Talk:Mayor of Tower Hamlets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Lutfur Rahman by Khalid Hussain.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Lutfur Rahman by Khalid Hussain.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lutfur Rahman by Khalid Hussain.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

The naming should avoid ambiguity with the civic mayor of Tower Hamlets. MRSC (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most well known mayor in England is the current one in existence the elected executive mayor of London. The civic mayor post for Tower Hamlets is not notable enough have a separate article of its own. Take the Mayor of London that is just called "Mayor of London" as that is what it is commonly known by and no-one thinks of anyone but the holder of the post covering the whole of London (bar the City). There will be very few if any who think Mayor of London and then go oh you mean the Lord Mayor of London. It just doesn't happen in the same way, in the same way as very few if any think of the civic mayor of Tower Hamlets when talking about out or searching for the Mayor of Tower Hamlets. Media do not refer to it in any other way other than the Mayor of tower Hamlets except in a few minor and sparse instances,. Creating a different title is a POV fork and is creating ambiguity where none existed before. The title should be just Mayor of Tower Hamlets as that is the least confusing and if there are any worry about confusion a simple one line, identical to the line staying Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirects here, which is already in existance. Also having 'Mayor of Tower Hamlets' redirect here as opposed to going to a disambiguation page makes the title Directly elected meaningless and the ambiguity arguments a figment of only in the imagination of the person advocating the Directly elected title. If such a Directly elected title was needed Mayor of Tower Hamlets would be a disambiguation page it clearly is not in this case. The reasoning for Directly elected title is just to try and avoid confusion where none exists and in doing so creates its own confusion. Sport and politics (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 01 November 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move proposal rejected, but perhaps a group move request would work. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets → Mayor of Tower Hamlets – The civic mayor (now Council Speaker) post for Tower Hamlets is not notable enough have a separate article of its own. Take the Mayor of London that is just called "Mayor of London" as that is what it is commonly known by and no-one thinks of anyone but the holder of the post covering the whole of London (bar the City). There will be very few if any who think Mayor of London and then go oh you mean the Lord Mayor of London. It just doesn't happen. In the same way, in the same way as very few if any think of the old civic mayor or the now speaker of the council of Tower Hamlets when talking about out or searching for the Mayor of Tower Hamlets. Media do not refer to it in any other way other than the Mayor of Tower Hamlets except in a few minor and sparse instances. Creating a different title is a POV fork and is creating ambiguity where none existed before. The title should be just Mayor of Tower Hamlets as that is the least confusing, causing zero confusion if any at all and if there are any worries about confusion a simple one line, identical to the line stating Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirects here, which is already in existance. Also having 'Mayor of Tower Hamlets' redirect here as opposed to going to a disambiguation page makes the title Directly elected meaningless and the ambiguity arguments a figment only in the imagination of those advocating the Directly elected title. If such a Directly elected title was needed Mayor of Tower Hamlets would be a disambiguation page it clearly is not in this case. The reasoning for Directly elected title is just to try and avoid confusion where none exists and in doing so creates its own confusion. To undo the confusion which has been now created where none previously existed the title needs to drop the "directly elected". Sport and politics (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose We take the naming of each article on its own merits, so the Mayor of London article cannot be used as a reason for naming this article. In that case the directly elected mayor of London is clearly the primary topic for "Mayor of London". This isn't the case is Tower Hamlets, we have two different things that could rightly be located at Mayor of Tower Hamlets. They are 1) The civic mayor that existed from 1965 to 2010 with around 45 post holders and 2) the elected mayor that has existed for the past three years. As both have been called "Mayor of Tower Hamlets" the name is ambiguous. It isn't typical for a mayor to be directly elected and there are only a handful of such posts in England. Wikipedia isn't a snapshot of only what exists now and we don't automatically give primacy to recent events. The page title for the elected mayor should be unambiguous (and if you look above at the page title history it has been for the most part). There is no need for disambiguation pages where there are only two possible topics. "Mayor of Tower Hamlets" redirects here and there is a hatnote to the alternative. As it stands this article is still given primacy by the redirect here, but has a disambiguated title and hatnote clearly explain the name "Mayor of Tower Hamlets" has two meanings. MRSC (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirects here. Another example is seen with Liberal_Democrats that just redirects to the UK political party with a disambiguation line at the top. There is no confusion there just common sense. Changing to Directly elected throws out common sense and assume every one is easily and always confused unless titles are magically made to conform to the least simple and most complex title just to avoid confusion even where none exists, there isn't even potential confusion only synthesised potential confusion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject individual article nomination Looking at Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom we have a mess on this precise subject with both forms widely used. Really a consistency nomination should have been brought on the whole lot. