Jump to content

Talk:October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election

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


Interested

[edit]

We have text saying, “The following Conservative Party politicians publicly expressed interest in running for the leadership:” Several names were then listed. But all the ones I’ve checked so far, they’ve NOT publicly expressed interest. Rather, they’ve been rumoured to be planning to stand, or allies suggest they will stand. Let’s be tighter on what we’re saying and on what basis. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect

[edit]

Can someone please just semi-protect this? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of information coming out means it's a good idea to keep people able to edit it freely. Best to just restrict users who keep vandalising (as has been done) Kingbanquo (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hard disagree. We routinely semi-protect high traffic current events specifically to deal with low-information accounts flooding the pages in good faith and outright vandals in bad faith. It's an annoying pain in the ass that makes it difficult to cut through that we can nip in the bud now. One of them even tried to remove this request. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, didn't know it was routine. Still quite new to editing Wikipedia :p Thanks for explaining Kingbanquo (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with protecting this. Just look at the vandalism in the Rishi Sunak Endorsement column if you need any convincing. Storm0005 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Fawkes Spreadsheet

[edit]

I have removed the Guido Fawkes spreadsheet as a source for MP endorsements, since it is generally regarded as an unreliable source (see WP:RSP). I would suggest as well that we keep this list to MPs who have publicly backed a candidate, rather than anonymous MPs. WJ94 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to September 2022 UK Conservative Party leadership election

[edit]

Contribution I made showed what previous way MP supported in the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2022_Conservative_Party_leadership_election&oldid=1117296857

I believe it's in interest to show how these votes have changed. It was reverted as it was stated as it was "Unnecessary as this is a subsequent leadership election, not a continuation of July 2022 leadership election" I disagree, because it shows it is a continuation as the same candidates are standing (Liz was considered the Boris continuation candidate). Perhaps the information made was not shown in the best form. But it is important to see how votes changed. Scorchgider (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to make that comparison themselves, they need only click over to the previous election page. Your implementation was clunky regardless. --Pokelova (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding a line in the sheet of "votes" at the 100 required mark?

[edit]

Thoughts? TheCorriynial (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCorriynial I'd second this. Scorchgider (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris

[edit]

I may be mistaken however it seems that Boris has declared his candidacy. Maybe not formally but it is clear he is running, so why is he in speculated rather than like announcement pending or declared? Politicaljunkie5 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Politicaljunkie5 because he and Sunak haven't officially declared that they are running for the leadership contest, like Mordaunt has done. Once they make official public declaration, they will be moved to 'declared' subsection. Dhruv edits (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of endorsement

[edit]

When, I google Conservative leadership endorsement apart from guardian, which is updated 4 minutes, I can't find any sources that matches the one on here ! Japhes5005. Japhes5005 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPs have unfortunately been added to the list without any source, so it's hard to verify if they do support the listed candidate. In the bottom of the list, it cites four sources (Sky, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC) though they not match the candidates being added. I'm not sure what the solution is for this. LightNightLights (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An improvement would be to add a cite to each and every claim of endorsement. That would make it easier for readers to check the veracity of the claim. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DeFacto, for lots of MPs on the list I can't find them on the sources and citing each MP has been done on previous leadership election pages. So agree with this solution unless there is another proposal. --Encyloedit (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around, one of the articles for basis may be Endorsements in the July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, where the first source was cited almost 400 times. LightNightLights (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources for most MPs, however, couldn't find any for Mims Davies and Robert Buckland Encyloedit (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of 150?

[edit]

Why is there a threshold of 150 on the graph? Is it to show the point where there'll be only two candidates? 101090ABC (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd threshold should be 158, because if Sunak reaches 158 (of 357) it will be impossible for one of his two competitors to reach the first 100-mark threshold. --Mrodowicz (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With 365 conservative MPs, should the threshold be 365-199=166? Uwappa (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it sits right now, if someone had more than 150, its very unlikely anyone would be able to take over it.
Boris supposedly has over a "100 Backers", so if you believe that, it would be unlikely there are many MPs left to choose their person.

