Talk:Partygate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Article title and content

I'm not opposed to this becoming a separate article, but I think it should perhaps be moved to, say, British government staff Christmas parties controversy. The inquiry announced on 8 December 2021 is apparently going to look at several government staff parties held in November and December 2020, not only the (supposedly imaginary) one to which Allegra Stratton referred. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59591610 Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agree: There are at least three gatherings under investigation now so it makes sense to move it. This is Paul (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. The Guardian is up to six now: [1]. SmartSE (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Is my suggested title OK, or can anyone suggest anything better? "Partygate" does not (yet?) seem to have become widely established. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your suggested title looks good to me. I'd avoid non-neutral wording and any malicious, derogatory, or pejorative terms until all the inquiries have concluded and we know which of the allegations are founded, and which are not, and what the conclusions are. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Partygate may be simplest - it is certainly being used by a lot of RS now: FT "‘Partygate’ strains trust in Boris Johnson’s government", Telegraph "Partygate: Tory anger as Boris Johnson told he ‘should resign’ if he misled Parliament", Spectator "‘Partygate’ is Boris’s biggest crisis yet", Evening Standard "Partygate: Three government gatherings to be investigated for Covid rule-breaking" and France24 "UK papers rage against Boris Johnson over 'Partygate' scandal". Neither the BBC or the The Guardian appear to be using it yet though. Not RS... but I note that the Sun and Mail are both running with it too. SmartSE (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

A day (an hour??) is a long time in determining WP page names... Unless anyone wants to go ahead first, I suggest moving it to Partygate in a few hours time, if that is an emerging consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with that title and think we should stay neutral until it is clear that the subject of this article is referred to mainly by that name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources - per WP:POVNAME. Currently that's not used by the BBC, ITV, iNews, GB News, or Channel 4 News. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that British government staff Christmas parties controversy is a more accurate title than the current one? If so, it should be moved to that title, and any further discussion over a title like Partygate can be the next step. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think there is, and I agree. I'll boldly move it to that title now. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 15:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree the article needed a new title. I am uncertain the current title is correct. There are a number of events under discussion. This article provides a helpful list. Most of these are government staff parties, but two are not: a possible personal party in the Johnson's flat, and a Conservative Party event involving Shaun Bailey. Titles aren't always perfect and I don't have an alternative to suggest, but I thought I'd raise this and see if anyone else can think of a different wording. Bondegezou (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "Westminster Christmas parties controversy" would be better? The title is more accurate for the scope of allegations (all of the events occurred in Westminster) and is also shorter. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 02:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That could work. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems OK to me - it covers everything that could reasonably be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 14:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I missed this part of the discussion but it seems sensible; easier to remember too. This is Paul (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Whitehall Christmas parties controversy" be more accurate? "Westminster" implies that these events took place in the Palace of Westminster, rather than within government departments located in Whitehall. Willwal1 (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Westminster" "implies that these events took place in the Palace of Westminster". It is a looser and more appropriate term than "Whitehall". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur that "Westminster" is definitely generally taken to mean more than the Palace of Westminster. Bondegezou (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting a similar discussion happened a few years ago on Talk:2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations, but "Westminster" ended up staying as the title as a synonym for the UK government, even when Scottish and Welsh politicians became implicated. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Reported allegations

DeFacto and I are in an editing dispute. In a number of places we talk of "alleged" parties and describe media reports. I feel that if we have text saying that "Media source X reported that Y", it is clear that we are not saying that Y is true, just noting it has been reported. DeFacto feels this should be "Media source X reported allegations that Y". This seems unnecessary to me, overkill. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If the Daily Whatever reports anonymous sources have alleged that X did Y we cannot say "the Daily Whatever reported X did Y" because that might quite reasonably be misunderstood to mean they are saying that X did Y. OTOH, if we say "the Daily Whatever reported allegations that X did Y" then there is no room for a misunderstanding. Remember WP:BLP in all of this too. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

But media sources aren't saying "there is an allegation that X". They are generally saying "X happened". The BBC (ref 7 in article) says, "The party took place on 18 December", not "A source told us the party took place on 18 December." Here's The Guardian (ref 8): "The other gathering under investigation in No 10 was on 18 December [...] Officials and political staff had cheese and wine and reportedly swapped secret Santa presents at an event that went on late into the evening." They caveat themselves over the secret Santa, but the rest is just stated as truth. The Big Issue (ref 11) describes the Mirror as "revealing that “officials knocked back glasses of wine during a Christmas quiz and a Secret Santa while the rest of the country was forced to stay home”." No alleging there.

Media sources are reporting what they believe to be true (and opening themselves to litigation if they're wrong). We can reflect that with "Media source A reported that...", which avoids saying something is true in Wikipedia's voice, but reflects the media reporting. When media sources are being more careful (they're adding "reportedly" or "alleged"), then it's appropriate for us to likewise up the caveats. Our article has "reported allegations" for the secret Santa element, which matches RS, so I'm happy with that. Bondegezou (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much applicability of WP:BLP when the party attendees are generally not identified. Who would sue for libel a report like "a party happened at 10 Downing Street on x December 2020"? If Joe Bloggs sued, the case gets thrown out because the report does not say Joe Bloggs did anything. Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we have far too much use of "alleged" at the moment and just saying "reported" is fine. Reading the most recent BBC article on the subject, there is no doubt in their descriptions that the events took, with the exception of the 15 May one announced today. SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We need to treat each cited source individually, and check what it says, which is what I was doing. In this edit, I inserted "allegations" because that's what the source is reporting, in fact the short article referenced uses the word "alleged" 8 times and the word "claim" or "claimed" 6 times and the subject was clearly identified. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree to follow the wording or characterisation of reliable sources, as outlined by Bondegezou (talk · contribs) above. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I note the need for caution and to check what specific RS are saying to support specific fragments of text in this article. We should also be updating citations as more reporting comes out. Earlier citations are sometimes more cautious in their wording, but there are later citations based on more information that are phrased differently. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - as always, we should follow the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"All guidance was followed completely during Number 10"

The article quotes Johnson as saying, "All guidance was followed completely during Number 10". That feels like it's missing a word...? Can someone correct this, or we could just truncate it to "All guidance was followed completely". Bondegezou (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a verbatim transcript of the words he used at PMQs on 1 December (here, at 2:50), though Hansard has glossed the words as "..in Number 10" (here). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone for a compromise of those sources and gone with "[in]" instead of "during". Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Proviso needed in the lead?

Sure many, perhaps almost all, of the sources used imply that Covid restrictions were or would have been breached (depending on whether the event was confirmed or denied). However, some also mentioned that this is by no means a foregone conclusion, and raised doubts based on notable legal opinion - and this is mentioned in the last paragraph of the "Background" section, supported by this reference to The Spectator. With that in mind, I feel we need to qualify the statement we make in the first sentence of the lead that Social gatherings of United Kingdom government and Conservative Party staff in Westminster took place in the 2020 Christmas season during the COVID-19 pandemic, when there were public health restrictions on such gatherings in the country, to allude to the element of doubt. I tried a couple of times (here & here), but both were reverted (here & here) by Bondegezou.

Are we happy that making that assertion in Wiki's voice is compliant with WP:VOICE - or should a proviso be added? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You refer to "notable legal opinion". I can see one article in the (heavily Conservative Party-leaning) Spectator that puts forth this legal theory. The Spectator published a second article disagreeing with it. The idea has had little RS coverage: I saw an article in the Evening Standard and a mention on Newsnight, neither supporting the theory. It is relatively fringe to the discussion.

At no point has the Government or the Conservative Party asserted this defence or claimed it to be true. The police's comments have never referenced this theory.

Whether or not this theory is true, there were still definitely restrictions in the country that applied to everyone else. The Government has said they followed those restrictions. Charges of hypocrisy or lying to Parliament remain, whether or not any gatherings were actually unlawful. The lead says, "when there were public health restrictions on such gatherings in the country". This is a verifiable and correct statement: there were public health restrictions on such gatherings in the country. The lead makes no claims around legality or the law.

The Spectator article asserting this theory only talks about 10 Downing Street. Six of the events listed in our Events section where not at 10 Downing Street and the Spectator article does not even apply to them.

