This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-06-20. The result of the discussion was No consensus.
SOAP?
Surely this is as clear an example of a soapbox WP:SOAP as you could hope to see. A single politician fighting a by election. This article should be rapidly deleted.--91.104.20.23 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose The campaign is, as far as I have read, intended to continue beyond the election, accepting the by-election is the main focus currently. This is supported by the fact the main issue, 42 day detention, is not yet law and will likely to come back to parliament for another vote after rejection by the Lords after the by-election; plus the campaign also concerns issues such as ID cards that have not even been introduced yet. We can strive for NPOV, but frankly, when something has an official name, and no common name alternative exists, then that is going to be its name. I don't think "David Davis by-election campaign, 2008" is ever going to enter common speech, it contradicts an official name, and also by virtue of presumptiously predicting a winding up of the campaign (the website, blog etc) after the election, it would violate WP:CRYSTAL (or at the very least just create more work to decide yet another name). MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current name is crystal balling as it presumes not only that David Davis will be continuing to be active on this issue, that he will continue using the name after the by-election, and that he will be a primary actor on this issue to the point that centering the topic on him is warranted. As for the official name argument, does that mean you think Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 should be renamed to Change We Can Believe In?CaerwineCaer’s whines02:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference, a 'presidential campaign' is a specific thing that happens regularly, hence the common naming convention, and the date. Such a convention is not applicable to this event in the same way. As of right now, it is called the David Davis for freedom campaign by him, so nothing has been crystal-balled at all by using that name. Plus, the campaign is about issues that are clearly relevant past the end of the by-election, hence renaming it to a by-election campaign is going to get very old very quickly. If you want to assert that after the election it will be shutting down, that fact is what is going to need sourcing, rather than just personal interpretation as to what you think the name presumes. MickMacNee (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're not implying that this is very first time that a by-election campaign has happened? (It may be the first time a Wikipedia article has existed for the campaign of a single candidate in a British parliamentary by-election, but that is a separate issue.) As for whether the issue will have relevance past the by-election, that's irrelevant as the issues raised by candidates generally don't cease to exist once the election is finished. Nor am I asserting that the campaign will be shutting down, you are the one asserting that it will definitely continue, thereby engaging in crystal-balling. CaerwineCaer’s whines16:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any other single issue by-election campaign wikipedia articles, (in case you hadn't noticed, the incidence of this type of single issue campaign by-election is rare) hence the lack of any naming convention, and no need to start imposing one now. And I will repeat, the name exists right now, I have not violated crystal at all by using it as the title, it is yourself that is making assumptions about its presumed endpoint. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but when did this become a "single issue by-election"? There are 26 candidates standing and very few have chosen to engage Davis on his self proclaimed referendum. He might not like it, you might not like it, but the fact is that there are a couple of dozen issues at work here. I would say this campaign is probably one of the most diverse I have ever seen. Road Wizard (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It became a single issue by-election when it was triggered by the resignation and restanding of the sitting MP over a single issue. Although I think your comment here is more of a general point, my mention of this fact above was with regard to the suggested renaming of this article to be in line with other regular elections, which it isn't comparable to. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current name presumes that David Davis for Freedom continues after the by-election, thereby making it an example of crystal-balling. David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 works whether or not David Davis for Freedom continues, and follows the general format used for other sorts of individual candidate campaign articles. If David Davis for Freedom proves to be more than a one-off occurrence, then David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 can be a subarticle of a revived David Davis for Freedom article. CaerwineCaer’s whines19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't presume anything of the sort. As said before, if you have a source for the fact it will be wound up after the election, provide it. You can't artificially create a presumption on wikipedia of anything by calling something by its name. If I had made this name up, maybe you might have a case, but I didn't, it exists now. This campaign is not the same as a presidential campaign by person X in year Y, and therefore a standard descriptive name is not applicable. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not at present, a by-election campaign by person X (David Davis) in year Y (2008)? There is nothing at present in the article that does not relate to the by-election campaign by David Davis in, nor any indication that he plans to continue it past the by-election. CaerwineCaer’s whines20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a source yet that supports the page name? The existing sources I have read primarily refer to it as Davis's by-election campaign. Road Wizard (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm: he refers to "my campaign", and the website is called "David Davis for Freedom", which sounds like a standard by-election slogan like "Shan Oakes - The real civil liberties candidate", but the form of words "David Davis for Freedom campaign" isn't used. Although the privacy statement etc refer to "David Davis for Freedom" as if it existed freestanding, it's useful to note that the website is "Promoted by Duncan Gilmour on behalf of David Davis, both at 32 Main Street, Willerby, East Yorkshire, HU10 6BU". Would be interesting to know whether the website expenses are part of his declared election expenses! The "volunteer" section only refers to leafletting and canvassing or going to that HQ. I'd prefer to see it merged into the David Davis article, but will wait to see how it evolves after Thursday. PamD (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond question that the official name being used is "David Davis for Freedom". Who is hosting/developing the site is irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That set of words is being used, though it's not clear what it is - a slogan, or the name of a byelection campaign, or something else. Might be clearer after Thursday. PamD (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to have a name, and this is the clear official option. And there is no policy reason to rename things based on what happens after the event, per the notability guidelines. If it exists as a notable article in the here and now, it does so for ever, in the event that the whole thing dissappears off the face of the earth after the election. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That argues for keeping the current name a redirect, much as Straight Talk Express is a redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. I certainly have no objection to keeping the redirect. In the event that David Davis for Freedom should prove to be more than a single by-election campaign, then the redirect could be changed into a new article, with a summary of the content of this article and a link to it in the section of the new article devoted to the by-election campaign where it all began. CaerwineCaer’s whines16:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that this page is moved to David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 then David Davis for Freedom campaign would exist as a redirect to the page. If David Davis for Freedom campaign ever proves to be more than a slogan for David Davis in the current by-election, then that redirect could be edited into an article of its own. CaerwineCaer’s whines19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user who may not know the exact name of the campaign, is going to probably start by typing in "David Davis....". Thus a redirect to another title starting with David Davis... improves nothing for a user with regard naming conventions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user who may not know the exact name of the campaign, is even more likely going to start with something like "2008 by-election", "Haltemprice and Howden", or "David Davis" and hitting Go without worrying about the autocomplete feature in the sidebar search that has you concerned. (Speaking personally, I rarely use that feature myself, preferring to use the search engine box on my browser's menu bar as it is always available and in the same place.) CaerwineCaer’s whines20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the page as there is an AFD debate on this article at the moment - wait and see the out come of the AFD debate. Also I see very little of this being merged into his bio article. Keith D (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the move and remove to a new name, there still isn't anyone except MickMacNee who seems to be objecting to moving this to David Davis by-election campaign, 2008. Furthermore, there still isn't anything in this article that isn't related to the by-election. I had wanted to give some time for the AfD to settle and a chance to see if anything unrelated to the by-election might be added, but unless we get some objections from someone else, or some new material, I'll be making a move to the suggested name in about a week. CaerwineCaer’s whines00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This campaign is not over, there is a primary quote from Davis to support that, that is plenty good enough for verification. Unless you have sources to show the campaign is definitely over (and presumably showing that Davis is doing something completely different with his time as a backbencher) then fixing this title to a finished by-election is misleading at best, POV at worst. I don't see why you have such a problem with this. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, what you can is to add a entence to say that as of xx/xx/xx there were no visible signs of public activity, alongside Davis' statement of continuing the campaign. What you cannot do is employ your own original research to state that Davis has categoricaly wound up the campaign because it was only a by-election thing, without any sources to backup your claim, and in actual contradiction of a sourced quote. The lack of any visible activity in your eyes is absolutely not conclusive enough evidence to start misleading the reader that the campaign is shut down by fixing the title to a finished event. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first link you gave is dead now and the second is to an article about a fairly standard post-election speech. Is there anything to indicate that Davis has set up any sort of a continuing organization, or is this all just standard political rhetoric? I'm not doubting that Davis intends to make civil liberties a primary theme of his politics from now on, but there is still nothing in the article as it exists that is not directly related to the by-election. That lack of material unrelated to the by-election is why naming the article relative to the by-election makes sense. CaerwineCaer’s whines01:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are under a mistaken impression that this is how we name articles. do you imagine there is someone whose job it is to update this article with information, so you can judge what it is about? It is not, and there is not. I will ask you one last time for a reiliable source that the campaign is wound up, in direct contravention to Davis own words. Otherwise, I can only treat this as a deliberate repeated attempt to push your own POV that the campaign is over. MickMacNee (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to judge an article by what is in it. To do otherwise is to engage in crystal-balling. Outside of forcing and then contesting a by-election, there's nothing here. If there ever is anything more to his efforts along these lines, they can either be added to the article on David Davis or perhaps split off into a third article. But as of now, there are at least three editors who have indicated that David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 is, at least for now, the best name for this article, with only yourself opposed to it. CaerwineCaer’s whines23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of understanding of policy, practice and the manual of style is astounding. The third article comment just takes the biscuit, just how many do you want to create? One for each speech? Each vote?. Like I said below, I can't even communicate with someone so clearly off track, so do what you need to do to impose your personal opinion over a reliable source. As for taking on the support of the unilateral move editor that has never commented here, and as far as you know never even read the article or the Davis source before he moved it (it was done two minutes after his last edit elsewhere), well, what can anyone say to that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The website still invites donations to be made to "Haltemprice & Howden Conservative Association Fighting Fund", which does not imply existence of any campaign other than that for the by-election. I'd still prefer to see the whole thing merged into the David Davis article; failing that, I'd support the David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 article name. PamD (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merger has been shown to have no consensus twice now. There is absolutely no sense in doubling the size of a BLP article for a middle aged man, based on the events of a few months. Please read the undue weight policy and the manual of style regarding content forks. MickMacNee (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you're both doing my absolute nut in with your misunderstanding of policy and practice and use of trivial originally researched details to make major content decisions to this article. On the renaming issue, I don't care anymore, name it David Davis flies to the Moon for all I care, the lead section and proper redirects will take care of that. As for merging to David Davis, this clearly has no consensus. A new proposal for that specific move needs to be started if you think you can get it passed, consensus for that is not identifiable from the previous rename/delete/merge to by-election article discussions. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"move to neutral name that follows pattern of other single election campaign"
I just thought I would note here, now that this move has been done, that despite the claim made in the misleading edit summary [1], it has not been done to follow any existing pattern, as there is no other precedent for UK by-election campaign articles. The only example ever given was the quite innaccurate and mis-leading reference to US presidential election campaigns, which bear zero resemblance to this article in either implied regularity or similarity/singularity of theme. Furthermore, this move has been done in direct opposition to a reliable source that contradicts the new title, which now asserts the campaign has finished, in violation of a number of policies, not least WP:POV and WP:NAME, with absolutely no supporting sources being supplied to support the misguided and misleading move. This post is not for the editor who completed the move, who you will see from above conversations has not demonstrated possession of the slightest clue about the policies or issues involved, and further, would't even want to listen if he did, but this post is to inform anyone coming to this article wondering why it has such a poor title, which they will have also noticed has now had to be piped to a completely different phrase in nearly every contextual usage. Hopefully, this will spur any new reader to demonstrate common sense by moving it back to David Davis civil liberties campaign where it properly belongs, that is if this POV push doesn't have the desired effect on new readers anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite MickMacNee's assertion, the new name does not imply that David Davis has finished campaigning on civil liberties. It implies that the article's scope is limited to his campaigning in the by-election just concluded. As such, the name is accurate whether Davis follows through on his stated intentions or not.