Also, didn't a MP switch parties after Boris resigned? so there would be one less.TheCorriynial (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC's count, as of this moment, says that publicly, Sunak has 145, Boris has 57 (+43, assuming "100 Backers" are true), and Mordaunt has 23, so it seems if someone hit 158, it would be impossible to come back. TheCorriynial (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's nominations

[edit]

I see that Johnson's nominations are not listed. I know he did not formally declare his candidacy, but I think it is of public relevance and interest they are listed. Perhaps under a new section? What are everyones' thoughts? SW1APolitico (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is notable that he got this level of support, and was in a position to be back in office as PM by Friday. It is across the international news media this evening. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is required. Most of his nominations will move to Sunak or Mordaunt and will feature in their list. Notes has been added for those who have already switched from Johnson to Sunak or Mordaunt. Adding Johnson's list (consisting of names that have already switched/ will switch) adds no benefit. Dhruv edits (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that they shouldn't be listed in the table, but I do think a few sentences should be devoted to note his high level of support and the sort-of-campaign he had prior to backing out. Yeoutie (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's support should be listed as his support was far greater than that of another candidate and he was clearly a major contender who was considering a serious run (this information is useful for those interested in the history of this election). --Mrodowicz (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements for Johnson should definitely be listed. On previous leadership election articles, we give the endorsements for candidates who dropped out, so we should here too. It is also important context for the reader to be able to compare the claim that Johnson had 102 nominations with the list of names that was considerably shorter than 102. Bondegezou (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bondegezou's stance. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Mordaunt's and Johnson's endorsements can be added to Endorsements in the October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. Those who have switched to Sunak should be shown with a strikethrough under Mordaunt's and Johnson's list. Dhruv edits (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was much scoffing at the time that Johnson did not have the numbers to make the threshold. Graham Brady has since confirmed (4 November) that he did in fact have enough nominations. This probably ought to be added.Paulturtle (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC) But then according to yesterday's Independent (the "i" as it calls itself nowadays) Sunak's deal with Braverman (which she now claims he reneged on) was so that her 20 or so backers would back Sunak and deny BoJo the 100 votes he needed. Who knows.Paulturtle (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majority 178 or 179?

[edit]

178 (of 357) is the majority of Conservative MPs given that the nominating candidate is the 179th vote. I can't see a nominating candidate not voting for themselves. Mrodowicz (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overly long lead section

[edit]

This is a relatively short article with a rather long lead section. The lead is somewhat repetitive: the second paragraph re-tells the events of the first paragraph. I cut it down in this edit, but Icantthinkofausernames reverted on the basis that other articles had long leads. It seems to me that other articles are other articles. We should focus on what is best for this article. What do other editors think? Bondegezou (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The intro is too long. The intro can be short and sweet if it would just describe what made this election special:
Move the rest of the intro to the relevant chapters with links to July_2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis, October_2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis and Premiership_of_Rishi_Sunak.
Uwappa (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of further comment, I will trim the lead section. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Snow close. There has been zero support for the move. 122.60.170.166 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC) 122.60.170.166 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election → October 2022 Conservative Party leadership selection – As per Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, Rishi Sunak. There was no election of any kind. Sunak received letters of support from MPs but it was not a vote; it's akin to a recommendation letter. Besides he was unopposed. This article was created when it was presumed there would be some kind of voting mechanism as there were to be 2 or 3 contenders, and this was the case until the very last minute, ultimately though, no election took place of any sort. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but, well, then those should be moved as well if no actual election took place. You run unopposed you can still have a vote; there is no vote i this instance at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Green party did have a vote in 2014. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a rejoinder to keeping an article "because we have articles about some other crap", not a clause against consistency of approach. A technical vote with only one candidate actually nominated is a formality, little more, not a convincing contest against a non-person option. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that, while it's true that an election with only one candidate is still an election, this process never got as far as anyone actually registering a vote. Kenlombardo (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Other articles about Conservative leadership elections use the word "election", rather than "selection".
Taiwanexplorer36051 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - An election in which a candidate wins unopposed is still an election.
Someone needs to close this request per WP:SNOWBALL as it's pointless given the replies till now. Dhruv edits (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As has been said above it was an unopposed election, which are not uncommon for party leadership contests in the UK. Selection to me would imply something else entirely (eg the Cabinet agreeing on a new leader at a meeting or the out-going leader picking their successor). Dunarc (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There was a similar discussion here after the Welsh Conservatives elected Andrew RT Davies unopposed last year. As someone said at the time It's not that there wasn't any electoral process, just that it was apparent the election was going to be unopposed so there was no need to proceed to a vote. This is still an election, even if no voting actually took place. This is Paul (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with everything above, not only would reversing this impact all of the other leadership election articles, this would potentially impact all elections in the wider world where voting was 'unfair' and may be deemed a 'selection' rather than an election which is clearly wrong. Yeoutie (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's still an election, even without the ballot. At this point since I see no other supporters than the requester, someone should close this with consensus. Amyipdev (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