Many dozens of RS articles make the point that gatherings (alleged or confirmed) were in contradiction to the COVID-19 rules. One Spectator article claims these weren't technically illegal if at no. 10. As per WP:BALANCE, one Spectator article arguing a legal point relevant to some of these events carries limited weight compared to all the other coverage. The lead is fine. We mention the Spectator-fueled legal debate later: that is an appropriate level of coverage for it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Spectator's other article wasn't disagreeing, it was suggesting a potential loophole in the loophole - that the laws might be construed as applying to individuals rather than the location. The BBC has other barristers saying the same thing in several of it's earlier articles on the allegations (here, here, and here, for example). I'm not surprised that the opposition and their 'leakers' aren't mentioning it, and they seem to be the main feed for the baying press, and I'm not surprised that the government aren't proffering it (although they will be aware of it), as it would be condemned as "one rule for us, another for them". Currently the first sentence of the lead does not comply with WP:NPOV and does not fairly summarise the article content on this - the addition of a couple of words would fix that. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It is apparent that you have strong personal views on this topic. You should endeavour to put those aside even in your Talk comments. I see no need for your apologia. I will await the views of other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

My personal view is consistent throughout the Wiki articles I edit. I strive for neutrality, verifiability, and due weight. This isn't always easy to achieve though, often because editors with different viewpoints think they are trying to do exactly the same thing. We need to remember to assume good faith though, because all editors, even our own good selves, are inevitably biased, and need to look at the data from a different viewpoint occasionally, and perhaps even recognise that one's own, rooted in one's own prejudices and bias, isn't the only possible interpretation, and resist the temptation to attack others for what might be one's own weaknesses. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The BBC does not have other barristers. Those three BBC pieces are all using the same mini-article: there's just one BBC piece there. That piece mentions The Spectator article's argument. It then quotes a tweet from a second barrister who discusses the issue by suggesting a condition ("tweeted that there would have needed to be an agreement with Westminster City Council for the regulations to apply in Downing Street"), but neither concludes that the loophole is present or not. (The actual tweet cited is vaguer than how it is portrayed in the BBC article.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Barristers other that the ones in The Spectator. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

So we have the views of of four different barristers, two reported by one of the RS heavyweights, the BBC, and the other two by The Spectator. We should not be leaving significant counter-concerns such as this out of the summary we put in the lead. We risk leading the reader to make a false assumption without this, or perhaps we think we risk them making an informed opinion that doesn't align with our own. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If anything, the lead needs, no MUST, contain the questions (and answers) to the Zoom quiz. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No need for proviso. The potential loophole is a minor detail which isn't worthy of mention in the lead. It's completely appropriate to say "there were public health restrictions on such gatherings in the country" SmartSE (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, no need for a proviso in lead in my opinion, as there is not adequate weight to justify it in sources. The kind of information proposed can be included with more detail and nuance in article body. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

On a related but slightly different tack, my wording back on 15 December - here - referred to "Apparent social gatherings...". The word "Apparent" was later changed to "Alleged", and then the word was removed. I would like the word "Apparent" to be reinstated. The controversy developed over the fact that, in most cases at least, they appeared to be primarily social gatherings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that we have a range of situations, from the Bailey event that everyone agrees was a party and was wrong, to several events where there is agreement that people were gathered but disagreement about whether these were social gatherings (parties) or primarily work events at which people may have had some alcohol etc., to some events that are alleged to have happened but those supposedly involved deny anything at all happened (the flat party). I think the current wording coves that array. Wording to reflect uncertainty about some events should not have the effect of downplaying the Bailey event, which has produced apologies, a resignation, disciplinary action and a police investigation. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. @Bondegezou, surely the opposite applies too; the fact that one event may have been acknowledged shouldn't force us to imply they all were. NPOV should apply to each event. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Apparent" social gatherings is a wording that surely covers both those that were real breaches of guidance, and those that merely seem to be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

... and, while we're at it, can we remove the unnecessary and weaselly sentence: "Further events are alleged to have happened." It's meaningless as it stands, and any substance to it is covered in the third paragraph of the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording implies that all the allegations have been acknowledged. It starts with stuff that is known and then moves on to the disputed (thus "Futher events are alleged..."). I fail to see any reading possible where one could conclude that all allegations have been acknowledged.

I get the idea around "apparent", Ghmyrtle, but "apparent" is a bit of a WP:WEASEL. It risks downplaying confirmed parties but also exaggerating disputed events. The issue has been dwelling on me and I wonder whether the lead should just avoid any statement that tries to lump together disparate events (disparate in who/where, disparate in their epistemological status). It could spell out different events upfront: the Bailey party, several events where people clearly gathered but their nature is disputed ("apparent"s), and events that are more unknown ("alleged"s)...?

There's a question of whether it should go through different events in that order (confirmed, "apparent", "alleged"), or whether it should go through different events in order of reporting (as the Timeline section does), or whether it should go through events chronologically (as the Events section does). The news cycle has turned rapidly. Everyone today is talking about the event in May, which hardly fits the article title! A couple of days ago, the focus was on the Case staff party. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Bondegezou's comments below) The opening sentences need to be as clear as to the scope of the article as they possibly can be. If the scope changes over time, the article title may need to change (again... perhaps to "Partygate" if that does become established). For the time being, how about: "Social gatherings of United Kingdom government and Conservative Party staff in Westminster were alleged to have taken place during the 2020 Christmas season, when there were public health restrictions on such gatherings in the country during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some were later confirmed, and others were later reported to have occurred at other times of the year. All the allegations became the subject of public controversy...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"others were later reported to have occurred at other times of the year" sounds like we thought a party took place at Christmas but it turns out it was in May! Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

True. I wrote my draft before seeing yours, which I will comment on when I have some time! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggested lead text

Bearing in mind the above discussion, I've tried to re-jig the lead. I've crafted an opening sentence that is soft and sufficiently vague I feel to cover concerns raised, but then a second sentence on the Bailey party. I've also changed the ending, adding text on the May event and making some other changes. This is just a suggestion...

Multiple gatherings of United Kingdom government staff in Westminster during the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly in the 2020 Christmas season, have come under investigation as to whether they were consistent with public health restrictions in the country. One Christmas party by Conservative Party staff was confirmed to have contravened restrictions. These events became the subject of public debate and controversy when the allegations appeared in the media in December 2021, with some outlets referring to the controversy as "Partygate".

The Daily Mirror was first to report allegations that some 10 Downing Street staff had held gatherings in November and December 2020, after their planned Christmas party was cancelled due to the COVID-19 regulations in place at the time. Prime Minister Boris Johnson denied that any rules were broken, and a spokesperson denied that a party occurred.[1][2] A week later, video of a practice press conference held in 10 Downing Street was broadcast by ITV News in which joking comments suggested a party had taken place. Allegra Stratton, then Downing Street press secretary, featured in the video, and resigned her subsequent Government position after the video surfaced. Johnson said that he understood from senior staff that a party had not taken place, and that an investigation would be undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case into whether any COVID-19 "tier" restrictions were broken at that or other staff events. Case stepped back from the inquiry on 17 December, amid reports that his own office had also held a party in December 2020. Further parties at Downing Street have been alleged to have occurred.

A picture of the Prime Minister, his then-fiancé and their child, and staff having cheese and wine in the garden at Downing Street on 15 May 2020 was published by The Guardian. The Government described this as a work event.

Gatherings of staff in other Government departments have been confirmed, but their nature is disputed. A gathering on 10 December 2020 at the Department for Education will also be part of the investigation. Shaun Bailey resigned from his position as chair of the London Assembly's Police and Crime Committee after admitting to a party on 14 December 2020 with Conservative Party staff.

Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a good start. Below is my re-jig of that re-jig which omits some of the excessive detail, less important points, and editorialisation, and adds some more important detail, IMHO:

During December 2021 various allegations that, the previous year while strict Covid-19 restrictions were in place across the country, parties took place in Westminster, were reported in the press. The Daily Mirror broke the first story on 30 November 2021, in which allegations that two parties took place in 10 Downing Street in the 2020 Christmas season were made. Government ministers said that as far as they were aware, no rules had been broken.

This report led to widespread media interest in the subject, which some dubbed "partygate", and a multitude of additional allegations were made that various other parties, related to Christmas, staff leaving, or other staff gatherings, had taken place in Westminster during that time. The underlying implication being that government employees broke the Covid-19 regulations when the rest of the population were being urged to comply with them.

For about a week, new allegations were being reported, culminating in ITV broadcasting a leaked video of a Downing Street press conference rehearsal, showing officials joking about a party question, recorded the day after one of the alleged events was said to have taken place. Following the showing of the video, the prime minister expressed his fury, and said that an investigation would be undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case into whether any Covid-19 regulations had been broken at that or other staff events, and Allegra Stratton, who featured in the video, resigned her government position. Following the receipt of many calls to look into it, the police said they did not plan to investigate the alleged Downing Street parties due to a lack of evidence.

More allegations emerged during the following week. One of these was that the Shaun Bailey, Conservative candidate for the May 2021 London mayoral election, and members of staff held an event with drinks and a buffet in the basement of the Conservative Campaign Headquarters. He subsequently resigned from his position as chair of the London Assembly's Police and Crime Committee. Another was that there had been a party in the office of Simon Case, newly appointed to lead the inquiry into the party allegations, in December 2020. As a result of this Case stepped back from the inquiry on 17 December, and the investigation was passed to another senior civil servant, Sue Gray. Another featured a photograph of staff and the prime minister, with his fiancée, sitting around tables with wine and chees in the Downing Street garden.

