Talk:2023 in the United Kingdom

Parliament – 58th?

Has anyone ever seen a UK parliament described by its ordinal number rather than its election year anywhere else? Just wondered, because I don't think it's commonly described that way in UK sources, and I don't think many people would recognise it that way. Can I suggest we change it to "2019 Parliament", or similar? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I kind of agree, media tends to describe parliaments by the year they were elected rather than their number, but changing all the articles that list the parliaments by number rather than year would be a mammoth task. And it's not just the UK parliament described by number. I've recently been reading about the next New Zealand general election, which will be electing their 54th parliament. This is Paul (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, if DeFacto doesn't like the current form. I would recommend he open a RFC concerning all Year in the UK pages, on this matter. Rather then singling out this 'one' page. GoodDay (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay, do you know the correct place to do that? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:YEARS. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's be consistent with the other Year in the United Kingdom pages. Why single this one out? GoodDay (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the others need changing too, or do you have evidence that the ordinal number nomenclature is more typically used in British English than the election year? I'd say that working through the other year in the United Kingdom pages to use the election date would deliver better results than changing this one back to using the ordinal number. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The only place I can think of to open up such an RFC, is Wikipedia:YEARS. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We aren't going to change this. The entry will remain as the 58th, consistent with all other UK year pages. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Presumably you have a rationale for using the US-type nomenclature rather than the normal British style in these British English articles? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Jan 18: inflation

I support the twice-reverted description of a change from 10.7% to 10.5% as "falls slightly". Also, I don't think it's cherry-picking to highlight that the overall number is made up of trends in opposite directions; suggest to reinstate the sentence about food price inflation and add a note that motor fuels are bringing the headline figure down, as last year's rises drop out of the 12-month window. Wire723 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wire723, wouldn't you accept that applying the subjective adverb "slightly", in Wikipedia's voice, contravenes WP:VOICE and that cherry-picking items from a primary source and drawing our own conclusions about their relevance in the big picture contravenes not only WP:PRIMARY, but WP:OR too? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto Re "slightly": your point is valid although if we confine ourselves to only using adverbs/adjectives that appear in sources the text will make dry reading. My underlying concern is that it's undue emphasis to describe a change from 10.7 to 10.5 as a fall: it's not a significant change, and inflation continues at an unusually high rate. -- Wire723 (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wire723, factually it is a fall. Per WP:VOICE, it's not for us to apply subjective adverbs in Wiki's voice, even if some sources do. Saying "slightly" is a subjective opinion and not fact, so is, I suggest, best avoided altogether. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Food price inflation matters since food is a necessity. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, I totally agree with that statement. It's not clear to me though what relevance that has to this discussion about the application of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Can you please elaborate. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto Thanks for adding a nice summary of the highlights of the ONS report. -- Wire723 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Bridgden's suspension (11 January)

All that the cited source reliably says about the Conservative Party suspension (remembering that, per WP:HEADLINES, News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source) is:

• that It comes after the North West Leicestershire MP posted a tweet that compared vaccines to the Holocaust.
• that Mr Hart said Mr Bridgen would lose the party whip - meaning he will sit as an independent - while a formal investigation takes place.

And although the source gives more details of various allegations, it never says in its own voice that any of those were the actual reason for the suspension, it leaves that synthesis to its readers. So this edit] by Proxima Centauri is not currently supported, and as this is a BLP, that is why I reverted that edit per WP:BLPREMOVE. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• The source says, "It comes after the North West Leicestershire MP posted a tweet that compared vaccines to the Holocaust." also "However, last autumn he began to make increasingly baseless claims including that vaccines were killing many people and that the damage was being covered up. At first, he began highlighting some real, but rare, instances of genuine vaccine injury and misinterpreting real data to suggest these cases were more common than the research suggests. In recent weeks, this rhetoric has increased.". Andrew Bridgen suspended as Tory MP over Covid vaccine comments It's clear Bridgen compared COVID vaccine to the holocaust. It's also clear Bridgen made baseless claims about the vaccine. After all this he wass suspended. I changed the article to state, "Andrew Bridgen has the whip suspended by the Conservative Party after he spread misinformation about COVID-19 and compared vaccination to the Holocaust." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1135413383 Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Links to months

I don't know how to do it, but is it possibe to have hyperlinks to jump to the months? Gdkdj (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Rosebank oil and gas field dispute

We have an entry for 27 September about the Rosebank oil and gas field being granted consent by regulators. However, a dispute has developed between myself and Wjfox2005 over the application to this entry of Wikipedia's neutrality policy (NPOV), the second of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles.

NPOV clearly says: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

The source used to support the entry is:

"Rosebank oil field given go-ahead by regulator". BBC News. 27 September 2023. Retrieved 27 September 2023.