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, again - one of a whole group of articles where a WP:RECENT view of what constitutes "mayor" contradicts with English sources, which naturally use "mayor" to refer to "mayor" - whether Victorian patriarch, 1930s reformer, 2010s ceremonial post, whatever. If an article excludes mayors who aren't directly elected from content (why?) then the phrase "directly elected" is required in title per WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A gain that isn't a gain[edit]

If you look at the edit history, you will see a dispute between me and User:Sport and politics. S&P (if I may call you that) feels the election box should show the 2014 mayoral result as a gain by Tower Hamlets First from independent. I think that is highly misleading. The same candidate who won last time won this time. Shortly before the election, he created this new party around himself and then he stood with this label rather than as "independent". So it's the same guy; he hasn't joined an existing party - he's created a party around himself. I understand where S&P is coming from in saying how, technically, this can be seen as a gain, but labelling it as such gives the wrong impression to the reader unless s/he then goes and reads other articles to work out what's going on. As a basic principle, we should make things clear to the reader, not get wrapped up in technicalities. Bondegezou (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard across Wikipeida to state from the previous party at the election in the gain hold box where the incumbent is re-standing. This can be seen with the Doncaster Mayor and the Speakers seats of Buckingham, Glasgow Springburn, West Bromwich West and Croydon North East as examples. It can also be seen with Ken Livingston in the 2004 London Mayor election. By the logic of Bondegezou the 2004 London Mayor result should be Labour Hold, as it was the same candidate who was re-elected, which would be misleading at best. The standard practice of Wikipedia is as shown in the above example and not as desired by Bondegezou. If Bondegezou wishes to attempt to change the wider consensus then please do so on the main UK politics Wikiproject talk page. -- Sport and politics (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly isn't a gain. Rahman was THF before the election happened. Anyone adding that to the results table is inserting incorrect information, and it should be removed on sight. Number 57 14:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the convention at play. I see a difference with the Ken Livingstone case: there, he first won an election as an independent, standing against the Labour Party candidate. Next election, he had re-joined the party. That was a change in party. Likewise, with the Speaker of the Commons, they have a changed partisan affiliation. (The case of Doncaster is not relevant here: Davies was not re-elected.) In this case, however, Rahman has not joined or left an existing party. He has merely re-labelled, he has created something around himself.
Conventions are useful, but there is no need to stick them so rigorously if the result is confusing and misleading to the reader: see WP:IAR. I am not suggesting any revision to the convention. I am suggesting that, in this particular case, it would be clearer to omit the "gain" line of the table. If people or not happy with that, maybe a footnote or some text to clarify could be added. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus wishing to be changed here is wider than this singe article, so please raise the issue at the above wikirpoject as simply arguing here will achieve very little if anything, as it will not change the wider established consensus, as clearly demonstrated by the examples given. Sport and politics (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show me where this was previously discussed, then I'll accept leaving it at the wrong version for now. Otherwise, the correct information should remain in the article. Number 57 19:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a note on the WikiProject page inviting people to the discussion here. I have explained how I see a difference with the examples given. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57 what you consider to be correct in your opinion does not make it right and does not entitle it to override the current consensus of Wikipedia. Engage in a meaningful discussion before acting like an article owner, otherwise you will simply come up against the rules of Wikipedia and get very frustrated and get nowhere with what you aim to achieve. The demand for a discussion to have already taken place does not invalidate the current consensus. The current examples shown above clearly demonstrate what the current consensus is regardless of any discussion having taken place. Demanding a discussion to have already taken place is POV pushing as it is an argument being used to try and push your preferred census over the current consensus and in the process is trying to avoid this current discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you a few times now in various ways to show where this consensus was developed. Please link to the relevant discussion. If there is no discussion, then the consensus is developing here, and currently it's 2/3 in favour of including correct information rather than misleading and incorrect information.