Comments? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but a big no from me. That opening sentence barely even functions as a sentence. You begin three of four paragraphs with "allegations", which downplays what has been admitted and the evidence seen. Likewise, you've lost the Allegra Stratton resignation. I see no evidence that allegations "culminat[ed]" in the ITV video or that they continued for only "about a week": you completely ignore the May 2020 photo, for example, as a major revelation since then. You have the Bailey party only as an allegation and then say he resigned: you omit saying that it definitely happened and is confirmed, not merely alleged. You misrepresent the police's position. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes Allegra Stratton, I lost it somehow in the copy and paste from my local draft, my mistake, sorry. I'll insert it. WRT your other comments, the detail is in the article, we don't need to get bogged down in the minutia of each allegation in the lead. It is supposed to be a summary. The opening paragraph summarises how this topic became a topic. The second and third summarise the events up to the watershed moment ("culminating in"), the showing of the ITV video which triggered the investigation and the resignation. The fourth paragraph summarised the higher profile allegations that occurred after the inquiry started. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it. How does it look now? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And another C&P whoopsie, fixed - BJ and co. in the garden. Less haste, more progress, ho-hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the rest of my previous comments. Bondegezou (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict while I was fixing the BJ omission - anything else missing? I was rearranging sentences while I copied it from my local draft - I might have missed something else. I'll check it over again later. I'm sure we are getting closer now though. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The revised text looks better, but I think there remain some fundamental points of disagreement. Your text is "there were some allegations, then some more allegations, then some other allegations". This sets a rather dismissive tone. The reason this has tanked the Government's reputation and Johnson's polling is because these aren't just allegations: things happened, there is evidence. Your proposed text still misrepresents the police position. "For about a week, new allegations were being reported, culminating in ITV broadcasting a leaked video": this appears to be inserting a narrative that this is all over. There have been developments since the broadcast (most notably Case leaving the inquiry and the cheese and wine photo). "Following the showing of the video, the prime minister expressed his fury": the text picks out a piece of political theatre that paints Johnson as some innocent victim in all this -- this is misleading! Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There were allegation after allegation, yes. I think that represents the reality without spin. As yet there has been no proof or finding that Covid laws were broken, so we cannot assert guilt. Please elaborate on how you think the police position varies. It was a week between the Mirror and the ITV broadcast, wasn't it? The third para isn't the end, it is up to the ITV broadcast - the watershed moment when the PM orders the inquiry. The fourth para covers the Bailey case and the Case resignation, which happened the following week, and the cheese & wine photo which followed them. The PM did express his fury, and then appointed Case, that's documented. Suggest a rephrase if that doesn't sound NPOV enough for you. I tried to present the neutral line, like we should in other situations where there are, as yet, unproven allegations. We don't say "perpetrator Bloggs murdered his victim" until he has been found guilty, even if it seems pretty likely from press reports that it was him. That's how WP:BLP and NPOV works. But we can keep tweaking until we find agreement. There's room in the second para, for example, to add a sentence stating that some of the events have since been acknowledged, ... or whatever. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

As yet there has been no proof or finding that Covid laws were broken, so we cannot assert guilt. This is the same argument that you made at Talk:List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom#Definition_of_a_political_scandal and it did not attract support there. Something can be problematic without laws having been broken or before proof or finding thereof. We've seen two resignations, disciplinary action against staff, multiple apologies, a police investigation, a Cabinet inquiry launched and a change in the person leading the inquiry: these are real things that have happened. That's how WP:BLP [...] works. You've made your BLP argument before and it remains weak when the article rarely names specific people. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Bondegezou's suggestion, I think that the opening sentence should cover the whole scope of the article - that is, to mention the Conservative staff events as well as the government staff events. My main concern is that the word "party" seems to be used more than strictly necessary, when some, at least, of the alleged events are reported to have been predominantly social gatherings of work colleagues - to which the word "party" seems a bit of a stretch (although obviously they seem to have contravened the guidance, and I accept that the word has been widely used to cover the events). A bit more variety in phrasing would not go amiss. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I found it difficult to craft an opening sentence that covered the whole scope of the article given the complexities. If you'd like to have a go editing my version, go for it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to cover all the complexities, we just need to summarise the most important (not even all of the important) points. We don't need to list all the events and judge them based on the weight of outrage in the press. We can wait for the outcome of any inquiries to do that. We can just stick to the essentials of the, so far, 3-week saga. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Reactions

I created a Reactions section, but DeFacto has cut much of the material over these edits. I address three points below (in separate subsections so people can comment on them separately), offer additional RS citations and invite other editors to weigh in on whether to include this material. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Deaths and funerals

The text that was cut read:

The public and media commentators made comparisons between these possible social gatherings and the lack of social contact when observing COVID restrictions when people were dying or at funerals.

I think it is important to note that these comparisons were made and were widespread, and this is supported by broad reliable source coverage. At Prime Minister's Questions, Keir Starmer raised the example of Trish Greenhalgh being unable to visit her dying mother in December 2020.HansardBig IssueGuardian

Further examples of comparisons being made to visiting dying individuals are as follows: BBC; ITV; 2nd ITV; Sky; Cosmopolitan; Daily Record; 2nd Daily Record; Guardian Comment is Free; Nursing Notes; Nottingham Post; Evening Standard; Politics Home.

There are also further citations for comparisons being made to funerals. One member of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group said how they had had to have a limited funeral, reported by ITV. Another example in the Manchester Evening News. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this content being reinstated. I don't think it's editorialising to include the above.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've returned the material, but expanded and with lots more citations. I realise it's been Xmas/New Year, so happy to see input from other further editors too. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to wait for a consensus to develop. My view is that the fact that a newspaper can find an individual who has a sob-story that they can somehow link to an, as yet, unsubstantiated accusation, does not give due weight for inclusion to the opinions of a non-notable individual - even if a handful of non-notable opinion-givers from around the country have been found or cajoled by the media into making similar ill-informed and illogical remarks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You are editorialising, DeFacto. We give due weight to reliable sources, not to your interpretation of those sources. I also don't understand why you talk about "non-notable individual[s]" when I included comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, referencing a case concerning someone with a Wikipedia article, so 2 notable individuals. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Bondegezou. DeFacto's opinion has no basis in policy. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"You are editorialising, DeFacto": no, I am correctly using the talkpage to give my view on why I think that addition contravenes Wiki policy. "We give due weight to reliable sources...": no, we give due weight to opinions per their coverage in reliable sources, not to just the sources themselves. If Louise Dillon is a notable commentator on the way society reacts to the behaviour of politicians, and if the opinion she has given about how she reacted to an unfounded allegation in the light of her own sad bereavement was widely covered by reliable sources, then it might have sufficient weight for the fully attributed inclusion of that opinion to be considered. But, as far as I'm aware, those conditions are not met. And as for comments made by opposition members, leaders or otherwise, the bar needs to be higher for them, because opposing is what they are supposed to do, and therefore isn't necessarily notable. Is he a noted expert in the psychology of human reactions to unsubstantiated allegations? If, on the other hand, they supported something the government did, then the coverage that would attract might make it weighty enough to include. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

we give due weight to opinions per their coverage in reliable sources Yes and multiple reliable sources made these comparisons so they merit inclusion. Which part of WP:WEIGHT says that we disregard comments by non-notable people or opposition politicians? SmartSE (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been over 5 days and it's 3:1 in favour, so I'm re-adding. Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, 5 days? 3:1? Read WP:CONSENSUS. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:CONSENSUS. I see nothing there that suggests a problem with the approach I've taken. A single editor cannot indefinitely hold up edits supported by others. As per WP:CONSENSUS, I will seek input from an appropriate WikiProject(s). Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Yes and multiple reliable sources made these comparisons". No, two or three sources reported the personal opinions of two or three non-expert opinion holders. None of them are covered in more than one source and so none have the due weight required to be included. To characterise that as "The public and media commentators made comparisons" is a blatant contravention of not only MOS:WEASEL, but is a classic example of what the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy rules against when it says: "Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)". And I'd question the reliability of the self-published source by a group of nurses, and of an opinion piece in Cosmopolitan. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

None of them are covered in more than one source Multiple sources have made comparisons and that is sufficient for inclusion. You can't just make up a rule that each specific instance of a death or funeral must have multiple sources. However, on that point, I note that Trish Greenhalgh's account, that was brought up by Keir Starmer at PMQs, was covered by multiple sources, as was duly cited in the text you removed. non-expert opinion holders Again, you appear to be making up rules of expertise to exclude material you don't like. Anyway, if you want "experts", this is, among other things, a political matter. The Leader of the Opposition is surely an expert in such matters. Or we can note that Trish Greenhalgh is indisputably an expert in COVID-19 and responses to it. As for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the text concerned did not make a statement along the lines of "John Doe is the best baseball player", nor something like "Most people think", so these concerns are misplaced. The revised text provided specific attribution (Starmer in PMQs raised a particular example). The text can be further revised to name specific people and sources if that would allay your concerns. As for specific citations, I used a number in the text concerned, but I gave plenty more earlier in this Talk discussion. I just counted: I gave 17 citations. More still are available. If you don't like Cosmo and Nursing Notes, you can have ITV, Sky, the Evening Standard or the Daily Record. Instead of just saying "no" to everything, I invite you to review these citations and choose which ones you prefer. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible additional citations: Sky has this:

Professor Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King's College London, said he thinks the Christmas party scandal "could be a defining moment" for Mr Johnson.

"It shows that those in government feel entitled to break the rules which ordinary people have been observing," he told Sky News.

That could be used if DeFacto wants further attribution to an expert opinion. Bloomberg in an analysis piece writes, "The premier faces accusations that several parties were held across government in winter 2020, just as the country faced severe restrictions on socializing, with people even unable to visit dying relatives in hospital." So that's another reliable source specifically highlighting the comparison.

This Guardian piece quotes Tracey Crouch, a Conservative MP, saying, "I am fuming! My constituents have every right to be angry. Their memories of lost loved ones are traumatised knowing that they died alone, first and last Christmases passed by, and many spent what is usually a special day by themselves. I am not even going to begin to justify or defend a party in Downing Street." This demonstrates cross-party concern on these points.

The text that DeFacto removed cited Starmer's comments. Adding specific comments from Bogdanor and Crouch would complement that if editors feel WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires more specific attribution. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not happy with a bald mention of "The public...". Some did, some probably didn't. In my view, "Some commentators..." would be a better - and clearly referenced - opening. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ghmyrtle. OK, I've made that change, swapped out the 2 citations DeFacto didn't like, added text with specifics to tackle WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and added Bogdanor as providing expert commentary. Which all produces this paragraph...