You are frankly clueless about anything in the manual of style, or the conventions of how when and why we create article forks. You are not reflecting the article's current contents on this particular day (which is not incidently how we name articles either), you are enforcing your personal opinion over current sources. This article is the container for any future material to be added by anyone on this topic, it is not up to you to perform original research and declare this particular topic closed to any new information (once you have renamed it to suit your clear motives to that end) and thus prevent that from happening. You have already imposed a POV by adding "was" to the lead, which I will be reverting as clear OR and POV, irrespective of the current incorrect title. MickMacNee (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The by-election is over and that by-election is what the article has been downscoped to. Frankly, to me you seem to be teetering on the edge of violating WP:OWN. I realize that you put a good deal of work into making the first version of this article, and on revising it as the by-election went on, but that does not make your unsupported opinion as to whether the best scope for a subarticle of David Davis (British politician) should be the by-election itself or the continuing civil liberties campaign that Davis has stated he intends to engage in as having greater validity than that of other editors. I am not the only editor who has expressed the opinion that a tight focus on just the by-election campaign was the better choice for the scope of the subarticle. CaerwineCaer’s whines04:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP looks foolish if we leave a past campaign described as "is" - it's the sort of tidying up I'd do on any article I came across in passing. PamD (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP looks foolish when it incorrectly names article based on nothing but editor's personal POV and their misguided OR, and then they edit war from a postition of exactly zero sources to backup their subsequent OR and POV edits, going against a wording that is backed by a source. MickMacNee (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will move the article to reflect the sourced content rather than a user's personal opinions, if that is the reason why you are now edit warring here. MickMacNee (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting third opinion
The situation is, the two editors PamD and Caerwine are determined to enforce their own POV and OR on this article, to effectively close it to further editing based on nothing but their own personal opinion. The article has been moved to the current title under great opposition, with the discussion on their parts characterised by a huge refusal to listen or ability to cite any policy for their position, and this is with the background that they have both in the past unsuccessfully argued for this articles deletion and/or mergeing elsewhere, resisted twice by policy backed consensus.
The previous title was David Davis civil liberties campaign - accurate, neutral, concise, descriptive and informing to the reader. The current title, in addition to being meaningless to the reader, now wrongly asserts this was a campaign with a specific end point, now passed, when it fact, it was not. It is also now piped in all its contextual usages in other articles, further demonstrating its uselessness as a title. The two users are now gaming 3RR to enforce the use of past tense in the lead sentence wording, to further enforce their POV over the sources.
The current title was also justified on a false claim that there is a naming convention for single issue one time election campaigns, there is categorically not, another falsehood in the pursuit of a POV - to close the article if it cannot be deleted/merged. There is a primary source from the antagonist of the campaign himself that it is not over (see the end of the timeline section), which was also reported by multiple sources. The campaign website is still live, and the pertinent issue of the campaign is still going through Parliament. Caerwine is quite tendentiously claiming that it would be standard procedure to add any further post dated details if they emerge in a completely separate article, the name of which I can't even guess at.
If they are going to use the current misleading title chosen with no good reason or backing in sources or policy, as their only justificaiton for making POV edits to information backed by sources, then the article needs to be moved back to its original name, or they need to be blocked for persistent disruption. They are quite frankly overstepping the mark by a long way to have even been allowed to get this far refusing to get the point and without the single provision of a source or policy to support their position, or even a basic understanding of the manual of style.
Are PamD and Caerwine working together on this article? I suggest you request a move for this article and explain that problem there. If they are not listening to you, refer them to an administrator. Often, editors who refuse to cooperate need someone with authority to make them move. Good friend100 (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero content in the article that does not pertain to the by-election campaign, and we do have other articles dealing with the election campaign of a single candidate that follow the form suggested for the move of <candidiate> <type of election> campaign, <year>. I don't see where the fact that Davis chose one issue to campaign on makes using that name inappropriate and it certainly does not make it misleading, as MickMacNee alleges. I certainly haven't coordinated anything with PamD, though I share with her the opinion that the text of the article, which I have not touched save for one edit due to the article name being changed, makes this an article about a single by-election campaign. For now, any content beyond the by-election relating to Davis' efforts on civil liberties, can be added easily to David Davis (British politician) until such time as either that material grows so large as to require either a fork or a refactoring, or those efforts actually attempt something concrete other than electing Davis to Parliament. At present we have one editor, MacNee, who while he has contributed a significant portion of the article content, is the only one who has objected to renaming the article to match the scope of the article content. CaerwineCaer’s whines14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you haven't given an example of any such titles as you know they are not the same at all. Frankly, if you're just going to repeat the