Talk:Dominic Cummings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Origin of the bunker claim

Several sources claim that Cummings built a bunker under his father's farm, and spent two or two-and-a-half years there reading Russian literature, philosophy, astrophysics and military history books. Does anyone know where this claim originated? It seems to have gone through several variations. cagliost (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160703065137/http://www.debretts.com/people-influence/debretts-500-2016/politics/dominic-cummings to http://www.debretts.com/people-influence/debretts-500-2016/politics/dominic-cummings

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"Controversial"

The article presently describes Cummings as "controversial", with the Guardian as the source. Is this a weasel word? Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? It seems to just mean the Guardian doesn't like him. cagliost (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I would think that reading the whole article would clarify the issue. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, but that could mean that word "controversial" is unnecessary. cagliost (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

EU subsidies of farm

Not sure where to put his info

• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/10/dominic-cummings-owns-farm-got-eu-subsidy

Any suggestions? John Cummings (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

We can just add it in for the moment under Johnson, but, unless Cummings gets fired in the next few weeks, then this article is going to get bigger, and will get an "Opinions" section, for which we can list under Euro-skepticism (which will be a large section). Britishfinance (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

It isn't clear to me why my question about the depiction of the subject by Coldwar Steve was removed rather than answered? Why wouldn't the article be improved by some mention of this in the Popular Culture section? 86.148.15.187 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I thought you were just posting in a joke tweet from a non-notable source re Cummings. I didn't realize that Coldwar Steve was in any way notable?? Give that I am obviously ignorant of this source, I will defer to others to comment on its suitability. Britishfinance (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

His wikipedia article mentions his design for the cover of Time magazine in June 2019. Of Time covers wikipedia says "...As Time became established as one of the United States' leading newsmagazines, an appearance on the cover of Time became an indicator of a person's notability, fame or notoriety" (though incidentally as far as I can see the editors of that article have not thought a source necessary for that statement). https://time.com/5602103/cold-war-steve-time-cover-brexit/ The link previously removed which I'm reposting here https://twitter.com/Coldwar_Steve/status/1160257854814789633?s=20 represents a significant milestone which will be recognised by people who have been aware of the commentary of this artist. 86.148.15.187 (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

image

is there a copyright free image that could be used for this infobox 62.109.36.16 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

image

is there a copyright free image that could be used for this infobox 62.109.36.16 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

image

is there a copyright free image that could be used for this infobox 62.109.36.16 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Add in the "Campaign to leave the European Union (2016–2019)" paragraph the following: Dominic Cummings was the mastermind of the big red bus of the Leave Campaign which travelled across the UK with the message: "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund the NHS instead. CeeLeePee (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

@CeePeeLee: I can't access the telegraph source. Can you provide a quote from it confirming Cummings was behind it. SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 23:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how to add this extra detail: "Dominic Cummings has seized new powers to sack ministers’ advisers: new contracts of employment for cabinet ministers"

Dominic Cummings has seized new powers to sack ministers’ advisers as No 10 moves to centralise control of the government.

Special advisers, who work for cabinet ministers, were sent new contracts of employment this week, whether they worked for the government under Theresa May or not, and Boris Johnson and his top advisers have more control over conduct and discipline.

There have been rows this summer over decisions by Mr Johnson and Mr Cummings, his controversial senior adviser, to sack special advisers.

Mr Cummings dismissed Sonia Khan, an aide to Sajid Javid, without the chancellor’s knowledge. He said she had misled him over her contact with Philip Hammond, her former boss. She denies any wrongdoing.

The old “model contract” from December 2016 said that “the responsibility for disciplinary matters rests with your appointing minister”. Now advisers must agree that “the responsibility for disciplinary matters rests with your appointing minister and the prime minister’s chief of staff”. A clause relating to advisers’ grievances and appeals against actions has also been updated to give the chief of staff a role.

