Talk:NOtoAV

Labour Support for AV

There has been repeated attempts to revert the following edit:

Although Labour leader Ed Miliband has came out in support for AV, there are more Labour MPs in favour of the 'No' campaign than the 'Yes' campaign, with 112 Labour MPs coming out in favour of a 'NO' vote, as opposed to the 83 in support of a 'Yes' vote. Prominent Labour politicians who are actively campaigning for a 'No' vote, including: John Prescott, David Blunkett, John Reid, Lord Falconer, Hazel Blears, Ann Clwyd, Caroline Flint, Gerald Kaufman, Austin Mitchell and Keith Vaz. <ref>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Voting-Reform-Labour-Ex-Ministers-Join-Forces-With-Tories-To-Campaign-Against-AV/Article/201011415834204?lpos=Politics_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15834204_Voting_Reform%3A_Labour_Ex-Ministers_Join_Forces_With_Tories_To_Campaign_Against_AV</ref> <ref>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Voting-Reform-Labour-Ex-Ministers-Join-Forces-With-Tories-To-Campaign-Against-AV/Article/201011415834204?lpos=Politics_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15834204_Voting_Reform%3A_Labour_Ex-Ministers_Join_Forces_With_Tories_To_Campaign_Against_AV</ref>

Could someone please explain how this factual information is in anyway biased?MWhite 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that the section is biased; on the other hand, the article itself may be an example of selective reporting. Is there an article about the planned referendum itself? If so, this article could be merged into it; if not, it should be created as a more important topic than a campaign against the voting reform. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an article about the planned referendum and it can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_alternative_vote_referendum

Now I can’t speak for anyone else, but these are the grounds for which I removed the above paragraph and still believe that it should be removed:

Firstly, I do believe that it is biased. The first sentence is obviously intended to persuade the reader that a majority of the Labour Party is against AV, based on the alleged views of 195 (out of 258) Labour MPs, disregarding completely the Labour Peers in the Lords and other Party activists. I think therefore you hit the nail on the head Mike when you talked of ‘selective reporting.’

Furthermore, fairly significant claims are made without any justification. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see anything in the provided sources that backs up the assertion that 112 Labour MPs have come out against AV and 83 for it. Furthermore – and again correct me if I’m wrong – I can’t see Hazel Blears, Ann Clwyd, Caroline Flint, Gerald Kaufman, Austin Mitchell or Keith Vaz mentioned anywhere in the source used to justify the claim that they are actively campaigning for a no vote. 195.59.149.157 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing contained in the paragraph is unsourced. I agree with Mike, I think this article shouldn't really exist. The information in it is already contained in the main AV Referendum article. The figures for Labour MPs supporting Yes and No votes respectively can be found at [[1]].

It's been updated, and now puts the figures at 108 supporting No, and 82 supporting Yes.MWhite 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as a matter of fact the information was unsourced because you did not provide a source in the article itself. You can’t expect people to go trawling around other Wikipedia articles for the sources, and especially not if you’re going to self-righteously and aggressively attack them (as you did to me) for daring to challenge what you’ve written.

Anyway, I would however agree with you that this article serves no real purpose and would probably be better off scrapped.195.59.149.157 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Having read the article United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, I believe that it contains all the relevant information present in this one. I suggest resolving the editing dispute by redirecting this page to the main article - if MWhite (talk · contribs) or anybody else wants to merge any of the content, let him have his way. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Update: There seems to be an agreement for this solution, so I am unprotecting the page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, merge it. This page is nothing but blatant Tory propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.171 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Peeps, have a look at this: http://www.labourlist.org/labour-mps---are-they-yes-or-no-to-av Princeofwales5 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another removed section

There's another section that had been alrady removed from the article by the same user (which I didn't revert - he gave an explanation "Neither the Conservative nor the Labour Party have fixed positions on AV - different people within those Parties have different views"):

The campagin is supported by some jornalists from the newspaper, The Telegraph<ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100067892/ten-reasons-to-vote-no-to-av/</ref> the campagin is backed by the Labour Party <ref>http://labour.no2av.org/labour-mps-lords-say-no-to-alternative-vote/</ref> and the Conservative Party <ref>http://www.conservatives.com/Campaigns/No_to_AV.aspx</ref> who both disagre with Alernative Voting <ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100067892/ten-reasons-to-vote-no-to-av/</ref>. Acording to the Conservative Party's website 29 historians, including: David Starkey, Antony Beevor and Amanda Foreman have all voiced their concern over Alternative Voting <ref>http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2011/03/Historians_against_AV.aspx</ref>.

Well, it was certainly right to remove the blanket claim that the Labour Party as a whole supports the no vote. I would agree with the other editor here that Labour is divided on the issue – certain MPs, including its leader have come out for AV, but others are against it. Actually it’s probably fair to say that in general the Conservative Party opposes AV, but again we must be careful not to selectively report the facts – there are Conservative MPs who are in favour of it.

Furthermore, it is accurate to say that that one journalist working for the Daily Telegraph has come out against AV, but is that really newsworthy? Daniel Hannan is not a politician, so I don’t really see how his views are worthy for special mention on an encyclopedia about a political issue. And the same goes for the historians.195.59.149.157 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger With Other Article

I do not feel this should be merged because it is about a group linked to the referendum and the article you want to merge this with is about the actual refurendem. They are two separate things! Please research this before you make any decisions. Thank youOddbodz (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a strong feeling one way of the other but I do feel that it is absolutely essential that we treat the Yes and No campaigns the same way. As this has been up for discussion for a at least a couple of weeks and there has been no merger I think it is safe to say that it will not be merged and the best way forward is for there to be a separate article for the Yes campaign as well. I propose to make this shortly. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Individuals

IP user 138.38.32.171 is removing the section on individuals saying that everyone on the talk page has asked for it's removal because it is bias. However, I can find no evidance of this, in fact the only mention of this is on Mike Rosoft's talk page which is against the removal of this section. The section keeps on being removed and I don't want to get into an edit war so I will apply for semi-page protection again and I have posted this here for anyone else to give their opinion on the matter. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NOtoAV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110330201428/http://no2av.org/ to http://www.no2av.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NOtoAV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111214091116/http://labour.no2av.org/labour-mps-lords-say-no-to-alternative-vote/ to http://labour.no2av.org/labour-mps-lords-say-no-to-alternative-vote/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NOtoAV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121131020/http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/default.aspx to http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)