As for the accusations of ownership, you are the one who has reverted two different editors four times on this article. I suggest you may want to consider your own behaviour before attacking that of others. Number 57 21:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was developed by the current and longstanding stable article versions, just because you dislike it or there was no formal discussion does not invalidate it. I suggest engaging in a meaningful discussion on the merits of whatever you are trying to change to, as opposed to meandering down the current path of semantic nonsense which will achieve diddly squat. Actually discuss why you want to make the change you do and discuss the merits of what you want to change it to as opposed to trying to have no discussion and force an opinion on the article, while acting like an article owner. I will also have to point out this is not a vote and stating this early on in a discussion "more people are on my side therefor i am right and this is the new consensus because of that" is a farcical augment and detracts from all forms of taking you as an editor seriously. Sport and politics (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so keen on having a proper discussion, why has your argument so far only been to repeat "there's consensus", "it's standard practice" or "this needs to be discussed somewhere else" when Bondegezou and I have repeatedly pointed out that saying Rahman winning was a THF gain is clearly wrong and misleading. How do you justify it on a factual basis? Number 57 21:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "clearly wrong" that is only an opinion of yours and you cannot put words for other users you can only speak for yourself, other users are more than capable of putting their own views forward.. Rahman was not elected in 2010 as a Tower Hamlets First candidate, in the intervening period and with no voter approval he set up his own party, the voters then in 2014 chose to elect him on a Tower Hamlets first platform, but they didn't originally do so in 2010. The voters originally elected him as an independent. The voters were not given a say in the party of the mayor until the 2014 election, so the choice of the voters was to elect a THF mayor this time and not an independent mayor so when the voters were asked, they did not elect that same party as they did the previous time, so that is a change from the previous election and so is a gain for the new party from the last time the voters were asked their opinion at the ballot box. Sport and politics (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahman is in the extremely rare category of a successful indepedent who subsequently forms a party that effectively is little more than the local big name politician and their coattail followers, then gets re-elected with the label. The nearest example I can think is North Down (UK Parliament constituency) where Jim Kilfedder was elected as an independent in 1979 and then formed a mini-party afterwards - we show 1983 as a Popular Unionist hold not a gain. De facto this sort of situation is a hold - the politician hasn't actually moved anywhere or joined a pre-existing force, they've just created a banner to more easily rally and identify support. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The North Down article is inconsistent as in the election before in October 1974 Jim Kilfedder was elected as a UUP candidate and the 1979 election result lists Jim Kilfedder victory as "Independent Unionist gain from UUP" not independent hold. So the above example is not a sound example as the article does things in effect both ways and supports neither position.
There's a difference between leaving an established party with the electors upholding the change and forming a party around oneself. Is there anyone else apart from you who is objecting to showing a hold? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inconsistent, they are very different cases. In 1979 Kilfedder had left an established party, which also put up a candidate in that election (who lost). By the '83 election he had formalised his independence by the creation of the UPP. The later is very much the same thing as the Rahman case. Naomhain (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be time given for discussion and not a reliance on this being a show of hands. Also the bye-election gain on the North Down page mentioned above lists UK Unionist gain from Ulster Popular Unionist for the both the 1995 Bye-election and the 1997 general election, which is again another things to consider here. Even though it was the same winning candidate at both the bye-election and the general election. Sport and politics (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General elections are compared to the previous ones so a party retaining a by-election gain is shown as a gain with a note that this is what the comparison is. (Boundary changes complicate matters further.) Timrollpickering (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it explains on the page: "As is standard the figures and result are compared to the 1992 general election, not the 1995 by-election". This is not relevant to the Rahman case. Naomhain (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two points.