Although Mr Johnson has not formally given any adviser that title, Mr Cummings performs the role in all but name. Sir Eddie Lister, who was Mr Johnson’s chief of staff as mayor of London, is his chief strategic adviser. Anameisbutaname^Talk 08:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks. I've added that information, using your reference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks in return, for including it. Anameisbutaname^Talk 10:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 Oct 2019

Currently: ... attempting to set up an airline connecting Samara in southern Russia to Vienna; however, the venture fell foul of the KGB, and was abandoned after only one flight.[1]

Edit: ... attempting to set up an airline connecting Samara in southern Russia to Vienna. However, according to the British journalist Owen Bennett the venture fell foul of the KGB and was abandoned after only one flight[1], while numerous other sources dispute the entire affair[2][3].

[2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dominic-cummings-ex-boss-lifts-20051677

[3] http://johnhelmer.net/is-dominic-cummings-a-sleeper-russian-agent-the-british-prime-ministers-mind-control-experts-secret-years-in-kgb-moscow/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB05:27C:DF00:C093:4AFF:FEB6:DA71 (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the Mirror article as a source, though not using the exact wording you suggested. Although John Helmer is an established journalist and his speculations about Cummings are interesting, we can't use his personal site as a source on a BLP - see WP:BLPSPS. Fences&Windows 22:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror is not really a suitable RS for WP at the best of times, however, in the area of UK politics where the Mirror is explicitly pro-Labour, we should really not be relaying its content on Tory advisors. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hang on. The Mirror is not deprecated (unlike the Mail or The Sun), see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The source wasn't used for opinion, but reporting two facts: 1. He studied under Norman Stone (which you've unhelpfully removed); 2. His former bosses account of the closure of the Samara airline. There's no principle I know of that UK newspapers cannot be cited on political topics they have a declared stance on - we'll need to remove The Telegraph from all non-Conservative political articles, and the Conservative Home profile I used for this profile needs to go too, if we follow your logic. Fences&Windows 13:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

While the Telegraph is full pro-Tory and the Guardian is full pro-Labour, they do maintain reasonable factual integrity (and are rightfully WP:RS/P). The Mirror is a tabloid (like the Sun) and is even more overtly pro-Labour than the Guardian. The WP:RS/P cautions on The Mirror, but I would suspect that if a proper RFC of UK WP Editors was held on The Mirror, it would be considered the same as The Daily Mail and The Sun. A UK reader coming to the Dominic Cummings BLP and seeing references from The Mirror on a controversial Tory SPAC, is not going to assume that the BLP is very encyclopedic. This guy is a very controversial character with lots of very colorful content (only a sample of which is so far in this BLP) from full WP:RS/P sources (even the FT has done pieces on him) - I think we should stay away from RS like The Mirror here. Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If ever there was a GA-rated UK political BLP left to do that would have high reader interest - this is the one imho. Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree this BLP is of interest, which is why I substantially expanded it in 2016. I don't think anyone since then has done a thorough search for sources. Better sourcing on his Russian years is needed - I see someone just added the news about a "whistleblower". Fences&Windows 13:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I also did a clean up a while back as there was more POV leaking in since your expansion (although, I mainly focused on his film). The "whistleblower" is very interesting (and the Times is a great RS). There is so much misinformation and even demonization of this character E.g. do we cling to the myth of the evil genius? Because the alternative is worse, a high-quality WP BLP would be a great resource to readers, and would make the Main Page? Britishfinance (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

"Parents Estate to Parents Farm" 109.150.24.171 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seagull123 Φ 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Russian business and the KGB

It says that he graduated in 1994 and then moved to Russia, where his business venture 'fell foul of the KGB', but the KGB was disbanded in 1991. Any clarification on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A20192020 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Read the reference; it is on the first page of chapter 11. Britishfinance (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So the referred work is dodgy and unreliable if it makes that mistake?

Explain. Britishfinance (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Remedial Reading Assistant here! The relevant passage from chapter 11 is: According to a ConservativeHome profile in 2014, 'He helped to set up a new airline from Samara, on the Volga, to Vienna. The KGB issued threats, the airline only got one passenger, and the pilot unfortunately took off without the passenger.' This is sourced to [2], a profile written by political journalist Andrew Gimson. We see then that the source does not support the claim the KGB issued threats, but rather that the given source reports this claim made by someone else. Quite different! Let me know if I may be of assistance with this or any other reading tasks! - Remedial Reading Assistant (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted the reference to the KGB causing the failure of the airline. Primarily, I deleted it because there was no supporting evidence in the existing reference. Secondairly, the claim is impossible, since the KGB was disbanded in 1991, and this talk page has already explained why there is not a credible source for the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.163.6 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead

Can we clear this sentence up, please?