I closed the requested move. However, I cannot remove the template on the page due to it being semiprotected. Please remove it as soon as possible. 122.60.170.166 (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by bot ~~ lol1VNIO⁠👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 04:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

Per WP:DUE the coverage of an subject dictates it's content. With application to all articles, if say the sources for a certain subject heavily criticise it, then that content is included. DeFacto removed a section with the justification that the election is perfectly legal under UK law, and being how the UK selects it's prime minister, yet this does not matter as large coverage of the subject is focused on Criticism of the election, either at it's 100 PM threshold or the call for a general election and thereby is important to understand the article. Therefore the inclusion of the section is necessary to have a article with due weight. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that it is due for the subject of this article. This article is about one of the thousands of such elections that must have taken place. Perhaps a generic article about party elections would be an appropriate place for it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto That's a non-answer if the sources are reliable (which you don't deny), they must be included in the article. The argument here is that they are not notable enough for inclusion, yet they are being stated by the main opposition party, and the party that is currently ahead of the polls. Likewise essentially every single news organisation has commented on the election, and noted on the un-democratic nature of the vote, and the 100 MP threshold to be a candidate. This is seen in the sources in those that are cited. Yes thousands of these elections have occurred but a party election has never had this much controversy surrounding it. There was not this response to say the 2019 Conservative election and was not a closed door affair and did not occur after two consecutive prime ministers. As such sources did not criticise it. An "aftermath" section would likely be the best solution with a Criticism section with Labour's response, response from other MP's, and the Conservative membership, this would be best give a general overview of the article. Des Vallee (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A separate criticism section shouldn't be used, as per WP:Controversy sections. But integrating into a more NPOV section about it would be acceptable if it's widely covered. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with Joseph2302 an aftermath section dealing with the ramifications of the vote, and analysis of the vote from various sources is likely the best course. Des Vallee (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created the aftermath section, feedback would be nice. Feel free to copy-edit, add/remove text or change the section. It deals with the overall aftermath both on the Conservative party and on the UK. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302, I agree, and the key there is "NPOV", and it needs to be robustly supported by the consensus amongst reliable sources, unlike the content of the section that was created to replace it, most of which I have now removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section is not WP:OR as you claim, and the "changes" to the article, are not changes they are the destruction of the entirety of the sub-section. Ironically you kept the one section which has the weakest notability the section relating to it. Likewise you completely removed the section of Labour's response to the election which is totally baffling, considering the vast majority of the sources were relating to Labour's call for a general election. The section on OR clearly isn't as all sources mention the leadership campaign. I am going to add inline citations to the sources. Des Vallee (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Des Vallee, you need to answer each of my detailed edit summaries, not just restore it all removals without justification. The piece I left was the only piece supported by reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally edit summaries are not the best way of making's one position clear. However, the orignal section was cited 4 sources for the characterisation undemocratic. Every single listed source, uses the term "undemocratic," which is why I added the inline citation. Likewise the call for the general election by the Labour Party is not undue text, it is incredibly important and is the subject to much writing. The global news article I admit is quite unreliable, it does state Johnson and his supporters were actively opposed to Sunak, but the reliability of this source is questionable, as such I agree the source should be removed, the text does clearly states so. This source likewise clearly states clearly that is sees the party election and undemocratic, see this for more information. The section which was worse that was removed was the section on polling which is almost a one to one paraphrasing of the initial sources, that being of the electability of Sunak, nothing present was OR. Thereby I agree in removing GlobalNews24 as it seems to be generally unreliable and not sourced much in other topics, however the general text is simply a paraphrasing of the sources. Des Vallee (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unreal7 Thanks for putting the tags! I have my best to give appropriate citation to the claims, but in general it has greatly improved the section. Des Vallee (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee, what tags do you think Unreal7 added? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto Unreal7 added a series of tags mostly on specific claims such as who, which I then changed to go and be more direct, notice how the final section had no tags added as it is generally very well sourced and contains direct summirisation of the sources points. Also do not edit indents under any circumstance change someones text on a talk page as doing so ammounts to changing one's comment, just a heads up if you were unaware. Des Vallee (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee, it was me who added those tags (here and here), to point out the reasons why I was challenging your content. I haven't had time to re-vist that last section yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto Ah I see, still Unreal7 has made good edits, if minor in improving the article. Des Vallee (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto The removed section is cited well, the primary coverage of it been undemocratic, every single source stating it, and is the main form of criticism of the election, yet you state it's OR. Des Vallee (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Des Vallee, with crazy indentation it is difficult to follow these threads now, and the reply helpers won't work properly. See the last point in WP:TALKGAP and also WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD explain how it should be done. WP:TALKO, under the "Fixing format errors" point, says "Fixing format errors" is permissible. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly simple one indent is added and so on and so forth in a discussion if there is a large amount of text cutoff you use an outdent, I use source so I would not know on issues with reply helper but there is no text cutoff here. Anyone this getting seriously WP:OFFTOPIC so let's move on. Des Vallee (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how indents should be used though. The indent should be relative to the post you are replying to. Read those links I supplied. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Des Vallee, you say above that the removed section is cited well. Please supply the specific quote that supports the vote been largely characterised as undemocratic and oligarchical in nature, to help us understand that is not your own personal conclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto Every single source clearly describes the election as undemocratic.
The idea that another Conservative MP could just sidle up - the third in six weeks - and take over as if nothing has happened, after being chosen once again by such a small fraction of people is one that we should all find deeply offensive and undemocratic. It's also staggeringly arrogant.
Conservatives are heralding Sunak’s appointment as a celebration of the nation’s diversity, and the right choice to pull the U.K. out of a recession. But those on the left consider the transition of power undemocratic and push back on the idea that Sunak will help marginalized communities. Meanwhile, many in India welcomed the news of his victory on Monday, which also happens to be the Hindu festival of Diwali.
yTortoise in legal challenge over 'undemocratic' Tory leadership election
That the Tories can foist upon us a third prime minister in just three years without an election, in the midst of a cost of living and economic crisis of their making, speaks to how unfair and undemocratic this Westminster system is. - Quote from Nicola Sturgeon
So is the term "The election has been characterised by as undemocratic" is an absolute adherence to the citations. Paraphrasing this text will always result in this one can argue if this is "true" but one cannot argue that the sources describe it as true or state many people feel it to be true. One could state potentially "The election has been characterised by as undemocratic by many media outlets" would be better, and I would be unopposed to this. The sources however are incredibly clear in their description. Des Vallee (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee, untrue. The best you can say from those is that four commentators have said it is undemocratic see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. But that would be undue weight because we do not take into account what all the other commentators say. To support what you are saying needs just one source, not four, and it has to say the vote been largely characterised as undemocratic. And what about the claim that it had been largely characterised as oligarchical too? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto No this a complete produced invention of what WP:RELIABLE is, if commentators state that a policy (say stop and frisk) is undemocratic from a reputable scholar or agency it reported as so. So essentially any scholarly paper say analyzing a policy, it peer reviewed and published collectively is suddenly wrong to cite "certain scholars find x to be true". What about in-text attribution now that we are in fantasy land, how about the text added here which describes a single analyst labeling an explosion likely caused by a maratime drone labeled this is suddenly incorrect, what about politician x (Nicola Sturgeon) describes the vote as undemocratic, well no you will create some policy to help you there to. This text is just down right incomprehensible. Des Vallee (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Those examples you give are of opinions, not facts, and would need to be attributed to the notable commentator whose opinions they are and would then be acceptable. Here the opinion the vote been largely characterised as undemocratic... is yours, not that of a notable commentator, so is OR. You could, as I said, say four commentators have said it is undemocratic..., but that would give undue weight to the opinion of those four commentators. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources all describe it as undemocratic, all are major press agencies and in fact only one would be necessary to describe it as undemocratic. What about: "Multiple leaders of opposition parties has publicly stated that the election is undemocratic" this would a good counter to the conservative number 10 statement, it would inform the reader of the fact it is called anti-democratic, and is being stated by the largest opposition party and the party ahead in the Pole. In the end you likely won't, as at the end of the day you just don't like it, and that's it. Des Vallee (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto Stop trying to pass consensus and remove sections that have been reviewed and edited by multiple editors, you have contentiously removed the same sections multiple times, without previous discussion. Des Vallee (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee, please stop using disruptive and provocative language. Please list the "sections" (plural) that you think I have removed "multiple times".
In the meantime, I am going to start a new section to discuss the first sentence of the last paragraph in the "Responses" section, the one which you keep putting back, despite it being undue and unsupported. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto 1 2 3 You have removed the section numerous times, every single time you haven't used the talk and used edit summaries as a method of communication. As to pertaining the first sentence it isn't undue as previously described it is a verbatim summary of the sources. Des Vallee (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a gross and inflammatory exaggeration then. That's not a section, it's a single and very contentious sentence. And three is not "several". And it is not a due summary. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a section of a paragraph, likewise. Describing it with such emotional language is hyperbole, likewise three is several, as described as more then two/one but fewer then many. After recent edits, the sentence was removed as well as a section added by VideoGamePlaya, which followed up on it and described a parliamentary system, if the sentence is removed that parliament description also should, as it had issues. Overall I feel as though the section is generally complete, being in a generally good position after large amounts of editing. Des Vallee (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Left Foot Forward

