Talk:Wessex Regionalists

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I removed the word "minor" from the first sentence, as the Electoral Commission defines a minor political party as one which only contests local elections. As the WRs contest parliamentary elections, they do not fit this definition, so I felt the description was potentially misleading. --82.33.80.82 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But in common parlance it is minor, so any suggestions? Sources? Doug Weller (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly I couldn't easily come up with a clear-cut source, except this rather oblique reference in The Guardian. But doesn't it come within the sky is blue etc? A statement of the obvious? And perhaps include a footnote that it doesn't technically fulfil the EC's definition. DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Electoral Commission's own website: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0006/13488/form-rp1m.pdf Maybe use "small" as an alternative? I looked on thesaurus.com, but all the other synonyms for "minor" that I found were pejoratives such as "trivial" or "insignificant".--Nick xylas (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wessex Regionalists 2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the logo to a colour version which was e-mailed to me by David Robins, the party secretary, for the express purpose of uploading to Wikipedia.--Nick xylas (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission to use a logo on Wikipedia. You do however need to put a source, a licence, and if appropriate a fair use rationale. Please look at the b&w logo for an idea of how this is done. If you don't do it then the colour logo will be automatically deleted. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have forwarded the e-mail from the creator of the file to permissions. If this is not enough, I will get him to fill in a permissions letter.16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you don't need permission. If that is the logo then it can be used without permission under a fair use claim. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have any idea why the party got such a high vote in Westbury in 1979? It doesn't match with other constituency results that year or in other years in the same constituency. Could the candidate have profited by his surname in some way? BTLizard (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Thatcher was a local farmer, active in many organisations in the constituency and hence with a large personal following. It's impossible to say how much of his vote reflects this and how much was confusion with Mrs T. No doubt both contributed. David Robins (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Wessex Regionalist Party logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Wessex Regionalist Party logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation that the Wessex Regionalists are an "ethnoterritorial" party has been on this page for a while. The accusation appears to have no basis in the party's actual policies, but my edits pointing to their own stated positions keep getting reverted on the basis of WP:MANDY. This seems to me to place an undue burden of proof on the victims of malicious allegations, rather than on those making them. I looked at WP:SELFSOURCE, as recommended, and it's my opinion that this fits the 5 criteria (I would think that a political party's own published words are the best way of determining what their actual policies are), but other editors evidently disagree. If I think that this allegation is inaccurate, how do I say so without my edits getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick xylas (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on coverage by reliable sources. That sentence is from a paper amongst a small amount of academic coverage of the party. Academic sources are usually smongst the best sources available. If there were more coverage of the party in reliable sources, such as academic papers, books, and quality newspapers, then the article could describe the party better. Ralbegen (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the page you link to says that self-published sources can be used provided that they are not the main source of information and that the information provided is not unduly self-serving. To say that a passing mention in an academic paper is a more reliable source of information about a political party's policies than that party's own manifesto seems to be taking an understandable preference for third-party sources to ridiculous extremes. Nick xylas (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFSOURCE, the section you're referring to, says that primary sourced material about the subject should be used de minimis. WP:PSTS, which is policy, tells us that Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So a reference to the Wessex Regionalists' manifesto would be suitable to supplement material covered by a reliable source. If a book, scholarly paper or news article in a quality publication wrote that the Lorem Ipsum Party want to scrap stamp duty and replace it with a transaction tax, then an additional reference to the Lorem Ipsum party's manifesto would be appropriate to, say, support inclusion of material about the rate or scope of that tax, like "the Lorem Ipsum Party said they would replace stamp duty with a 5% transaction tax" (followed by references to the secondary source and the primary source). Due weight is established for including material about the Lorem Ipsum Party's stance on stamp duty, and the supplemental use of a primary source can fill in an uncontroversial detail that could be useful to the reader in better understanding the material. So there are appropriate ways to use primary sources about a subject. For this article, the sentence Its platform is based on the creation of a devolved assembly for the region it defines as Wessex is supported by a secondary source in The Guardian. How the party defines Wessex is linked to a publication from the Wessex Regionalists, which fills in that detail. That's a suitable place for self-sourcing, maybe the only one for an article of this length. But looking at a party's manifesto and including material which isn't closely grounded in secondary source material isn't appropriate. That would constitute original research if an editor selected policies to include or an indiscriminate collection of information and promotional if an editor included the whole policy platform.

I hope that helps! The party hasn't received a great deal of reliable source coverage, especially in recent years. It'd be easier to write a fuller article if there were more appropriate sources available. Ralbegen (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]