Talk:Ashfield Independents
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Hyphenation Expert in topic July 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
What policies does this party have?
editThey have been quite successful, but this article gives no clue to why. Varnebank (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Confusing heading
editThis article states that Elizabeth Williamson is a member of Broxtowe Borough Council representing Ashfield Conservatives, which accords with her Broxtowe bio page.
Her Nottinghamshire County Council bio page atttributes her to the Independent heading, not under the separate Ashfield Independents heading.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Criminal Charges section
editFor consistency a 'Criminal Charges' section is not a standard section for any political party in UK on Wikipedia.
Either a criminal charges section on Wikipedia should be added and applied to all political parties or removed. NottsPolitics (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- +1 on that. It's WP:UNDUE; Zadrozny's issues should be on his page, not the party's. 213.105.99.162 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The charges about "fraud, election offences, money laundering and misconduct in public office" do relate to the party and I think they should be included. WP:BLPCRIME applies to some of the other charges. Tacyarg (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not believe so, they seem to relate to individuals not a party.
- Otherwise a section like this will also need to go under Labour, Conseratives, LibDems, Greens, Reform UK etc and all other political parties in UK in exactly the same way to be consistent across the whole board, listing every MP, Lord and Councillor in the same way, however no other party has this selection.
- Therefore I think the section should remain removed until applied to all other political parties in the same way. NottsPolitics (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- The charges about "fraud, election offences, money laundering and misconduct in public office" do relate to the party and I think they should be included. WP:BLPCRIME applies to some of the other charges. Tacyarg (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Allow one and we'd have to allow all. My compromise position is a subheading with just a link to the relevant part of Zadrozny's article. That at least creates an association without going into details. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced by the WP:UNDUE argument. Asking to remove this section until all similar articles sport an equal 'Criminal Charges' section seems like a demand that prevents progress towards its own resolution. If other articles fail to mention criminal charges of a similar weight, we should make progress by improving those articles, not by reverting this one back.
- I understand WP:UNDUE as giving undue weight to views held by a small minority, which typically refers to fringe views, conspiracy theories, or other widely disbelieved claims. This doesn't appear to be the case here. Trying to present both sides when only one side is substantiated would be WP:UNDUE, for instance. Mlkj (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Edit protection requested on this page as it keeps being vandalised by the NottsPolitics account removing this section. The argument appears to be because "no other party" has this section. That is true, as no other party has a leader on trial for serious criminal offences before the Crown Court, nor a Deputy Leader with an extensive criminal record. The vandalism of this page by this account (whose talk page also shows a history of disruptive edits to other Ashfield political Wikis) is an attempt to delete unfavourable information from this political party's page. The party is itself notable for the wide publicity of its key members relating to criminal charges/convictions- reported in national/local news - and clearly ought to remain in the interests of a fair, balanced and apolitical Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.187.82 (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not believe I have vandalized the page. I have merely asked for a consistent approach. I first made the point in talk over a year ago.
- This page now in context to other parties actually a highly political page and not apolitical at all, as no other party has this sub-section of criminal charges.
- If it was applied consistently, every party should have a big list of members who have done something.
- Here are a list of MP's who have been convicted of crimes in the UK.
- Category:English politicians convicted of crimes - Wikipedia
- NB - this list does not include politicians who have resigned in disgrace. So there are many many more.
- So why is there no sub-section on the direct page for Labour, Lib-Dems, Conservatives etc to list these individuals all out? However there is for this random minor party in Nottinghamshire?
- Why is it one rule for one party and a different for all the others?
- This seems to be a political agenda? NottsPolitics (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the leader of another political party was awaiting trial for money laundering/drug/fraud offences, you can bet your life it would be included on that party's page. If the Treasurer of another political party had criminal convictions for assault, finance offences etc, then again, you can be sure it would be included on that party's page. No other party has such a section on their page because no other party is in the position where their key leadership figures have received such widespread notability for these reasons. It meets the Notability Requirements and is directly relevant to the party. The political agenda appears to be your obsession with suppressing key negative information about this Nottinghamshire Political Party, from an account called "NottsPolitics". In what capacity are you connected to Notts Politics - have you declared any potential connection or interest with the subject you are editing? Have you been paid or told to edit this page by the Ashfield Independents? Are you perhaps a member or a councillor of this party? 193.117.187.82 (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- +1 on that. The party is known nationally for the criminal antics of some of it's councillors and officers. Clearly relevant to the party as a whole, as opposed to minor figures within it:
- https://www.itv.com/news/central/2024-02-05/deputy-council-leader-tom-hollis-fined-2400-over-financial-disclosure-failings
- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-66269892
- https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/nottinghamshire-county-council-leader-claims-9083772
- https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ashfield-council-leader-appears-court-111135205.html
- https://www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk/news/crime/tom-hollis-deplorable-ashfield-councillor-found-guilty-of-harassing-neighbours-by-lying-to-police-3852520
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-62985585
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-41807573
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-lib-dem-candidate-charged-with-child-sex-offences-to-run-for-police-and-crime-commissioner-a6961856.html AshfieldPoliticss (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why the emotional responses?
- If you really believe these individuals are national figures of great important and significant stature, then by all means, feel free to build wiki pages on these individuals if you wish, in which you can write all about it.
- However for this page –
- I have only stated a ‘criminal charge section’ on a political party page is inconsistent with all other wiki articles on political parties, thus why it should not be included in the article. But would be more inline on pages about the individual.
- Conversely as an example, it would also not be consistent to have a sub section on a political party called something like a ‘personal achievements’, listing out individuals personal achievements, on a page about a political party either. – but more appropriate on a page about the individual. NottsPolitics (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, these people are not notable for their personal achievements. 217.38.7.116 (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the leader of another political party was awaiting trial for money laundering/drug/fraud offences, you can bet your life it would be included on that party's page. If the Treasurer of another political party had criminal convictions for assault, finance offences etc, then again, you can be sure it would be included on that party's page. No other party has such a section on their page because no other party is in the position where their key leadership figures have received such widespread notability for these reasons. It meets the Notability Requirements and is directly relevant to the party. The political agenda appears to be your obsession with suppressing key negative information about this Nottinghamshire Political Party, from an account called "NottsPolitics". In what capacity are you connected to Notts Politics - have you declared any potential connection or interest with the subject you are editing? Have you been paid or told to edit this page by the Ashfield Independents? Are you perhaps a member or a councillor of this party? 193.117.187.82 (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- edit protection. repeated vandalism by "AILeader" and "NottsPolitics" - both officials of the Ashfield Independents. Blatant COI vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.169.86.177 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