The history of the disputed entry...

1. Wjfox2005 added the entry.

   Edit summary: Rosebank oil and gas field)

2. I edited the entry to remove the subjective adjective "huge" and to remove "despite" which implied a relationship between the regulators' decision and what the critics said which was not supported by the source.

   Edit summary: NPOV)

3. Wjfox2005 reverted back to their original text.

   Edit summary: Go away troll.

4. I edited the entry to again remove the subjective adjective "huge" and to add context for why the regulators gave consent per the cited source and to add what the supporters of the action said to balance what the critics said.

   Edit summary: per the cited source and removed subjective editorialisation, non-neutral wording, and added balancing content per WP:DESPITE, WP:EDITORIAL, and WP:NPOV

5. Wjfox2005 edited the entry to remove both the context I added and what the supporters said, and embelished what the critics said. All without any edit summary.

   Edit summary: [None]

6. I reverted as there was no refutation of the reasons I gave for the changes I made.

   Edit summary: - unexplained removal of balancing content from exactly same source - take to talk, rather than edit war, if you disagree

7. Wjfox2005 manually reverted with a bizarre edit summary .

   Edit summary: Nothing in the entry is non-neutral. It was granted consent by regulators (fact). There is widespread concern over its contribution to climate change (fact).

I propose restoring the context and balance I tried to add per WP:DESPITE, WP:EDITORIAL, and WP:NPOV.

Any opinions or comments on this anyone? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to subtly inject climate denial bias into it, under the guise of "balance". The project has been hugely controversial, with opposition from MPs of all major parties, and the entry needs to reflect this. Its CO2 footprint will be 200 million tonnes, which is greater than entire medium-sized countries. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005, I am not trying to "inject" any bias into it, I'm trying to, per WP:NPOV, balance the bias that was apparently applied deliberately. Why was the subjective word "huge" inserted in the original version? Why was the word "despite" inserted to suggest the regulators were mistaken? Why were the views of the regulators and supporters omitted while the views of the opposers were embellished? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion

It seems like the newsworthy element of this story, judging by what I can find in different sources, is that there was "widespread" opposition to this project. Of course it has its supporters, but the relevance of this event is not that this project has a lot of support, too. The criticism is "widespread."

I don't think "huge" is necessary, though, and if "despite" is to be left out, I would suggest something like this:

The Rosebank oil and gas field off Shetland, the UK's largest untapped oil field, is granted consent by regulators. The project faced widespread criticism over its impact on climate change. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Pyrrho the Skipper, thanks for coming to look at this. I agree with your proposal for the criticism, but don't you think that the reason for the granting the consent needs contextualising too? Without stating the supporting arguments as well, readers will be left with a one-sided view. I suggest that we add another sentence to provide that context, such as: The owners of the field gave reassurances over environmental concerns and supporters of the field said it will improve energy security and reduce reliance on imports. That context is given equal prominence to the criticism in the supporting BBC News source. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, it seems like a given that an oil project would get greenlit for those reasons. What stands out, and what's mostly being covered in the media, is that there is major pushback from the public. For example, see how this is covered in 2023 in the United States article;

March 13 – The Alaska Willow project, which calls for oil extraction in the northern region of the state, is approved. The project was and remains subject to substantial controversy and protest, especially on social media. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper, I think it was the contrary for this in the UK. The project was expected to be denied consent for all the obvious and predictable environmental objections. The big surprise that made this story so newsworthy was that it was actually given consent against all the odds, and the reasons for the consent are the key to this. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto I guess we see this differently. From what I recall, it was the same basic thing in the U.S. one. People were surprised President Biden approved it. The economic reason was obvious, but the big story was that he approved it despite huge opposition. It seems like a WP:FALSEBALANCE to say what the support is in these situations. It's not like there are thousands of people out there with signs trying to get it approved because of a global catastrophe. But that's just me. If we can't come to a consensus here, it might make an easy RfC. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper, okay, thanks for your input. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto

"restored with verbatim quote - I wonder why you seem to hate the addition of balancing context"

You didn't "restore" this. Your previous version was a blatant misquote, which distorted the meaning of the sentence. And I don't have a problem with "balancing context", but I do have a problem with false balance, which you've demonstrated on countless occasions, and in this case, outright misquoting. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005, I restored the context which you had removed here, and with another of your unnecessarily inflammatory and/or snide comments, but rather than paraphrasing it again, this time I used a verbatim quote.

You say you don't have a problem with "balancing context", but given your admission in this post that you have a particular hatred of that clown, Boris Johnson, perhaps you should abstain from editing stuff relating to him, and possibly relating to Tories in general too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)