively minor attacks to an article about a nationwide event is giving them undue weight, picking the two to mention from just one of the several parties involved is non-neutral and to interpret two (2) attacks as "multiple" is clearly not founded in reliable sources - so is OR. The way Wikipedia works is you need consensus to add new stuff and BRD explains more on that, content must be verifiable and Wiki's voice should only be used for supported facts and not for personal opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good and well sourced - I don't think it can be reasonably claimed that the statements are not well-sourced to national RS - re-added - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, do you think that two in the whole country can be generalised as "multiple"? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's an arguable detail, but I think your blanket edit-warring removal of the entire claim is not reasonably supportable. Current version seems fine to me - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, do you think your opinion on this overrules the need to gain consensus before re-adding disputed content? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Considering the content is well-cited to RSes, it would seem to belong in. Local consensus cannot override content policy - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, and the question being discussed here was whether the content does comply with content policy. You seem to have unilaterally declared that it does, undermining the discussion here attempting to achieve a consensus on that. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you can find countervailing RSes, by all means do so - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, you'll need to explain how that would help in more detail. There is no doubt that those two canvassers were attacked, the policy points we were discussing is whether the inclusion of those two selected incidents complies with the content policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

well, clearly, it's cited to solid RSes. You'd have quite an effort to argue it must be excluded under policy - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, you are now entering a circular argument - I refer you to my response to your similar comment at 09:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC) above. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You're not providing any policy-based reason for its exclusion. You started at not liking it, then went to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You're not making your blanket edit-warring removal of the entire claim any more reasonably supportable. At a certain point, you need to stop making circular claims and demanding responses to them - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, I made clear reverts after my BRD revert of a bold addition, and that of another editor, were reverted without addressing the issues. I have explained my reasons above, but you chose to override my concerns and have failed to justify that. I do not see what more I can say. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, which community consensus do you think was being overridden when you claim we "went to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS"? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your argument functionally appears to be status-quo stonewalling. Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_solely_to_"no_consensus"#How_to_respond_to_a_"no_consensus"_edit_summary points out that Wikipedia edits do not first require an affirmative consensus.

Fundamentally: (a) this happened (b) it's in clear RS coverage (c) it's clearly a matter that's part of the article topic; thus, you'd need a really good reason to exclude it. So far you're appealing to a claim of requiring affirmative consensus that doesn't exist. And the "consensus" appears to be just you in this section - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, your premise is flawed - it didn't have RS coverage - "multiple" wasn't supported, which gave it undue weight as two (2) isn't generally described as "multiple". And which community consensus do you think was being overridden when you claim we "went to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS"? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If your only issue is with “multiple” - which appears to be your only substantive issue - why not propose alternative wording rather than obliterating all mention of these documented, evidenced events? It feels like you’ve latched onto that because it’s the only concrete thing you can offer for your far less well-supported opinion that you just don’t like what it says. Foonblace (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've already replaced "multiple" with "two", which hopefully resolves this issue. — Czello 14:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Czello, yes one of the three, thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Foonblace, as I said, that wasn't the only problem I saw with that addition, I questioned it's weight and neutrality too. It seems like others have addressed two of the issues now though. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And as David says - the only person here with any objection appears to be you - and you are using your sole objection to assert that there is a lack of consensus, which is tautological. Of course there’ll never be consensus when you don’t seem to offer any way forward other than non-specific “not like this”. You’ve not made a single workable, concrete suggestion throughout this entire discussion but have instead just referred to Wikipedia policies that just don’t back you up at all as if that’s something actionable. Foonblace (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Foonblace, when it was just the two of us, and when I saw three issues, yes, there was no consensus. Now others have brought valid arguments, sources have been added, and tweaks made, the situation has changed. And that's how BRD and discussion can result in consensus building. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added two more sources - the BBC and the Independent covered it as well as the Guardian. All three seem to have written their stories independently (not just copied each other), so the incidents were significant enough to attract independent coverage in multiple national RSes, which should help demonstrate that the incident is due under WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, thanks, that makes it seem more worthy, it's just the balance to look at now - or perhaps there were just the two due-weight incidents in the whole campaign. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It was entirely adequately sourced previously; your objections were spurious - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, it clearly was not "adequately sourced previously" - or why did it have to be reworded to match what the sources actually said? And my concerns weren't just about verifiability, it wasn't clear it had due weight - or why did you feel the need to make this edit? Or that it is neutrality balanced. Please avoid unsubstantiated accusations, and AGF. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think that it's "unbalanced" then fix something to make it so. But it's still not clear why you think it's unbalanced or why your first instinct was to remove totally and not improve. I appreciate that we need to assume good faith but we're now several days on on this and so far you've still not made any workable suggestions yourself beyond just removing these sourced, verifiable events (which for some reason you decided weren't adequately sourced) totally; "assume good faith" is not a shield that prevents anyone from judging you as acting in bad faith. I think it should be reiterated here that the only person expressing any kind of issue here is you, and the fact that you - again - appear unable to make any constructive suggestions yourself but expect others to respond to non-specific issues of "balance" or you'll just delete sourced statements goes very much against you here. Foonblace (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be against this being added as it just seems selecting one instance of a wider issue which creates an imbalance. If you want to add a section on abuse during the campaign it could justified if there was an effort for a more general overview which has balance. Adding a specific instance will just result in partisan adding of specific incidents by others. BBC and NYT had more rounded articles on this at the time: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/world/europe/britain-election-women-threats.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50852381. Other articles that might relevant https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/boris-johnson-barnard-castle-cancelled-17391018 https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1216528/election-2019-bristol-polling-station-voter-intimidation-police-avon-somerset. The NPCC also released specific advice this election to candidates https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/security-guidance-issued-to-help-candidates-stay-safe-on-the-campaign-trail. Hopefully this is some of what you want to balance the wiki edits so there is less concern from other editors. Jopal22 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Jopal22, I think those show it is more widespread than the two incidents mentioned in the article. I am still in favour of removing them, and a more balanced addition could be made to cover the generalities of the situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent vote totals

In the Results section, the total number of votes given for parties appears twice, and they differ; how can this be? They are, for the Summary and Full Results sub-sections respectively:

Tory 13,966,565 Labour 10,269,076 LibDem 3,696,423

Tory 13,966,454 Labour 10,269,051 LibDem 3,696,419

Yes, they are small differences, and perhaps one shouldn't worry, but if neither is correct, they could indicate a problem with the sources; and they can't both be correct, can they? Nick Barnett (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We should really only be using the official government CSV file. There was a major error with the number votes recieved by the green party. Within the Government CSV file there is an error with the Chorley constituency in the other column, with the incorrect number of votes, but other than that I have confirmed that the data within the CSV is in fact correct. If someone could update the massive table it would appreciated, as it is currently incorrect. Thetukars (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)