[edit]

Likewise this source is not a "blog" it run by multiple full time professorial journalists with degrees, that have worked for various other reliable press sources, and multiple editors who are cited commonly on Wikipedia, usually when writing for some other agency. It is biased yes, as can be seen but it a legitimate press agency. Des Vallee (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its Wiki article classes it as a left-wing blog. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto Not a reliable source, still it self-published and a website that publishes various submitted articles. Certain articles such as those written by qualified staff who have worked for various different news agencies 1, it does however publish various articles from non-qualified persons and thereby can be seen as unreliable, as it is a self-publishing source. Regardless it makes little difference on the article, it can remain removed. Des Vallee (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEWSBLOG for more information. Des Vallee (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A question about a sentence

[edit]

Is there any support to keep the current first sentence of the last paragraph in the "Responses" section - this one: The vote has been described as undemocratic and oligarical by opposition parties and press outlets. I propose removing it as being an undue, unsourced, and a biased summary, based on the sourced content we see below it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto Every single source describes it as undemocratic and is correctly attributed to them, it is not undue as the sections immediately afterwards describe them in specific detail. I think that The vote has been described as undemocratic and oligarical by opposition parties might be better as "media outlets" are such a large term, but the general summary should be remain. Des Vallee (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After recent edits, the sentence was removed as well as a section added by VideoGamePlaya, which followed up on it and described a parliamentary system, if the sentence is removed that parliament description also should, as it had issues. Overall I feel as though the section is generally complete, being in a generally good position after large amounts of editing. Des Vallee (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

[edit]

I find the lead sentence to be very poorly written. There have been objections to my attempts to rewrite it, so I hope we can work something out together.

The October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election was triggered on 20 October 2022 by Liz Truss's announcement that she would resign as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

It seems that our main objective here is to have some bolded words at the beginning of the article rather than to write something informative for our readers. Twice we refer to October 2022 and twice we refer to the leadership of the Conservative Party. Such redundancy looks amateurish. Yet not once do we provide a link to the article about the party. The link does not appear anywhere in the text, let alone the lead sentence. It baffles me that sentence quality, informativeness, and an essential link should all fall behind some thick print. Therefore I suggest something similar to the following:

A Conservative Party leadership election was triggered on 20 October 2022 by Liz Truss's announcement that she would resign as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion works better and has been used as the lead sentence for prior leadership elections (e.g. 2019 Conservative Party leadership election). Therefore, I have replaced the lead sentence with your suggestion. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the second wording is preferable, being more concise, precise, comprehensive, and eloquent. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says conservative party twice though. We can use the proposal, but just drop the initial "Conservative Party" in the first sentence, as this subject is already covered by Leader of the Conservative Party. Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, readers can reach more general links that way, rather than writing a repetitive sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2022_Conservative_Party_leadership_election&oldid=1207171424"