Some commentators made comparisons between these possible social gatherings and the lack of social contact when observing COVID restrictions when people were dying or at funerals. At Prime Minister's Questions on 8 December 2021, Keir Starmer, the leader of the Opposition, raised the example of Prof Trish Greenhalgh being unable to visit her dying mother in December 2020. The Conservative backbench MP Tracey Crouch said, "My constituents have every right to be angry. Their memories of lost loved ones are traumatised knowing that they died alone, first and last Christmases passed by, and many spent what is usually a special day by themselves." Professor Vernon Bogdanor said, "It shows that those in government feel entitled to break the rules which ordinary people have been observing".

What do other editors think of that? Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

BBC Guardian and Channel4 all have articles about the grieving families. I'm not sure that "some commentators" is a good way of summarising this. SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. We have an article on Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, which is one of the organisations quoted in those sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

All of these sources are, in effect, the primary sources for these personal opinions. As such, trying to combine them to draw the conclusion that "some commentators made comparisons...", or whatever, is surely in contravention of WP:NOR. We need to wait for RSes to say that, and use them to support that, not cherry-pick a bunch of independent sources and draw our own conclusion that they are saying that - it was what was searched for after all! WP:PSTS says this: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and 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.". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Some commentators, and members of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice,..." would be sourced. Further secondary sources here, here, here, here, here.... etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, I'm struggling to see the support you suggest from those sources - I've looked at the first 4, but cannot open the fifth (NYT) one. The best I can find is in the 2nd one (CNN) which gives a quote about the Stratton video attributed to "the Bereaved Families group said in a statement". Can you please supply quote snippets from each of the other 4 sources you provided links to, that you think supports the "Some commentators, and members of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice,..." Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bereaved Families citation was from earlier: I presume this one. Bondegezou (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Scrap that, the CNN citation from Ghmyrtle has this passage: "There are simply no words to describe how upsetting and shameful it is to then hear Boris Johnson's team laughing about breaking the rules they had made, whilst others followed them and could only say goodbye to their loved ones through a screen," the Bereaved Families group said in a statement." Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, yes; that's exactly what I said, that was the only support I found amongst those 5 sources. I wondered why the other 4 were mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, stop trying to re-write Wikipedia policies. Someone tweeting or blogging about their experience would be a primary source. However, if a journalist talks to someone about their experience, and has done so with the due diligence and editorial oversight that we expect from a reliable source, then that's a secondary source. A newspaper article reporting on this trend and drawing broader conclusions is a secondary source. Prof Bogdanor being quoted by Sky is a secondary source. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The individual sources that I refer to are the ones that do not make the synthesis that is being proposed here. They each give factual statements of what one or two bereaved relatives have said. So they are, in effect, primary sources for that. If we then add new analysis and/or synthesis of that material, and combine it with similar material about other people from other sources, to reach or imply a conclusion is not clearly stated by the sources themselves, then we are contravening the OR policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Citations have been provided -- Ghmyrtle's CNN citation is a nice one -- that have made the synthesis. Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

One citation, and specifically only mentioning one organisation's comments of only one of the alleged events. We've a long way to go yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion has died down. DeFacto remains alone in their objections. Given their objections are focused on the opening summary sentence, I'll leave that for further discussion, if such is forthcoming, and add the remainder of the text, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ant and Dec

DeFacto has preserved the Ant and Dec reference, but trimmed it down. The original text noted, "The story was seen as having had a broad impact on the general public when it led to a joke by Ant and Dec..." I think that additional commentary is significant: it's not just that Ant and Dec made a joke, it's the cultural significance of Ant and Dec making a joke. The citation used makes this argument, but here's a second citation doing the same in the Manchester Evening News. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Notable images

The text that was cut read:

Social media more generally saw many jokes, but also anger, about events. The Independent chose the picture of Johnson on screen hosting a Christmas quiz as one of their 18 iconic images of 2021.

Again, I think it is important to note these kinds of reactions and reliable source citations were given. If people don't feel The Independent's choice was notable, I observe that The Week, the BBC and the Telegraph all picked Allegra Stratton's resignation as a key image of the year. Let's include that. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Use of word "party"

I'm becoming a little concerned that some editors seem to want to describe every reported social gathering as a "party". I know it's shorthand, used in some sources, but it's very tabloid-y, and where we can be more precise - such as describing an event as a "social gathering with drinks" - we should be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What were the restrictions in May?

We should expand the Background section to lay out what the restrictions were in late May 2020, when the latest controversial gatherings took place. We've got text like that for the Xmas period, but need something for this earlier period. Bondegezou (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This article seems to cover it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We should also include the statements made around that time. e.g. as Dowden's statement referred to by ITV yesterday and I think I saw other statements mentioned in other sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Multiple RS have been doing so, so so should we. Bondegezou (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Undue caveats again

DeFacto is editorialising once again, insisting on casting news of the Reynolds email as "anonymous allegations", as in this edit. Sourcing does not support this. Sourcing never uses language consistent with such wording: it fails WP:RS. Sourcing just states these things as factual and established. The ITV News article cited says: "An email shared exclusively with ITV News provides the first evidence of a party on May 20, 2020 [...] The email was sent by the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary Martin Reynolds to over a hundred employees in Number 10". A picture of the email, signed by Reynolds, is shown.

Likewise, iNews says, "It comes after an email in which the senior mandarin invited more than 100 Downing Street employees to a gathering in the garden of No 10 in May 2020 – when the country was still under strict lockdown rules – was leaked." The Guardian says, "the email from Martin Reynolds was sent on 20 May 2020." Evening Standard says, "an email from the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary Martin Reynolds invited more than 100 staff to a drinks party in the garden." Note, there is no uncertainty in these reports, no mention that these are anonymous allegations.

We've had this discussion before. In the Talk:Westminster_lockdown_parties_controversy#Reported_allegations discussion above, we agreed that we should follow the wording or characterisation of reliable sources. Reliable sources state as fact that Reynolds sent an email. We should reflect that. Can we have a quick show of hands on this point? Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. What sources say is quite clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. None of the sources express any doubt about the email being authentic. I don't think it's been linked here before, but MOS:ALLEGED is very relevant. SmartSE (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If I received an email signed by Martin Reynolds, I would assume it had been sent to me by Martin Reynolds. (I also can't conceive of any way this email could have been sent without the knowledge and approval of Boris Johnson, his boss.) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the text to be firmer about there being an email from Reynolds, but adding "reportedly" about how many people it was sent to.

There is reporting arguing that Johnson must have approved this email. We need to report that as an inference, but I think we can do so given sourcing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Without in any way doubting the authenticity of the email or the fact that it was at least authorised by Reynolds, the image shown here actually says that it was sent by another (undisclosed) person "on behalf of Martin Reynolds". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that's his name at the bottom. It's "from" him. No one has any real interest in the identity of the secretary/PA who actually pressed the send button? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless it was Boris himself, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The latest wording I've used is: "On 10 January 2022, ITV News showed a 20 May 2020 email sent on behalf of Reynolds, reportedly to over one hundred 10 Downing Street staff". So, this text notes that the email was sent on behalf of Reynolds, but it removes any doubt about the email's authenticity. Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also looks good to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) [2]

Please AGF, as I said in my edit summary, I was attempting to make sure the article complies with WP:BRD - which says: "... contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Characterising that attempt as "editorialising once again" is not conducive to collegial and collaborative progress.

A red flag was raised for me when I noticed that the ITV text about the email is inconsistent with the photo of the email. The text says it was sent by Reynolds, the photo shows an email with the 'From' field blurred-out and purporting to "on behalf of" of Reynolds. Everything we are told about identifying spoof emails tells us not to believe the text as rendered in the email application. And it isn't "signed" by anyone, it simply has text at the bottom containing Reynold's name and details - even I could have created that signature. Note too that date is not given in the text and in the photo it is also blurred-out. I'm not sure we can assert that we have strong reliable sourcing to assert as a fact in Wiki's voice either the sender, or the sent date, or even to how many 'employees' it was sent.

If ITV showed a photo of a Ford Fiesta and described it as a Vauxhall Astra what should we describe the getaway vehicle as? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not for us to second guess sources, so yes, if they said it was an Astra, that's what we should say: WP:TRUTH. No sources have taken any noticed of "sent on behalf of" so why should we? SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse, we wouldn't be second guessing it if there was a contradiction in the source, we'd just be balancing the two versions. Or are you saying the text in a source trumps any photos in the same source? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A spoof email?? What a complete joke. Perhaps about 40 people just all coincidentally turned up at No 10, with a bottle, on the off-chance of a work-related thank you session? lol Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just gently putting this out there, but an editor may want to consider submitting something to WP:INCIDENTS, as although adhering to WP:AGF this seems to be an observed pattern of editing by DeFacto on articles on the politics of the UK. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to AGF with DeFacto, usually. I've also become used to his "dead people can't be guilty because they were never tried" approach. He does make people think about hidden assumptions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just gently noting that anyone who finds a pattern that demonstrates a consistent concentration on the elimination of policy violations (particularly wrt WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:VER) from articles of many disciplines, not just politics, as deserving of a mention on that page, introduced as being "for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", that they would be wise to read and digest WP:BOOMERANG and WP:GLASSHOUSES as well as WP:AGF first. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would welcome the money saving and environmental gains of using a Vauxhall Astra instead of a custom built Jaguar XJ Sentinel supercharged 5.0 litre V8. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that the Prime Minister has now acknowledged that there was a party and he did attend (under, he claims, a mistaken impression it was an allowed work meeting), I think the initial point of this discussion is now moot. There's no need for any "alleged"s in this section any more.