"From 2007 to 2014, he was a Special Adviser to the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove."

Clearly, Michael Gove was not the Education Secretary for this whole seven-year period. So was he a SpAd for the Ed Sec for seven years (Michael Gove and whoever was Ed Sec in Gordon Brown's government)? Or was he a SpAd for Gove throughout those seven years, in both government and opposition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.12.34 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be highly unorthodox for a SpAd to serve throughout a change of parties in government. A BBC profile suggests he was a SpAd specifically to Gove, but it doesn't detail whether this started before Gove moved to education. Unfortunately, the only other source I can find is his own blog, which while providing the answer (SpAd to Gove 07-14, inc his time both before and at Education) is likely to be accurate for his CV would not be a WP:RS. Darren-M talk 12:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

KGB

This has been discussed already, but there is simply no way the KGB had anything to do with the closing of the airline in Samara in 1994, because the KGB did not exist at that point. GoldenSensei (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenSensei: Sources seem to suggest unpopular route choice and Russian currency collapse. Not sure either of those are concrete enough for us to cite so think I'm happy with the current bland language. Darren-M talk 12:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Darren-M: Both of those sources do not mention the KGB and specifically mention that this was in post-Soviet Russia. GoldenSensei (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoldenSensei: I seem to have left half a story there... let me try again! An edit today from another member has (correctly) removed mention of the KGB, but we now have no content as to why the airline failed. Best, Darren-M talk 13:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Darren-M: Ahh, didn't see that! I think your suggestions for sources are good. It seems the route was unpopular and the ruble collapsed. GoldenSensei (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

Source 3 does NOT prove what it claims to - there is little to no mention of the son in the article, let alone his name. There is more compelling evidence in Source 56, which I provided, where his son, and therefore his name, is constantly referred to. Bldytoughenup (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are there inverted commas around "leave" in this sentence?

The June 2016 referendum resulted in a 51.9% vote to "leave" the European Union. Cummings was praised alongside Elliott as being one of the masterminds of the campaign.[33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1C9C:6000:586C:4C54:20DF:BC6E (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed them, they don't seem to actually be quoting anything, so do appear unnecessary. Seagull123 Φ 16:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown break