  1. It really doesn't make much sense to call this a gain. THF is, more or less, a name for Rahman's "independendence".
  2. The precedent (not really the same thing as consensus, by the way) actually tends to support the use of hold, not gain. For example, the Lib-Dem inherited seats following the 1988 merger, a much larger change than the creation of THF, are shown as Lib-Dem hold, not as gains from Liberal or Social Democrat. (eg. Ross, Cromarty and Skye (UK Parliament constituency) and Yeovil (UK Parliament constituency)).

Naomhain (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the Lib Dems are a different thing here due to the Alliance before the merger so effectively Liberal and SDP seats were for what was basically he same party, just the party formalised its alliance in to a single entity. The other thing of note here has to be Doncaster's mayor as Peter Davies left the English Democrats and re-stood as an independent and that is listed as a gain from English Democrats, not from Independent. I also cannot see how this is any different to listing bye-election hold as gains, even with weasel footnotes being used to try and justify it. A party wins a seat with voter approval at an election and then holds it at the next election surely the same candidate and label winning the seat after voters had said we want this person, regardless of it being an general election or a bye-election is a hold not a gain. This discussion is raising a lot of inconsistencies and is showing different rules for one thing and different rules for another, I wonder if this is to suit a certain desired outcome on here as opposed to wanting to get some wider consistency across Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Results are listed against the previous result, not against any changes in affiliation since. No-one is questioning that. The difference here is that Rahman hasn't left or joined an existing party: he has created something around himself. He has formalised his position, turning his supporters in to a formal party, just as the Liberals and SDP formalised their alliance in to a single entity.
I am unclear by what you mean by your suggestion that "this is to suit a certain desired outcome on here". I remind you of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the discussion is demonstrating a remarkable level of consistency and logic. True gains (where a genuinely different party has won) are shown as gains while mere formalisation of the status quo are shown as holds. Naomhain (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a new creation "true gain" and "genuinely different party", these seems to be very wooly and ill-defined. A gain is a gain; One party or label wins at one election and a different party or label wins at the next election simple: it is a gain. Sport and politics (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life is complicated. It doesn't fit neat boxes. Within that context, I think Naomhain has summed it up well. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With one disenting voice there appears to be consensus here, and precedent across similar Wikipedia articles generally, to restore this to to a hold. Naomhain (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree with that there is a consensus here that it should be changed not restored to a hold for the 2014 Maayor of Tower Hamlet election results only and nothing else. I have to wholly dismiss the claims of "precedent" across Wikipedia, there are clear examples of precedent, for not having this listed as a hop such as in the case of the speaker. This appears to be a consensus just for this article and not wider Wikipedia. This appears to be a consensus that if a person stands as in dependent and forms a party round themselves it is a hold in all other cases it appears to be listed as a gain e.g. the speaker or Ken Livingstone or as is the case with the Mayor of Doncaster. Sport and politics (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with S&P: the discussion above relates to this particular article. I, for one, was not and am not suggesting a change to other articles. I am happy for other cases akin to this one to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement too; I obviously didn't make myself clear. I wasn't suggesting that this sets a precedent for other articles which should therefore be changed, but that in fact the precedent in other articles already supports the acceptance of a distinction between a true gain and a simple label change. Agree with you that discussion on a case by case basis is the right thing in this sort of case. Naomhain (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a by-election or is it a 'rerun election'?[edit]

The answer to that is: it is a byelection, and there isn't any such thing as a rerun election. And it was all explained in 2010 in Talk:Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 if you open up the little box at the top which says "By-election vs re-run debate". Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The judgment says "Thirdly it will be Mr Williams’s task to arrange for a new Mayoral election and for a by-election in the Ward of Stepney." I am unclear why a by-election is being called, but the wording of the judgment appears to distinguish, therefore, between a by-election and a "new [...] election"...? Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might help lift the fog of confusion if I point out that the term 'by-election' is only very rarely used in statute law, because the legal procedures are no different in by-elections compared to ordinary elections. A by-election, according to the dictionary definition, is any election which takes place between ordinary elections. F. W. S. Craig and other election authorities include elections to fill seats that have been made vacant through the avoidance of the previous election as by-elections. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see. Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Directly elected mayor of Copeland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mayor of Tower Hamlets. 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:

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) 07:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mayor_of_Tower_Hamlets&oldid=1208891384"