DeFacto, I count 7 instances where you have accused other editors of editorialising with respect to this article, so I find it surprising that you are now concerned that it is a word not conducive to collegial and collaborative progress. However, I will note your concern and think how to phrase things differently in the future. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, first point: not at all! There are still unresolved allegations.

Second point: I found six instances:

• "in the days following the onset of the scandal?"
• "leaving party for...?"
• "connected to Cain's departure and Dominic Cummings?"
• "teams were sitting together in person?"
• "was seen as having had a broad impact on the general public?"
• "a key factor?"

If the word is correctly used it's fine, please explain which of those you think didn't express opinions or exaggerations which were not in the cited source.

Then explain how this edit of mine, in which I attempted to convert the unsupported assertion into language that would comply with WP:BRD, could be characterised as "editorialising once again". Where was the editorialising in that and where did I editorialise often enough previously to prompt the "once again"? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I have noted you were unhappy with my description of your changes. I don't think re-litigating past debates will be conducive to collegial and collaborative progress and I suggest we remember WP:TALK#TOPIC and focus on why we are here: to improve the article. The key points why I started this section have been resolved. There are many unresolved allegations elsewhere in the article. If you feel there are problems with current wording, I'm sure you will made edits or you can bring points here for discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I beg your pardon...

I have added some detail at Garden of 10 and 11 Downing Street, assuming some kind of mention is justified. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, gone quarter past seven already, Boris? Yes, it seems 19.22 beckons. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Public opinion section

Hi Llewee and everyone else. I understand neither of Llewee's edits here. I think this section would be better called "Polling" rather than "Public opinion" as the opinion of members of the public is also covered earlier. Given everything in this section is polling, let's call it "Polling".

There is a current sentence that reads, "By 14 January 2022, YouGov polling found 72% of the British public held an unfavourable view of Johnson, a record of his tenure and surpassing the lowest popularity of Theresa May during her premiership." This, specifically "record of his tenure", just reads very oddly to me. I changed it to "record low for his tenure" to be clearer, but Llewee has reverted. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou, I changed the name back to public opinion because I was going to (and now have) added polling to the Conservative Party subsection of Reactions. On a more superficial level, I also felt that the name "Public opinion" is more formal and less exclusionist towards other types of analysis people might want to add at a later date. I didn't mean to make the wording edits and have now changed them back.--Llewee (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Article title (again)

As discussion is now focused on the May 2020 events as well as those before Christmas 2020, should the title be changed (again) to, say, Westminster lockdown parties controversy? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to suggest something similar. SmartSE (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Westminster lockdown party allegations. It is the allegations that are making this notable. 'Allegation' applies equally to each of them, whether they are confirmed, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We've already had the discussion over the words "controversy", "allegations", or "scandal". There is no need to revisit that part of the title now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I support Ghmyrtle’s suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I support the new title. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Partygate seems to have gained more traction in the last few days: now being used by BBC, Guardian [3] New Yorker Sky News. Evening Standard, Washington Post etc. SmartSE (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And also AFP/France24, Telegraph Spectator Bloomberg Independent. Not an easily citeable source, but on Radio 4 today, both presenters and guests have been using the phrase. SmartSE (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

What we need are a few RSes saying the term has entered into common usage, and if it has, they will be easy to find. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

On what basis is that required? WP:COMMONNAME just requires that we use the most widely used term, and you agreed yourself a month ago: "we should stay neutral until it is clear that the subject of this article is referred to mainly by that name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources". SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought it might make it easier that's all. I'm well aware of COMMONNAME, and know how difficult it can sometimes be to agree the most widely used term. This is especially true if there are two strong contenders, each with its supporters hell-bent on pushing their preferred term, and each side dig in with a large collection of recent cherry-picked press cuttings which 'just happen to use' their chosen one. This one might be easier though, as I haven't yet noticed contributions from anyone who appears likely to offer an alternative to 'Partygate'.

Although I noticed today that the BBC don't use it in their latest article, and neither do i, GBN, The Guardian, The Times, Independent, or Sky News. As we said before, perhaps we need to wait a little longer and see if it comes back into favour again. Or maybe we'll just push ahead as there's no one holding us to account. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I must admit the word "party" can cover a very wide range of gatherings. Martin Reynolds did not use the word in his email, but said "socially distanced drinks". I don't see the need to use the word "Partygate" in the title, as per e.g. "Plebgate", but we need to be informed by what sources commonly use. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current situation, where the title is not "Partygate", but Partygate directs here and we mention "Partygate" early in the lead. I don't think "Partygate" has quite the universality of usage under COMMONNAME. Bondegezou (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds better than BYOB-gate (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I was surprised when I searched for this article that "Westminister" was used rather than "Downing Street" as the latter would seem to be a more widely used term than the former. (It's why I created a redirect.) Obviously I got here eventually but would never have thought to type "Westminister" into the search bar.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The initial reports were about Downing Street. Then there were a bunch of reports about other gatherings beyond Downing Street but in Westminster that got more confirmation and the first resignation (from Shaun Bailey). But those now look like sideshows with the focus back on Downing Street. As the article does cover this broader territory, I think it makes sense to leave it as "Westminster...", but I can see an argument that if most of the focus is on Downing Street that we should just call it that. Happy to be persuaded! Bondegezou (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This is back to WP:COMMONNAME. Which term is the most commonly used to describe these events and accusations? Looking at the news today, I'd say it was "Downing Street". We know, with the way journalism works, that the common name isn't necessarily literally true, or even factually correct, and we need to accept that. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the current title is the the most appropriate one for the present as it encapsulates the scope of the article. "Partygate" is ludicrous slang used occasionally by some of the tabloids and has no current claim to be the COMMONNAME. (Speaking of tabloids, I did like the Daily Star piece about rules being set for decent people to follow.) It is correct to call the matter a controversy while it is ongoing though it might ultimately become known as a scandal. To use allegations in the title, however, would be bang out of order because it is a fact that these parties took place under controversial circumstances and there is absolutely nothing alleged about them at all (except to political strawweights like Pushy Fresher). Again, lockdown parties is fair comment because of the timing. The one I'm not really sure about is Westminster v Downing St but, although the parties in the latter are the most explosive topic, the scope of the article is parties in all parts of Westminster including Downing Street. Probably best to park this for now and then someone can raise a fresh proposal in due course. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "partygate" is a particularly good title; it redirects here anyway and is a bit tabloid-y. I'm not sure about "Westminster" though, most sources seem to refer to to Downing Street, so Downing Street lockdown parties controversy could be better. Or even United Kingdom lockdown parties controversy? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say that, certainly for a UK audience, "Westminster...." is preferable to "Downing Street..." as many of the events were not in Downing Street but were elsewhere in Westminster, and "Westminster" is a widely understood metonym for the seat of UK government. However, it's possible that that may not be the case for an international readership. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, latter suggestion was to be inclusive for an international readership. We shouldn't assume knowledge or geography of readers. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No to United Kingdom lockdown parties controversy: the parties were not all over the UK. This is specifically about parties in Westminster, geographically and metonymically, all involving the UK government, except Bailey's, which was a Conservative Party event. Most parties, and most focus, is on Downing Street, so I Westminster...., Downing Street... or 10 Downing Street... are appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To me the fact that most of the focus is on Downing Street, and that Westminster is a less well known term internationally, tips the balance towards Downing Street. I would go for Downing Street lockdown parties controversy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Now a redirect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

United Kingdom lockdown parties controversy is a non-starter. Tory Government lockdown parties controversy, or perhaps Boris Johnson administration lockdown parties controversy, might be contenders. Else, how about Big Dog lockdown parties controversy? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Polling graph

I like the mini-polling graph added by Willwal1, but it needs some text introducing it and a legend. Bondegezou (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Could we go back to the version showing all the significant parties? RS coverage doesn't say it's just Con down and Lab up, but talks about other parties doing better. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to 'Partygate'

Partygate seems to encompass all the parties. It's a great umbrella term, like Megxit

Only if it's the subject's WP:COMMONTERM, This is Paul (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is. No other title unites the subject. Google 'Partygate', it refers exclusively to this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haveanimpact (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn't as yet. Besides, one of the attendees didn't know he was at a party and surely you don't want to get him even more confused? 🙄 Also, if he doesn't know what a party is, he might not know what a gate is either. Perhaps we should call it Workeventfence to make things easier for him. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Change in lead image

In this edit yesterday, DeFacto changed the lead image. I would prefer to revert to the old image, showing the front of 10 Downing Street. The new image is simply a view of an area - but the reference in the article title to "Westminster" is to Westminster as "a metonym for the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom" - not to the geographical locality. The previous image clearly referenced both the seat of government, and (incidentally) the fact that the issue originally arose in relation to parties in the Christmas period. The range of the article and the coverage has now widened, but the previous image gave more useful information to the reader about the scope and significance of the controversy than the current image. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I also prefer the old image. It even has a Christmas tree! I also readded the old image to the body of text yesterday but it was also changed to another more general image of Westminster by an unregistered user. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The current lead image, the aerial photo of Westminster, seems pointless to me. It's not even focused on the relevant bits of Westminster. The previous image of 10 Downing Street at Xmas was nice, but I worry that it's a 2019 picture, so before the time period we are covering. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I changed the image back - but, there is a second image of the frontage of Downing Street later in the article. Do we need it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Allegations that Starmer is a hypocrite