This should not be in the lead section? What's the reason for that again?? The most significant episode in his career to date? Where his actions are defended in a live television broadcast by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It failed WP:VER, and thus WP:BLPREMOVE required it to be removed. I assumed that as you rephrased it before you 'restored' it, that you realised that. It still needs equal weight given to the other side of the story. That is, he didn't go to his parents' house, he didn't break any of the rules and it isn't clear that he was displaying any symptoms. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no dispute that he travelled to his parents' house during the lockdown (the only unproven "allegation" is that he did it more than once), and the episode is clearly of sufficient political importance that it should be mentioned in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: the Guardian say "he went to a house near to but separate from his extended family in case their help was needed". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "his parents' estate", in line with the BBC source I've just added? I believe he now claims that it was his sister and niece (both also virus free at the time) who helped look after his son, but it's not really clear how they did this without any contact taking place. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure he's claiming that? On the BBC they said he'd moved near to his sister's in case he and his wife became too ill to look after their son, as no-one knows how bad they are going to be. But it turned out they din't get it too badly, and all his sister did to help was to deliver shopping to their doorstep. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a number of sources say this, including The Spectator here: "The only possible contact they could have had with his family was when his sister left shopping at the door." But all the later events can't really justify the initial decision to drive himself, his wife and his son to Durham, can they? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Which later events? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Any of those which occurred after they left their London home? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any facts as to what actually happened after that? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can agree they arrived in Durham. I think we also know Cummings became ill. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The bit about driving to Barnard Castle sounds like it's true, from his statement this afternoon. I'm prepared to accept that is a fact. I think he said there was a witness. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that is not particularly true in the way it is written going by this. All we can say is he went walking in the woods when possibly with symptoms but this was probably, not helped by him not remembering, before the rules changed. The Bernard Castle thing maybe unduely weighted by the Guardian "driven around 30 minutes from his family farm to the town of Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday (12 April) - 15 days after he had displayed symptoms" He broke no rules then? That's from a BBC article, what does the FT say? Sorry I'm up to the limit on freebies I believe. If collaborated it should be reflected that he allegedly broke the rules, as Mrs was fine to go out (she had it first) junior had it we think 2nd april, no idea what happened to him exactly, but if on the walk would have been fine as he had to iso for 7 days and not 14. That trip seems a bit of hysteria all though we can all agree he shouldn't have been there to start with! Games of the world (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And the word "alleged" there is really weasel words, as he has never once denied it?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:WEASEL 'alleged' is not a weasel word. Weasel words are thing like "some people say", without being precise about who in particular. In this case it is The Mirror and The Guardian who are doing the alleging, so it turns an otherwise false statement (they hadn't 'revealed' any such thing) into a true one. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I used the word "alleged" that you yourself used in your next edit of the main body? Feel free to adjust further as you see fit. Apparently not his parent's house, but a house on his parents' estate? And yes, it was his wife who had the symptoms when they actually set off driving to Durham (for the first trip, anyway). "Didn't break any of the rules"? Not so sure about that one. Whether he did or not, I think this episode might need to be covered in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You used "alleged" (without admitting it in the edit summary) after I challenged the entry, yes. And I fixed the main body, yes. And you now seem to be agreeing now the contnet about this was grossly inaccurate (and possibly still is)! -- DeFacto (talk). 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead looks 100% aligned with what's been reported by the BBC. What's your problem with it now? I'm still not sure why you "fixed" the main body after removing it wholesale from the lead. But whatever. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the lead still wasn't aligned as it didn't mention the PM's support. I've now added that. And I said why I removed the false statement from the lead, because WP:BLPREMOVE was clear that such blatant false info should be removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) There still seem to be quite a few unknowns in this narrative. It's not even been confirmed if Cummings drove to Durham or got there by some other means? Nor if he had any symptoms or was just fearful of catching the virus. But the BBC source is quite clear - that his wife already had symptoms. In that case even leaving the house on his own would have breached the guidelines? It seems, despite Johnson's efforts to draw this matter to a close, the story has not gone away. There has now been considerable response to Johnson's statement. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There may be useful material, referring to the death of Cummings' uncle Lord Laws from COVID-19, in this article that should be included in the section. I am unsure of how much weight to give it, as it does not seem to have been very widely publicised, though it does seem relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the important points that need to be covered in the article are:
1) Did Cummings break the government guidelines? (the accusation)
2) What was the government response? (the defence)
3) Has Cummings resigned/been sacked? (the consequences)
Everything else is the usual political point-scoring and Twitterati dust cloud, some of which might be worth mentioning but only if it impacts on point 3. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

