Jump to content

Talk:2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition

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

Merge?

[edit]
MERGE
Under the title 2019 Peterborough by-election. Pinging @Onetwothreeip: to implement the merger. Responding to request at WP:ANRFC. --Trialpears (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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.

A merge with 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire by-election has been proposed by Lugnuts but doesn't have any discussion on here, so kicking this off.

Personally, not convinced - these are separate processes and each is notable. 2019 Peterborough recall petition and 2019 Peterborough by-election have separate, substantial articles. TSP (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Apologies, I didn't know about the talkpage discussion - I don't recall ever starting a merge before! Anyway, I was looking at this article and the Peterborough by-election, with the recall info on that article covered in the "Background" section. So I think there's a lot of over-lap, hence the merge. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if there is too much detail in the background section of 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire by-election then that page needs pruning and linking back to here. They are definitely separate events Hoffie01 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the value in separate articles. Their backgrounds cover much the same ground. Recall petition articles (in the short time we've had them) have never proven to get very long. Merge. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per TSP. The separation worked well for Peterborough. Currently there's not a lot to say about this by-election except for its triggering process, but as this event progresses, there will be more to say. -LukeSurl t c 15:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as Bondegezou says the background is inevitably going to be the same for both the recall petition and the by-election. I'd add that due to the law on recall petitions, that news organisations can't poll or cover it in a way which might unduly promote it, there's little else to say about a recall petition other than the reason why it was called and the result, both of which can be added to the by-election page if it is triggered. Both Brecon and Radnorshire and Peterborough could easily be merged into a by-election page, which would lose nothing and be much more streamlined. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally supporting a merge. We should start these article as 20XX Exampleshire recall petition, and then change the name and the scope of the article to 20XX Exampleshire by-election if the petition succeeds, and leave the original title if it does not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should also be aware that while the recall petition has completed, there's a reasonable chance the by-election won't happen. If a general election is called the by-election is cancelled. --LukeSurl t c 14:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Using the title 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition and by-election. While formally distinct, one follows from the other, and I trust we can be clear to describe them as distinct events. Merging avoids duplication of material, while also ensurely sufficient background to by-election. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: They are completely different things. The petition is similar to an independent election and to merge the petition and the by-election would be WP:UNDUE towards the by-election if all the details on the petition is included. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this last point. The only significance of the recall petition is that it triggers a by-election. It has no other meaning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(The C of E here) Not necessarily. It is simply a mini-election whereby any MP who has been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing has to face the electorate to see if they want to retain them as their MP. If 10% sign and say no they don't, THEN you get the by-election. If less than 10 sign it, then no further action until the next GE. The Royal C (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know. The options are have a by-election or don't have a by-election. There is no other outcome. It is a petition on the question of whether to have a by-election. It has no other significance. Bondegezou (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with other users that the two are separate things and deserve separate Wikipedia articles. If we are going with the logic that this should be added to the recall petition then I'd say you need to move the 2018 Lewisham East by-election onto Heidi Alexander's page as the by-election was a result of her resigning. Does that make sense? I just think the two are separate and for clarity, having two separate articles remains the best way forward. RyanPLB (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's applying logic too ruthlessly. That would be a fair comparison if we were proposing moving discussion of the recall petition to Chris Davies's page, for example. These are two connected electoral processes, and while distinct are hardly separate. I don't understand the WP:UNDUE argument; the by-election would not have occurred without the petition. What purpose or aid to the reader does keeping them distinct actually serve? Whereas combining them allows for coherent discussion over the course of an article of matters like Davies considering running again, the support from leadership candidates, etc. If a general election intervenes, what harm? We could still discuss potential candidates here, as with 2017 Manchester Gorton by-election. Wikipedia is an adaptable and evolving project. Even the two Peterborough articles, if merged, would not be all that long when combined, I'd have to disagree with TSP that they're substantial. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because one thing has lead to another, it's because they are very similar events, like one event entirely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well Iveagh Gardens, I hope you can see the ridiculous option I was putting forward? Of course we wouldn't want to see the Lewisham East by-election on Heidi Alexander's own Wikipedia article page. That is why I believe this article needs to remain as it is OR the recall petition be merged with this article. I think what this page looks like from the wonderful Onetwothreeip could be the compromise that we all desire as it amalgamates what I think we're all asking for. Thoughts? RyanPLB (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RyanPLB, I fully support Onetwothreeip's excellent proposal. It was never my strong contention that the by-election material had to be on the recall petition page, simply that in one direction or the other, they should be on the same page. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merging the recall petition with the by-election could look something like this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The petition and by-election are different processes that are independently notable. The separation works fine, enabling petitions (successful and unsuccessful) to be catalogued separately from by-elections, which may or may not have been triggered by a petition. I would accept the case for merger if the petitions themselves were not especially notable or covered by reliable sources, but they did receive significant coverage during their process. The recall petition and by-election are held sequentially rather than simultaneously (as in other countries) and I think the separation into two articles better reflects that. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. There are significant restrictions on the media during the petition period. They can only report when it begins and the result at the end. If the petition is unsuccessful, the article would remain 20XX Exampleshire recall petition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. All three recall petition articles are pretty short and the two that have led to by-election processes are almost entirely re-capped in those by-election articles. There isn't the material for distinct articles. Bondegezou (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the argument about classification compelling. We can easily include this page in two categories, or link it in two separate list articles. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: regarding the point that "The recall petition and by-election are held sequentially rather than simultaneously (as in other countries) and I think the separation into two articles better reflects that", if you look to the United States (the only country that has really done recall to any degree) about half the states that allow it follow the same process that the UK does - of petitioning for recall (which ends with a special election being declared or not) and then holding the special election as two separate events - and in none of these cases do they separate the recall drive from the special election in separate articles (see Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election or 2017 Flint mayoral recall election). Obviously, that doesn't mean that we are required to do the same thing, but there should ideally be a good reason for why we choose to separate them, which I can't see a good case having been made yet... MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging, on the grounds that they are distinct parts of the same process, but strongly oppose the name format suggested above 20XX Exampleland recall petition and by-election, as it is long, unwieldy, and ugly, and if the recall petition is successful it autotriggers the by-election. I would instead favour User:Onetwothreeip's common-sense solution above (changing it as and when it is successful, leaving it as 20XX Exampleland recall petition if not. Jdcooper (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was my proposed title, when there was more hesitation about the merger, but I'm not strongly committed to my earlier combined title approach. A recall petition page that becomes a by-election page makes sense. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The structure of this discussion has become somewhat complicated but I think there is now consensus for merging, like the version that I've proposed earlier. I see Lugnuts Bondegezou MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... Onetwothreeip Iveagh Gardens RyanPLB Jdcooper supporting, with TSP Hoffie01 LukeSurl The C of E Maswimelleu opposing, although I would still invite them to see if what's been discussed reassures them towards a merger. Essentially we would be retaining from the recall petition articles as much as possible into the by-election articles. My apologies if I have mischaracterised anybody's sentiments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, 7 vs 5 would be almost always be considered "no consensus". --LukeSurl t c 12:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:2019_Brecon_and_Radnorshire_by-election also has opposition from User:SelfieCity who hasn't commented here. --LukeSurl t c 12:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm slightly baffled now as I was under the impression that these discussion pages were for what I've just stated: discussion. I'd say the thread isn't necessarily complicated but proliferation of everyone's ideas and thoughts and surely that is what discussion is? I support what Onetwothreeip has drafted and hope this materialises. RyanPLB (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion has shifted to accepting some kind of merger, and has considered the views of those initially against a merger. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a merge to 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire by-election. Following WP:MERGEREASON, there is a significant overlap between the two subjects. The petition was solely to trigger the by-election, and the by-election is happening because of the petition. The petition is important background information for the by-election, and the by-election is a crucial conclusion for the petition. Ralbegen (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm sufficiently impressed by the draft version Onetwothreeip has prepared that I think this should be given a go. I'd personally prefer for the recall petition to be its own section (rather than just a subsection in Background), but we can work these things out afterward. --LukeSurl t c 15:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.
    1. As others have said, the two events are distinct. Indeed, you can easily have one without the other, in that a by-electino can occur for reasons other than a recall (e.g. resignation or death), and a recall can occur but not be successful.
    2. The "recall" page would be included in a "List of recalls". The by-election page would be included in a "list of by-elections". Those two lists should not be muddied.
      ClickRick (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the petition and the by-election are not separately notable enough to have two separate articles - and while they aren't the same thing, and they can happen independently of each other - in this case, the petition and by-election are very well linked to each other, and, again, in this case, are consecutive events --> most references talk about both of them together (as in, how the by-election was caused by the petition, and the petition caused the by-election).[1][2][3] I've read some mentions of the Peterborough one (2019 Peterborough by-election and 2019 Peterborough recall petition) - but since this is a separate thing, and was the first successful recall petition in the UK, so arguably more notable as itself.
  • Update, without commenting in this discussion, User:Lepe02 has redirected 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition to the by-election page [1]. (they actually did this twice as the first time was undone. This is problematic as a) it's unclear if there is consensus to merge here and b) there is an inconsistency now with Peterborough. --LukeSurl t c 12:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support :Hello everyone, sorry for not explaining my reasoning earlier but I merged the two pages. My main reason for this is the petition itself was to my knowledge largely uneventful, the most interesting points could be summed up in a paragraph or so (the MP was involved in false expenses, and the petition reached 10,005 signatures). Also, there was only one or two sentences in the petition article that weren't in the election article. I see that it's not consistent with Peterborough, but that was the first successful recall petition so I think it's own page is justified, whereas this petition was less of an event. I apologise for not consulting here first, but I hope you agree it's tidier having both events in the same article. Cheers, lepe0216:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear the talk page here supports merging the Peterborough articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone uninvolved should close this discussion and resolve this by either merging the Peterborough articles (or asking User:Onetwothreeip to go ahead with their planned merge) or splitting the Brecon and Radnorshire ones. --LukeSurl t c 11:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The arguments in favour of a merge are much more convincing – i.e. this are two interdependent events and there would be significant overlap if there were two separate articles (the recall would have to be much of the background section of the by-election article). Not convinced by the opposing arguments, and one of them in particular (merging the 2018 Lewisham East by-election article into Heidi Alexander) is false equivalence and really should be disregarded as a serious point. The fact that one opposer was convinced to change their mind based on a proposed structure of a merged article is also something that should be considered by the closer. If the comment in the section below by Internet is Freedom is taken into account, there is now a two-thirds majority in favour of the merge. Number 57 21:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Convicted Tory MP Chris Davies booted from Brecon and Radnorshire seat after recall petition passes". PoliticsHome.com. 21 June 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
  2. ^ "Brecon and Radnorshire by-election candidate named". BBC News. 29 June 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
  3. ^ Owen, Twm (26 June 2019). "Brecon and Radnorshire Loony hopeful wants to reduce decorating costs". Brecon & Radnor Express. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
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.

Merge

[edit]

It seems that the debate has subsided but no progress has been made. I personally think a Merge is the best option as it keeps all the information in the same place, and it is unlikely the two articles would need to be kept separate. No more information is likely to ever be released and therefore there is certainly room for a merge. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a request at WP:ANRFC for a non-involved user to close the discussion. Ralbegen (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Brecon_and_Radnorshire_recall_petition&oldid=1196825508"