Should we add these allegations in The Telegraph that Starmer has "been pictured drinking a beer when the country was still under Covid restrictions", and the Labour Party's insistence that "no rules had been broken", and if so, in which section? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The country must be outraged. Voters all over the country demanding his resignation perhaps? Is that really reported only in The Telegraph? Not very clear that it is Starmer who's been surreptitiously photographed through that window. I guess a telephoto lens was involved. But the red roses have come out quite nicely, haven't they. I'd suggest this probably doesn't belong in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a lot of coverage of this in reliable sources. The only non-tabloid apart from the Telegraph I can see is this from YahooNews. If we decide that it does merit inclusion, it seems to me to fit best into the reaction section. It definitely seems relevant to mention that the photo is not a new revelation and that it was published at the time. SmartSE (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Drinking beer was illegal at that time? But I guess a suitcase o' booze from the Co-Op in the Strand was perfectly ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The Sun first published this photo months ago, but The Sun and Mail have both dug it up again. I wouldn't be against a sentence in the timeline of reporting. We should shy away from words like "hypocrite" or be clear who is making such an allegation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And who exactly is doing this "branding" of Starmer as "a hypocrite"? According to The Telegraph it's unspecified "Conservative figures" and some unnamed "source"? i.e. Fleet Street shorthand for the political editor at The Sun or the Daily Mail? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy for a short paragraph to be added as a record of Tory petulance in their desperation to dig up some dirt. How long before we hear that George Brown was fond of a tipple or three back in the sixties? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned - it's mentioned in serious newspapers such as this and this, and I saw a government minister mention it again on TV this morning. Whatever we may think of the reasons for it being raised, the fact that it has been raised should be mentioned briefly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, definitely mention it. I think it needs 3 sentences: what happened (Starmer photographed having a beer), how it's old news brought up again by the Conservatives, Starmer's defence (they were working together and had a takeaway). Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added two sentences, and one ref. It could be expanded a little, if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Current event template

Given that almost everyday some new allegation pops up of a party, would it not be prudent to introduce the "current event" template to show that the information is fast changing? Farleigheditor (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Good idea - I'll add it. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. Per the documentation, it's not supposed to be used just because an article concerns a current event but "used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news)." SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Especially as the Sue Gray report may not appear until next week, and notwithstanding the exciting announcements we can expect c/o "red meat/ Save Big Dog". Martinevans123 (talk)

I also agree. I see Ms Gray has met the nice doggy. I hope she understands the need for antonyms. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

I made this edit with the summary "c/e the first 3 sentences of the paragraph, particularly the mighty 70-word opener, and adhering more closely to the cited source, and leaving out the irrelevant details" (which received a 'thanks' from a prolific contributor to the article an hour or two later). About 15 hours later, No Great Shaker made this edit, reversing my edit, with the summary "restored Telegraph report to comply with source content and to remove very poor English ("marking the leaving of" and "with indoor mixing was banned")", followed by a rant on my talkpage including the following comments wrt this edit:

"... you have deliberately altered content that complies with the reliable source by substituting "gatherings" for "parties" and removing "10" from the location to suggest the parties might have been elsewhere in the street. You say that your edit adheres more closely to the cited source. The headline says: "A booze run to fill a suitcase with wine: The full story of our exclusive on those Downing Street parties". The standfirst begins: "While No 10 staff partied..." Please tell me how "two separate gatherings that were held in Downing Street" adheres more closely to the report than "two further parties that were held at 10 Downing Street". Your edit breaches WP:V and WP:NOR."

With reference to the Wiki WP:RS policy (specifically WP:HEADLINE), which says: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body", as the cited source only refers to the gatherings as "parties" or being at "No 10" in its own voice in the headline and subheadlines, neither can be reliably supported by that source. OTOH, as the reliable part of the source says: "Downing Street staff drank alcohol into the early hours at two leaving events" and "Advisers and civil servants gathered after work for two separate events to mark the departure of two colleagues.", my rewording did adhere more closely to the reliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Um, maybe not a rant but a reasonable question. But yes, I'd agree we should avoid using headlines. One of the problems with the scandal is that, unlike with "pleb", the word "party" can be really ambiguous. But it's very handy for sub-editors as it's only one more letter long. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree that we should avoid headlines if possible but it's a question of context. Journalists have a habit of writing "Downing Street" when they mean 10, Downing Street. They also write Parliament or Westminster when they mean the House of Commons. If they mean the Chancellor's residence, however, they always write "11, Downing Street" to avoid any doubt. We know from the context that the Telegraph meant No. 10 and that has, in any event, been confirmed by many more sources since, so it's a moot point by someone who is, as always, trying to defend the indefensible. It is true that Johnson was out of town but he is nevertheless fully responsible for anything that happens in 10, Downing Street. Once again, the de jure Prime Minister is the de facto Prime Suspect. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, you say you "agree that we should avoid headlines if possible but it's a question of context". You then describe a classic case of WP:OR to show how you are entitled, based on your own preconceptions (and I note from your user page that you are a self-professed Labour supporter and socialist) to ignore the policy by reading between the lines and reaching your own conclusion. That doesn't wash. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-professed? Gosh, that means I honestly admit the truth about myself. Good job I never wanted to join the Tory party, then. They wouldn't have me. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Have to say I agree with the above. Saying someone cannot edit neutrally because they are a "self-professed Labour supporter and socialist"? First of all, "self-professed" is one step away from calling them a "card-carrying" member. And secondly, it could be argued that its actually better to lay out one's political views or affiliations on their user page as it's more transparent. Pretty much everyone who edits in this topic area is going to have their own views and affiliations and it's fairly easy to guess them 99% of the time, based on edits and interests. I'm totally including myself in that, BTW. –AFreshStart (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to have their own political views. Supporting a party does not mean one is disqualified from editing any political article. I think sitting Labour MPs or people employed by the Labour Party would have COIs here (ditto for other parties + 10 Downing Street/Cabinet Office staff). Being a Labour (or Conservative) supporter is not a COI. Editors are, of course, expected to put their personal opinions to the side. Transparency is good. And, as always, WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, AFreshStart and Bondegezou. I assure you I'm not a Labour MP or even a party member, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I once saw Screaming Lord Sutch at a village fete. Have also shaken hands with someone who could have been Prime Minister. Does this count at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I had a work meeting at 10 Downing Street in February 2020! No food or beverage were served. Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wooo! Humbling to know we are working alongside a real Downing Street insider. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another party

Another party reported in the Mirror, which does not count as an RS, but I presume we'll see RS reporting shortly, so get ready. Bondegezou (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It says: "We can reveal Mr Johnson gave a speech at an event to mark defence adviser Captain Steve Higham’s Downing Street departure before Christmas in 2020. It is understood the PM was 'there for a few minutes to thank him for his service' as a 'small number of No10 staff briefly said goodbye'." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Mirror isn't actually a deprecated source but I always think it is best to support it with additional RS. I've added this party to the article. It happened while restrictions applied in London. No doubt Rin Tin Tin will say Downing Street isn't in the City of London. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We're taking content advice from dogs now? Who's next?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Better just to cite more reliable sources that refer to the Mirror publication as these help demonstrate weight. The extra info about what they think the report will say seemed unnecessary to me, as evidenced by neither of the other sources picking up on this and even if they did, it seems to speculative to include here. SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's reported by The Independent here, and the paper explicitly uses the term "leaving party". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Blimey. First Rin Tin Tin and now Operation Rinka! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Home Office party

Someone add this one: https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/exclusive-home-office-staff-mingled-and-drank-prosecco-during-lockdown/ Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, Priti Patel, come on down. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Carrie Symonds vs Carrie Johnson

What does MoS say about consistency of naming? Should her surname match her marital status at each step in the timeline? Or should we just explain once and thereafter consistently name her as "Carrie Johnson"? I started to adjust towards the former, but then realised this may be contrary to local consensus or MoS. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CHANGEDNAME says A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. So, I think you’re right with your first instinct. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I guess it's just a incidental detail. It didn't really affect how they acted, or what was expected of them, as there were already a co-habiting couple. Feel free to correct wherever you see fit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The only anomalies I can see are in the "First national lockdown" section, where she is referred to as "Carrie Johnson" although she was still Symonds at that time. I'll adjust the wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article scope creep

Are we widening the scope of this article from "social gatherings of United Kingdom government and Conservative Party staff in Westminster" to include the private activities of other members of their families elsewhere in London, as with this addition, or should we remove that? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's right to include any breach of regulations by Johnson's wife, given that she lives in No. 10 and is known to have attended parties there, thus placing her in scope. I think we should exclude anything done by family members of civil servants, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned in the lead, or for the opening sentences to be changed in any way to cover it, but as it has clearly been mentioned in the context of the whole "Partygate" controversy, and as she is regularly considered to be a close political adviser of the PM, it should be mentioned briefly in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would include the "first lady". It does look comparatively trivial, probably because it comes as no surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I must be a bit slow this morning – perhaps I didn't get enough sleep. I've just remembered that I know where "The Conduit" is. It's on Conduit Street and that is in Westminster!! LOL! As for her being "staff", I agree with Ghmyrtle that she's one of his advisors and therefore just like Dom used to be. Given Johnson's history of broken relationships, what tales will she be able to tell when history repeats itself? No Great Shaker (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RS have reported it in the context of Partygate, so we follow suit. DeFacto, you were pushing to expand the scope of the article to talk about Starmer outside London, so why was that appropriate and this isn’t? Bondegezou (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think Durham is in Westminster, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, where did you think I was I "pushing" to "expand the scope of the article to talk about Starmer outside London"? As far as I recall, the only reference I've made to that incident was in the thread above, #Allegations that Starmer is a hypocrite, where I only referred to the allegations of hypocrisy, and not to what did, or did not happen in Durham. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am unclear how one can address allegations that Starmer is a hypocrite without mention of what did/did not happen in Durham. They go together.

