Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election party spending investigation
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | 2015 United Kingdom general election party spending investigation received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Untitled
[edit]The motives of the author of this article are highly questionable having published an article on one of the main UK political parties, just as an election campaign commences and whilst the numerous investigations listed are still ongoing and without conclusion. The article demonstrates bias due to the known political leanings of the author (evidence of which, I am able to provide) and is designed to be detrimental towards the Conservative Party, as well as risking turning Wikipedia into a political battlefield, as opposed to its actual purpose of being an academic resource.
As this is an ongoing police investigation, where allegations have been made, but not yet proved, this article demonstrates heavy political bias, and not facts and evidence. As the note above suggests at a time where a general election is taking place, the article appears to be inflammatory to those named, and the political party involved. The article should be a sub heading in the 2015 election page, as a stub recording "As at <insert date> allegations have been made of electoral fraud and are being investigated by various police authorities"
- Sorry, I didn't see this when making the addition below (perils of editing on a phone). I note that a lot of material substantiated by the March 2017 Electoral Commission report (as well as mainstream journalism) has been removed. Although points regarding individual MPs might be regarded as inappropriate at this stage, the Electoral Commission's findings about the Conservative Party's wrongdoing are not ongoing and are a matter of public record. This and pertinent, reliable journalism on the subject surely deserves coverage. Alarichall (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- PS: It might be best to discuss the appropriateness of the material in terms of notability guidelines rather than authorial motivation. I'm aware of:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events). Are there other guidelines we should be looking at that people could point us towards? Alarichall (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Removal of detailed account of Party electoral wrongdoing
[edit]I note that someone has removed well referenced information about this topic. Suspiciously, they've left in the section on one Labor MP who was accused of wrongdoing but cleared. I'd welcome others' view on whether some of the material removed might be reinstated. Alarichall (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Alarichall (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've put in more material on Labour and LibDem wrongdoing for balance, but the article is now rather lopsided, in that the more extensive issues identified by the Electoral Commission in March about the Tory campaign aren't given in any detail. Alarichall (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've rewritten this to make closer reference to the Electoral Commission report. I have subdivided it by different kinds of official investigation clearly to distinguish alleged and known wrongdoing. It looks like the main debate at this point is whether it's appropriate to name people known to be under investigation (or, more seriously, known to have had files passed to the Crown Prosecution Service). In an edit removing some names, Cdinoz has recorded the edit as 'Removed potential libel names reported'. But it is not libel to report facts verified in widely circulating mainstream journalism. Indeed, the two Tory MPs who are presently known to have their election spending under review by the Crown Prosecution Service are known because they themselves have revealed it. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/tory-mps-election-spending-karl-mccartney-william-wragg) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says 'In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.' Naming at least people whom the CPS is considering prosecuting fits well within this policy. Alarichall (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- PS requested peer-review of the page :-) Alarichall (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've rewritten this to make closer reference to the Electoral Commission report. I have subdivided it by different kinds of official investigation clearly to distinguish alleged and known wrongdoing. It looks like the main debate at this point is whether it's appropriate to name people known to be under investigation (or, more seriously, known to have had files passed to the Crown Prosecution Service). In an edit removing some names, Cdinoz has recorded the edit as 'Removed potential libel names reported'. But it is not libel to report facts verified in widely circulating mainstream journalism. Indeed, the two Tory MPs who are presently known to have their election spending under review by the Crown Prosecution Service are known because they themselves have revealed it. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/tory-mps-election-spending-karl-mccartney-william-wragg) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says 'In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.' Naming at least people whom the CPS is considering prosecuting fits well within this policy. Alarichall (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've put in more material on Labour and LibDem wrongdoing for balance, but the article is now rather lopsided, in that the more extensive issues identified by the Electoral Commission in March about the Tory campaign aren't given in any detail. Alarichall (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Evidence of bias in the compilation of article: "Re the Tory MPs who may be charged with illegal election spending in the 2015 general election (I *think* under the Representation of the People Act 1983): does anyone know what the possible penalties for this would be? Even better if you can point me to a reliable source!" - quote from author's Facebook page, making no mention of other political parties. Further quote from same author's Facebook page: "Friends: the fact that the Tory Party is known to have cheated in the 2015 General Election (and in some 2014 by-elections), and did its best to impede the Electoral Commission's investigation" - statement of "facts" which are still under criminal investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Woolfenden (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the above comment as material to this talk page, since I'm not aware that any of it is relevant to whether or not the page fulfils the Wikipedia guidelines. I am of course happy to be corrected! Just in case anyone imagines I'm trying to hide something, though, here's a link to the second of the posts quoted, which is public (the other post quoted is not): https://www.facebook.com/alaric.hall/posts/10154783122278533?pnref=story. Alarichall (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also, the other Facebook post of mine quoted turned up this very useful and subtle account of the possible consequences if charges are brought and upheld: http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/08/the-law-and-politics-of-the-conservative-election-expense-allegations/. Not least because there's quite a lot of inaccurate information about this on social media, I thought it would be particularly worthwhile providing a very concise account in this entry. I'll try and do it myself when I have the time, but if someone else would like to, that would be fab! Alarichall (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the above comment as material to this talk page, since I'm not aware that any of it is relevant to whether or not the page fulfils the Wikipedia guidelines. I am of course happy to be corrected! Just in case anyone imagines I'm trying to hide something, though, here's a link to the second of the posts quoted, which is public (the other post quoted is not): https://www.facebook.com/alaric.hall/posts/10154783122278533?pnref=story. Alarichall (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)