Talk:Democrats and Veterans

Core values

@Imp dean: Hi. I've reverted your edit so we can discuss this under the status quo ante as in the procedure laid out in WP:BRD. Inclusion of this sort of material should be supported by secondary sources — see WP:SOURCES, WP:DUE and WP:PROMO. You can also see discussion such as this one about similar subjects. Ralbegen (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand. While i disagree and believe that a minor Wikipedia page deserves some lee-way in this situation (considering the Green Party page also followed the format of the manifesto, check link in edits) as you appear to explain, its not wiki policy. EDIT: Any further and existing edits have considered how other political party Wikipedia pages have used information; some of your edits could be seen as vandalism in comparison to such. Imp dean (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2018 (GMT)

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you can discuss them on their respective pages. Articles about other political parties may have more reliable source coverage and hence more material about them. Ralbegen (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There are various other political party wikipedia pages with the same issue - however it appears users are more lenient to fill in information with what is available, despite wiki policy. This is not to say wiki policy is irrelevant, however, by following similar layout of other pages such as Green Party who also include their manifesto/values as i have just done so here, improves the article - until more concrete sources are available. Imp dean (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2018 (GMT)

If other articles have the same issue, they should be fixed. If there's not as much information available about a group in reliable sources, its article will correspondingly be shorter. It doesn't improve the article to mirror how a party describes itself, and especially for this to be the entire description of its platform. You can see the case put more eloquently than I can argue at the link to the LREM article in my initial comment. Ralbegen (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Electoral performance

The article reads: "The DVP intended to field 321 candidates in the United Kingdom local elections, 2018. It stated that it would target voters in Essex, in particular to gain seats on Essex County Council.[5] They did not win any seats." There were no Essex County Council elections in 2018, only council elections for boroughs in Essex. There is no reference about DAV not winning seats (undoubtedly true but needs a source). The 321 candidates mentioned in the BBC report were candidates ready for local and national elections in general, they were not intended to be fielded at the 2018 local elections in particular. Weburbia (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent disputed edits

Imp dean and Ralbegen, perhaps I could ask both of you to observe WP:AGF and discuss disputed edits here. You are both respected editors: cries of vandalism are a bit silly.

Use of primary source material: policy is to favour secondary sources, but some use of primary sources is allowed. I think a Wikipedia article stating how a party describes itself based on primary sources is OK, within a WP:DUE and WP:BALANCEd context. With minimal secondary coverage of the party, I'd keep any section here short, but I can't see why it has to be removed entirely.

Infobox seat number graphics: I think these provide context, yet they also seem a bit odd when a party has no seats. So I don't have a strong view either way, but I guess I'd keep them... except not the European Parliament one given Brexit and now there won't be another election for these seats. Bondegezou (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention Bondegezou. I appreciate I could have handled this situation a lot better. I think having had For Britain on my Watchlist has made me a little on-edge about additions of primary sourced material — that page has had a number of IPs and new editors attempting to reframe the party contrarily to reliable source descriptions.

By contrast, here Imp dean has been making constructive edits in good faith, and is clearly and unambiguously here to build an encyclopaedia.

On the use of primary sourced material, policy states that (with apologies for the long quote): "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." From this, I'd say that including quotes from a manifesto where necessary as part of a section based on reliable source coverage of a party's platform would be acceptable by policy, but that when the only material describing a party's platform is primary, the article should avoid inclusion of material on it. 331dot put it well here. That's not a similar case, but they've phrased what I want to get at better than I could!

With regard to empty infobox seat number graphics, I think that sometimes these can be useful, like on British National Party where the party has recently lost its last councillor, and hence its last elected representative above parish level. For a new minor party it's just visual clutter to me, though I appreciate that this is a subject of judgment and stylistic preference rather than policy. Ralbegen (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have asked for further input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: I thought I'd added For Britain to my watchlist, but realise I hadn't. I will now and will assist in editing there. Bondegezou (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Democrats_and_Veterans:_2_generic_questions. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou — thanks for setting up that discussion. It's been more than a week now since the last contribution — do you think there's consensus enough to make a decision on the matters in this article? Ralbegen (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain there was a very clear consensus! I think most people supported limited use of self-sourced material, very much preferred to be in the context of secondary reporting. Certainly not more than we currently have here, maybe less. The infobox seat graphics, no clear consensus, I thought, but I haven't re-read through the discussion. Did you think there was a clear steer coming out of that? Bondegezou (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a fair reading. Perhaps it'd be good to compromise on this page for the time being — remove the seat graphics for the Lords and the European Parliament, and trim but not remove the self-sourced material? If the latter, maybe:

The party considers itself to be "broadly libertarian in character". Its platform includes restricting the withdrawal from the European Union, direct democracy, and stronger support for veterans.

If other editors would be happy with such a compromise in theory I'd be happy to discuss specifics of the material to include and how to phrase it! Ralbegen (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support that edit. Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Boldly made the changes described — happy to discuss should any editor wish to contest. Ralbegen (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Ideology

I have added the ideology "Veteran's rights" to the infobox. This should not be controversial and I don't expect it to be reverted. There has however been an issue with the addition of "British nationalism" to the infobox. Such a term has been used in the page of parties such as the Democratic Unionist Party or UKIP whom similarly to the DVP emphasise a UK with a strong union between its nations, calls for maintenance of its sovereignty and that the UK is independent from EU influence. The DVP additionally stresses the value of the oath of veterans and the allegiance to the sovereign. The party also appear to hold the sentiment that the British people need to unite and participate in direct democracy. Such principles fall in line with the description on wiki that "British nationalism asserts that the British are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of the British, in a definition of Britishness that may include people of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish descent (those living in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain and historically the whole of Ireland when it was within the United Kingdom). British nationalism is closely associated with British unionism, which seeks to uphold the political union that is the United Kingdom, or strengthen the links between the countries of the United Kingdom." Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with the ideology section of the infobox. It's made up pretty much exclusively original research. There's negligible reliable source coverage of the party, and I've never seen anything describing the party's ideology. I'd prefer to see it all cut pending actual secondary coverage of the party's ideology. Ralbegen (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree. At this point the only secondary source referring explicitly to their ideology is a Lib dem blog, which doesn't meet with wiki guidelines. At this stage whilst the party have gone barely noticed by the media, it's hard to actually find what they stand for. Perhaps in the following months there may be more coverage of them. Greenleader(2) (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the section accordingly. Ralbegen (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)