Whatever, we appear to have reasonable consensus to include the Starmer report and this Carrie report, and both are now in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we all know who is the bigger hypocrite when it comes to calling someone a liar? I guess this is why his blog comments carry so little weight. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. although it now seems his claim has been fully corroborated by other staff.

@No Great Shaker, I think the LOL is on you, because the "Westminster" in the title is not a geographical reference, but as Ghmyrtle so eloquently put it above, a "metonym for the seat of UK government". (BTW, The Conduit is in Langley St, Covent Garden). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this whole scandal is a lot like a first person shooter, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, you say that Westminster in the title is a metonym and not a geographical reference. If you read the WHOLE of Ghmyrtle's post, you should be able to grasp the context of what he is actually saying. He prefers Westminster to Downing St because many of the events were elsewhere in Westminster (i.e., geographically elsewhere) and he adds, as a secondary reason, that Westminster as a UK govt metonym is well understood in GB. He then points out that our international readership might not make that association and this is why some editors prefer Downing St to Westminster (personally, I'm 50/50). If you read the reply by Bondegezou, he points out that the article "is specifically about parties in Westminster, geographically and metonymically".

The club was in Conduit Street last time I was in London (I knew one of its members), but that was pre-pandemic. So, my mistake. I see they went into admin in October 2020 and then moved to Langley Street last year. As you say, Langley Street is in Covent Garden but that part of CG is in Westminster (the rest is in Camden). No Great Shaker (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, where was The Conduit at the time of the allegation in September 2020? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

These arguments would not arise if the article was titled "Partygate" - encompassing everything relevant. I'm not quite at the point of supporting that move - but, with arguments like these, it's getting closer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So we're ruling out 'CarrieSymondsembracegate', yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, of course, it was in Sept 2020. But no one told me 😭!!! At that time, it was still on Conduit Street. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently at No 40 before it closed. Here it is, in better times, at Luxury London. Obviously not up North. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone for 'Mickeygate'? No Great Shaker (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Or how about Dutygate?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, Johnson's No-Confidence Vote Has Been Temporarily Shelved

Please keep this in the article.2601:447:4000:220:4C66:79D1:73CA:713A (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You recorded speculation as fact and so the reversion was justified. See how the statement has been amended to "it was reported that..." so the reader knows it is only something the reporter has been told and not something the Corrupt Party has actually done. If it turns out that the reporter has been misled (highly likely, given their source), the content will be removed again. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Bung us few quid and we'll put it back in for you. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Talking of choice of media sources...

... as we do above, I thought this top-10 snapshot of the use of mainstream online news media in this article might be of interest. I counted them at 10:00 on 21 January 2022.

Title	Uses
BBC News	39
The Guardian	29
Independent	19
The Times	12
ITV News	10
Sky News	10
The Telegraph	9
i	6
Evening Standard	5
Reuters	3

Should we also include a column for 'political leaning'? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So you're complaining about us supposedly using tabloid sources when we barely do, but also about citing high quality reliable sources? What is your actual point? SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with tabloids, that is above. This is showing which mainstream news media titles are used most in the article. How you perceive that, will, I guess, depend on your view of each title. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess this might be useful if it showed e.g. 141 from The Guardian and just 1 from The Daily Telegraph? But with the current spread, without knowing what material each source gives, this may be too "broad-brush" to be very informative. I guess it currently shows a reasonably even spread of sources. Or are you suggesting the different 'political leanings' should be much more even? We'd have to agree on those 'political leanings' first, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

They are all reliable sources. Unless there is a difficulty with the factual nature of what is cited to any particle source, and it would be good to see an actual example, there's really nothing to discuss here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit, I agree with you that they are all deemed reliable for fact. But facts can be presented in very different ways, and wrapped in opinion and speculation - and that's down to the bias and agenda of who's writing them. And we all know that a neutral source is a rare thing.

Our challenge as Wiki editors is to separate the pertinent and substantiated body of what's written in the sources from any cloaking of journalese that they may be wrapped in, and to discard that wrapping. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This means nothing if we don't have anything to compare it to, i.e. an article on a similar issue in British politics. I don't find it surprising that the BBC and Guardian are the most cited sources — from personal experience, they seem to be the most cited on Wikipedia articles on British politics. The latest info on British newspapers for UK politics I could find (from 2018) notes that the BBC is the most cited British news source on WP (note: not just on politics-related articles though), followed by the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and Reuters UK. (Wikipediocracy post, PDF is available to download). I'm not seeing any huge discrepancy here when it comes to reliable newspapers, but I might be missing something. The Guardian is indeed cited by a significant factor more than the next news source, across all articles, and I have no doubt there is an element of political bias there. But I think it's more to do with the fact that the Guardian is free to access, and the more right-wing sources (the Times, and to a lesser extent the Telegraph) are paywalled. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, but it explains why wiki-editors use them less. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree about pay-walling. How would one ever account for that in any comparison of sources' "political leaning"? I haven't done a price comparison between The Times and The Daily Telegraph lately, but I think they are pretty similar Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The quality press article still mentions each paper's political leanings for some reason. The Times is centre-right while the Telegraph is right-wing, apparently. I recently removed party support in 2019 and was tempted to remove the political leanings too as WP:UNDUE. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a 2017 opinion poll wrt newspapers (not TV news companies though) here. The coloured bar chart a third of the way down the page seems to mirror the list above. I wonder if there's a more recent poll, and one that includes TV news companies. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently our dear Prime Minister used to write a column for one of these newspapers. I wonder have they ever recovered? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these increasingly quixotic arguments about principles have much to do with our mission here of writing the best possible article on this topic. Perhaps people could take the discussion to WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom if they feel there is some broader issue worth pursuing. However, I don't see any reasons based in current policy to pursue this approach. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree this hasn't got anything to do with the article, but since paywalls were mentioned, everyone participating here has access to ProQuest via WP:LIBRARY which has most RS newspapers. Archiving newspaper articles with https://archive.is/ also reveals the full text (don't ask me how) and most of the time, the sources have already been archived there. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing at all to do with improving the article. It amounts to disruptive claptrap that should be completely ignored. If any editor has doubts about citing a bona fide newspaper like the Daily Mirror or some gutter rag like the Daily Lies, all they have to do is refer to WP:RSP and see where the site stands on that publication's reliability. The laughable thing about the list above is that it includes two papers (Telegraph and Standard) which are generally considered to be Tory mouthpieces, and yet both of them have dished up dirt on Johnson in recent weeks. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I regulrly cite the BBC and The Guardian in Wikipedia articles, I feel both are reliable. I also sometimes cite The Independent and Reuters. I use others much less. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It comes to something when even Hello! magazine covers the story. And Woman & Home has "'hopelessness and despair' of a 'schoolboy'". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. Farmers Weekly didn't even like him before Partygate. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Intimidation of MPs

I've put a new level 4 sub-header above the content about intimidation as the issue isn't specifically about the lockdown parties but rather a more generic aspect of the Johnson Banana Republic. I can see that this new issue will run and run so be prepared for the need to create another thrilling new article in our Johnson Exposure Series.

By the way, I started playing the Wordle game yesterday and, having got BRICK on line 5, I figured it was a 50/50 choice between PRICK and TRICK to win. I thought to myself that it surely can't be Johnson so I entered TRICK and was wrong! I got the right word today, though, ha! (I'm not saying what it is.) No Great Shaker (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Much of this stuff needs to be summarised (which is what editors are here to do) and added at Premiership of Boris Johnson. The party controversy is part of the wider story, and the wider story should be summarised elsewhere, not in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Section title

We have a two-paragraph section in the article describing allegations of intimidation of MPs opposed to Johnson: The first paragraph says (with my emphasis):

• "... Conservative MP William Wragg, ... accused 10 Downing Street staff of threatening him and other colleagues over their opposition to Johnson's leadership."
• "Wragg claimed damaging publicity had been threatened..."

The second paragraph says (with my emphasis):

• "Labour Deputy Leader ... said, "These are grave and shocking accusations of bullying..."
• "Chair of the Commons Select Committee on Standards ..., said roughly a dozen Tory MPs had made similar allegations of whips threatening..."
• "Bryant said, “I have even heard MPs alleging that the prime minister himself has been doing this."
• "The people who should be dealing with such allegations are the police."

The section title was originally "Intimidation of MPs opposed to Johnson" which I thought mis-characterised the content of the section, so I renamed it to "Alleged intimidation of MPs opposed to Johnson" to reflect the use of provisos "accused", "claimed", "accusations", "allegations" and "alleging" in the content. This was quickly reverted by No Great Shaker though, with the edit summary RS say it has happened so take proposed title amendment to the talk page and gain WP:CONSENSUS.

What do others think - does the section assert it has happened? What title should the section have to neutrally reflect is content? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yawn! Er, sorry, that was an alleged yawn. I'm actually wide awake at the party work event while the bodies continue to pile up in all those hospitals from which staff with COVID are skiving off. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem with any of that. The consensus seems to be that the police should be involved. Are you saying there may be an issue with sub judice here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto is right. We do not have RS saying that this is definitely what happened. We cannot state that intimidation happened in Wikipedia's own voice. Obviously, if more comes out and RS say something different, we can revisit.