same backwards logic about how to apply the MOS and naming policies based on your personal opinions then leave this section, this is for somebody to express a third opinion. If you can't see how stupid it would be to start continuing the content on the campaign outside of this article, just because you have chosen to rename it per your personal POV/OR without the backing of a single source, then there's no hope of getting any understanding here, but that's been my position for a while now, because it's going in one ear and out the other. was is a past tense word, and is a million miles from being a simple and insignificant edit in this context given the POV being pushed here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already given examples of such names earlier on this talk page and so I felt no need to repeat them. Let me ask you this: Other politicians stake out positions on single issues, but as a general rule those positions are dealt with in the article about that politician unless such position taking has done more than simply elect the politician in question or the article becomes so long as to require a fork. What is it about Davis' efforts on this issue that warrant an article focused on his position on it as opposed to one focused on how he conducted his by-election campaign? That lack of any evidence of anything beyond ordinary electioneering being done is why having a separate article on the position of one politician on one issue seems like POV pushing to me. CaerwineCaer’s whines17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not working with Caerwine; my only edits to this article have been to bring the text in line with the title: otherwise Wikipedia looks as foolish as the sort of organisation whose "Forthcoming events" on their noticeboard or web page all happened last month/year. The by-election has taken place, so any by-election campaign is something to refer to in the past tense. I resent being called "obtuse", and asked to provide sources, for this logical amendment to the text. PamD (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a source that the campaign was wound up, I don't know, about 20 times, while you editted in contravention of sourced information. I think it's then perfectly fair to call the response of talking about a calendar as being deliberately obtuse. And frankly, to claim your edit is to bring it in line with the title, is the whole point of the issue. The title has been chosen to fulfill this exact POV and OR result, of closure of the article. If I didn't AGF, I would say both of you are acting intentionally stupid if you honestly cannot follow what I am saying having repeated it many many times. The title has no backing in sources, whereas the exact opposite of what it claims, does. To claim otherwise just beggars belief. 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding stupid (a small risk since you seem to already think that of those who disagree with your opinion of what the scope of the article should be) let me try asking my question of you in another way: What notability does the David David for Freedom campaign possess that is unrelated to the by-election campaign just concluded? CaerwineCaer’s whines22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is quite irrelevant to this issue, as it deals with the merits of inclusion of content, it says nothing about edits being made to reflect a personal opinion. And to educate you further in wikipedia, notability is a guideline, so even if it were relevant, it is completely subservient to the three policies you are currently violating with your POV title change and subsequent edit warring against sourced information, WP:NAME, WP:VER and WP:NOR. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:NAME, that assumes that David Davis civil liberties campaign is indeed a common name people would use, which I would disagree with. Indeed an article whose subject is about David Davis and civil liberties would to many people be expected to be about the 19th century United States Supreme Court Justice David Davis, whose most prominent decision was Ex parte Milligan, one of the most important U.S. cases concerning habeus corpus. As for your original alternative, David Davis for Freedom, it appears to be poorly supported judging by a quick google: ("David Davis" MP -"David Davis for Freedom") with a time limit of the past two months (so as to limit hits to pages generated after "David Davis for Freedom" was begun) generates about 141,000 hits. Googling "David Davis for Freedom" over the same two months generates 736 hits.
Aside from the choice of name, there is the matter of scope. What I see is an subject for which a good choice of a subarticle of David Davis (British politician) is a chronological subdivision that also serves to make the subarticle the best choice for a subarticle of Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. You think that a thematic subdivision focusing on what David Davis has done concerning civil liberties would be best. However, such a thematic article, while it would be an adequate subarticle for David Davis (British politician) is inadequate for Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 as once David Davis' efforts on civil liberty expand significantly beyond what he did in the by-election, a thematic article would necessarily include substantial material unrelated to the by-election. Given a choice between a chronological division that will serve two articles well now and in the future, and a thematic division that will, if expansion occurs in the future, serve only one article well, I prefer the one that will serve both articles well. Link upkeep would be easier, once the material on Davis and civil liberties expands to the point that a thematic division would ill-serve the article about the by-election to generate a thematic subarticle of David Davis (British politician), than to generate a chronological division of a thematic subarticle.
As for POV, NOR, or VER, I fail to see how they apply at all to deciding whether a chronological or thematic scope is the more appropriate scope for the article. They would if using a chronological scope were to assert that David Davis will not be campaigning with civil liberties as an issue in the future, but despite your repeated claims, no such assertion, either explicitly or implicitly is made by such a scope. The only thing that is asserted by the choice of name and the use of the past tense in such an article is that the by-election campaign has concluded which is self-evidently true. Nothing is stated or implied about any other campaign having finished. CaerwineCaer’s whines00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