No Great Shaker, while we all have our own political opinions, we should strive as editors to put those to one side. The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss how to make the article better. It is not the place for political commentary. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let him put his de facto favourite word back in the title. Let's see, it's Saturday night now and Mr Wragg is meeting the police on Monday. I'll give "alleged" until Wednesday latest and then we can replace it with "definite". No Great Shaker (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, if you are unable to edit this article abiding by WP:NPOV, then I suggest you direct your editing efforts elsewhere. You've been editing for nearly 3 years: you should know how Wikipedia works by now. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you know how WP works? This is a talk page where opinions can be expressed. Provide one single example of a POV edit by me in the article or take your own "efforts" elsewhere. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this edit of yours was mistaken and did not follow WP:NPOV. I hope we have now agreed, pending further developments, that the section title should not baldly refer to "Intimidation". I am sorry I came across as being dismissive of your editing, which is generally most welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And I think you need to get your facts right and read WP:BRD. DeFacto amended the title as a BOLD edit. I thought consensus was needed before adding a potentially controversial word like "alleged" so I REVERTED and asked DeFacto to seek consensus (per DISCUSSION) at the talk page. To be fair, he has done that, and I have said I'm happy with the amendment for the time being until more is known. Okay? No Great Shaker (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Another issue

User:DeFacto has predictably reverted this edit by Proxima Centauri which very properly cites two WP:RS and is a relevant addition to the article within the context of Conservative Party reaction to the issues raised about Johnson. DeFacto argues that is WP:HEARSAY, a mere essay without recognition and not a valid reason for reversion in the face of two RS. I undid his revert on behalf of Proxima Centauri, who thanked me for doing so. I warned DeFacto about his conduct and he has responded by saying that it is WP:ONUS which will invalidate the content. Why, I might ask, didn't he quote ONUS in the first place instead of HEARSAY? His action seems to be just another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

So, as ONUS requires a consensus FOR inclusion, which is fair enough except when the principle is wantonly abused by someone who doesn't like the content, can we have a show of hands please to signify support or oppose for Proxima Centauri's input? Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And I see there are now THREE reliable sources verifying the content. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, yes, you erroneously and unjustifiably "warned" me - it was more a false allegation, and I refuted it, and it is awaiting a response from you there to address that.

Also, did you know, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is "a mere essay" too?

Also, did you know, per WP:VOTE, a "show of hands" is not a substitute for discussion (see also WP:CONSENSUS). We need a policy-based discussion on this, and, when the time is right, an uninvolved editor to formally close that discussion, with a reasoned and policy-centic rationale. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You are WP:WL to try and make various WP:POINTs with the aim of preventing other editors from developing this article and the Johnson one by reference to WP:RS. That sort of attitude and behaviour is disruptive editing. Also, I've already told you I am not visiting your page again unless I am obliged to issue you with a WP:ANI notice. As Proxima Centauri says below, anything that Mr Bryant might say about standards of behaviour in the House of Commons is absolutely relevant, given his role. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The opinion of the Commons standards chairman is relevant and is not hearsay. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, the short section I removed related to these two assertions (with my emphasis):

• Chair of the Commons Select Committee on Standards, Chris Bryant, said roughly a dozen Tory MPs had made similar allegations of whips...
• Bryant said, “I have even heard MPs alleging that the prime minister himself has been doing this...

The definition of "hearsay" per Lexico is: "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour."[4]

In what way is the the information Bryant is reported to have received from other people, and which wasn't substantiated in the report, not hearsay? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support per above. What an absurd removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Martinevans123, do you not accept that it was based on hearsay? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  You'd need to address your question to Chris Bryant. The edit added a direct quote of something he said, reported by a WP:RS. This is Wikipedia, not No. 1 court at the Old Bailey (although we might also be adding reports from there, before too long). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not quite sure which of DeFacto's edits we are supposed to be commenting on. Some mention of Bryant's concerns (sourced to the BBC) is fine, but the long verbatim quote sourced to the Guardian is unnecessary. Recent edits seem to be veering into WP:NOTNEWS territory, and are also getting away from the subject of this article. Wider concerns over Johnson's premiership are more appropriate for the Premiership of Boris Johnson article - which is seriously under-edited. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was commenting on the one linked in the opening sentence above. It may be unnecessary, or possibly WP:UNDUE, but what has it got to do with hearsay? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Martinevans123, can you please quote the sentence you mean. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was commenting of this diff posted by No Great Shaker above. Is that not the subject of this thread? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. I have this page on my watchlist, so you don't need to ping me, thanks.

I support removing the long quote ("Bryant said....."). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that on the basis of "hearsay"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's unnecessary and not very relevant to the subject of this article. We are here to summarise, not recycle verbatim quotes from politicians, and there is enough summary in the previous sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. But you'd have to admit there are already quite a few verbatim quotes in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Far too many. Lots of editors want to be reporters. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Better off here than at the Daily Fail. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, I imagine the the revert alluded to was this one, where I removed reporting of hearsay - information received from other people ("Chair of the Commons Select Committee on Standards, Chris Bryant, said roughly a dozen Tory MPs had made similar allegations...", etc.) In effect, Bryant was relaying what others had said. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I half-support what you did, and half-oppose it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Where's the Wikipedia policy that prohibits this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Ghmyrtle here. I think the article could use fewer long quotes and summarise issues more in one or two places. This particular story is going off on a tangent. It's difficult with an emerging story to know where to put it, but I think Premiership of Boris Johnson might be the better place. If we are to have a long quote like this, we should have -- as RS generally do -- a response from the accused. Spokespersons for Johnson have denied all this. Bondegezou (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That means they've confirmed it. We're on. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree this is in any way "going off on a tangent". MPs have reported they have allegedly been intimidated, because they oppose Johnson. They oppose Johnson because of Partygate and his unwillingness to take full responsibility. There's a direct and complete connection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's correct, Martin. There might be a historical aspect as well, such as opposition to Plan B which only got through because the opposition parties voted for it, but the issue is primarily about Partygate and there is no way it is "off on a tangent" which is a bizarre assumption. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There are a huge number of reasons to oppose Johnson. "Partygate" is just one of many. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, but until we can be sure there is a clear difference between parties and intimidation, I think we have to handle the latter here for now because the issue arose from Partygate, which is why it is completely wrong to assert that the story goes off on a tangent. I said above that it might well give rise to a new article. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This has come out of Partygate and definitely should be covered in this article. As I understand it, some of the complaints relate to situations from before Johnson's premiership was on the line: that's the bit I see as tangential. This all has the potential to be as big an issue in its own right as Partygate, at which point it would warrant it's own article, as per No Great Shaker, but we will have to wait and see how the story develops. Until then, I could see having a longer section on it as Premiership of Boris Johnson and a shorter section here could work, or indeed having two sections of similar length but focusing on different aspects of the story. But that's just an idea and I'm happy to go with what other editors think. I hope that clarifies my view.

With respect to other recent editing, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias do not normally bother with long quotes from battling politicians: see WP:NOTNEWS. I think this section could do with some trimming down so as to make it more concise, and indeed punchier. Bondegezou (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We may well decide to remove the comments by Angela and Mr Bryant in due course but not yet until we know more about what is happening on the intimidation front. That isn't a breach of NOTNEWS. We know very little so far and this is potentially much more explosive an issue than Johnson lying about parties. Intimidation is a serious criminal offence under the Harassment Act among others. For the time being, it is necessary to provide what information we can and most of what we know is contained in those quotes. I'm all in favour of conciseness when there is a wealth of information to become concise, but "punchier" sounds like a tabloid. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly is historical stuff that's now "coming to light" i.e. people who have not felt able to speak out previously deciding that it's now appropriate. Nus Ghani is complaining about the circumstances when she lost her job as a transport minister in a mini-reshuffle in February 2020: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Nus Ghani story is developing rapidly. That's the sort of thing that seems tangential to me. I am uncertain how best to cover it, but I'm sure (a) there is more news coverage to come, and (b) we'll work out what to do in due course. Bondegezou (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nus Ghani's claim now strongly refuted by Chief Whip "Crusher" Spencer and questioned by "Big Dom". [6]. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Douglas Ross quite a lightweight...

For those who may have missed it, here's the MoggFather with Kirsty Young on Newsnight on 15 January 2022: [7]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If Ross is a lightweight then Rees-Mogg is a straw-weight. He is a total nonentity with even less credibility than Johnson. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Jacob's no chicken, you know. In fact, he's quite a Tory high flier. But I know what you mean. I just thought the primary source might be informative. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Confused and inconsistent writing style

As an opening sentence to the "2021" section we have: "On 30 November 2021, the Daily Mirror reported allegations that some Downing Street staff had held multiple gatherings in November and December 2020, after the official Christmas party was cancelled due to COVID-19 regulations in place." Fair enough, that is what happened. But then in the second sentence we have: "At the time of the reported events, London was under COVID-19 tier 3 lockdown restrictions." What reported 'events'? We hadn't mentioned any events having been reported up until then, just allegations. This wording was bizarrely changed from "alleged events" to "reported events" in this edit yesterday. I changed it again today, with an explicit summary, from "reported events" to "reported allegations", but my change was very quickly reverted with a summary that totally missed the point and which relies on assumptions from later in the timeline.

I'm not sure we should be backfilling and rewording the, what was a sourced timeline, with stuff we think we have learned subsequently, and without even re-sourcing it or explaining the inconsistency from one sentence to the next. We will end up with an even more confusing article if we change every sentence to reflect a subsequent state rather than the state as known and sourced at the time we are talking about. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"On 30 November 2021, the Daily Mirror reported allegations that some Downing Street staff had held multiple gatherings in November and December 2020, when London was under COVID-19 tier 3 lockdown restrictions.". These minor infelicities are not too hard to sort out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, thanks, I like it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)