References to his parents' comments, or to the concerns expressed widely by MPs and other key opinion makers across British society (such as the Daily Mail mentioned here), are not "the usual political point-scoring and Twitterati dust cloud", and should be mentioned to give a balanced overview. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even though we can't use it as a source, the reaction of the Daily Mail is quite a surprise. It seems the actual events (or alleged events, or guessed events) are one story, but the reactions and counter-reactions have become a much bigger one. I'd broadly support PCW's structure as a means to keep the narrative in the article clear. All we should be including are known facts. But we now have so much talk of "safeguarding" and "what any concerned parent would have naturally done" and "exceptional circumstances" etc. etc, that the supposed guidelines for leaving one's house appear to have been much less clear than most people supposed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The developing story is over Johnson's (and others') responses to what Cummings supposedly did, rather than what he actually did. We can use The Guardian's comments about the Mail, if we want. Incidentally, this story will almost certainly require a new, separate article. It's at least as significant as Piggate, and much more significant than Miliband eating a bacon sandwich. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely that's undue weight considering we've had the exact same story play out north of the border with the Scottish Scientific adviser who eventually left (still can't make out if she was pushed, resigned or was told to resign etc) and neither her or Cummings are an MP. Perhaps a better solution would be to create and article covering of both? Games of the world (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that rests in part on a judgement over the relative influence of Cummings, Catherine Calderwood and Neil Ferguson? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite. It's not "the exact same story", because Cummings' profile and purported UK-wide importance in policy terms is much higher. And, more people have parents and children than have second homes or polyamorous married lovers, I suspect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I guessing the house on the estate in Durham wasn't a "second home". But it's just a guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment referred to Calderwood, not Cummings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ghmyrtle: a big problem with adding editorial opinion and speculation about unknown facts, such as those surrounding this story, is getting the appropriate balance and weight. Opinion and speculation from supporters and opposers of the responses would need to be covered proportionately, and could possibly be disputed as WP:RECENTISM anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree it might not be an easy task. We're sure all those others weren't WP:RECENTISM, aren't we. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The possibility that an edit "could possibly be disputed" is not a good reason to exclude it, if it is presented in a balanced way and is of sufficient importance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Makes Traingate look like a (socially-distanced) "walk in the park"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Spy-cicle, you say in your removing edit summary "Does not seem lead worthy at the moment". Where does it fail? His appearance on live UK television, for over an hour, fielding questions from leading figures from the UK's press, seems somewhat notable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In cases like this we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM. We need to wait until the media hype dies down in a few weeks time to be able to accurately access whether this is worth including in the lead and if so how much infomation to include (i.e. a sentence or a paragraph). Often its the case that including it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE weight. I remember the article on a different Dominic where editors were trying to insist the fact we deputised for the prime minister in the first paragraph ([3]) another case of recentism. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 08:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As at present (0930 on 26 May 2020) the article contains nothing about whether Mr Cummings or his wife were suffering from the virus or were supposed to be self-isolating at the time of the trip or any part of it. I tried to put it in, but it was removed without any real reason. It is clearly relevant since if one or both of them were suffering, or had recently been suffering, the trip was more likely to be a breach of the rules and because the drive may have been more dangerous. It is also important because it may reveal mis-information. The facts themselves conflict. Surely the facts can be presented in a neutral way. I used a reliable source (The Times) which relied on primary sources close to the subject-Cummings' wife and "Downing Street." I have not yet read this morning's paper concerning Cumming's statement last night and will put nothing in the article until I have but in the mean time what do other people think?Spinney Hill (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Spinney Hill: are you aware of any reliable sources that can confirm whether either of them were suffering from Covid-19, bearing in mind that the only way to know is by being tested for it? What I believe we do know, from his account, is he said that first his wife, then sometime later himself, and then later still his four-year-old-son, had been ill, and that his son spent a night in hospital and tested negative for coronavirus. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. My point remains the same whether they were ill from the virus or other causes. The statement from "Downing Street" was that Mr Cummings was self -isolating because of the symptoms of Covid 19 and this was reported in the Times (and elsewhere no doubt). Does anybody else have an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinney Hill (talk • contribs) 09:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Now we have more info and more sources though, so you have to balance it all. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition Michael Gove stated on BBC today that Cummings' wife was feeling ill not that she had cornavirus symptoms when they drove. Clearly a bit of OR or POV pushing to say that otherwise in regards to wikipedia or media. Games of the world (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Leave campaign: £350m a week for NHS slogan

Edit deleted on 23:36, 26 May 2020‎ by DeFacto (talk · contribs) per WP:BRD and unsourced/poorly sourced and editorialised and non-NPOV.

As key architect of the Vote Leave campaign, Cummings invented the criticised slogan claiming that voting to leave the EU would allow for increased spending on the National Health Service (NHS) of £350m a week. This was done despite a letter from the head of the UK statistics watchdog Sir Andrew Dilnot which described it as "potentially misleading". Indeed, the £350m figure put forward by the slogan roughly corresponding to the UK's gross contribution to the EU omitted to take into account the rebate deducted from the UK contribution to Europe and the receipts for the public and private sectors. Considering these elements, the claimed figure only amounted to £150 million per week. Theresa May scrapped this implausible pledge when taking over in Downing Street.

References

@DeFacto: Sorry, this paragraph was well sourced by 6 references and apart perhaps two adjectives: "criticised" slogan and "implausible" pledge cannot be considered to have been edited with non-NPOV. It represents what was actually done during this Vote Leave campaign whose Cummings was director. Or, is this piece of information incorrect, or not factual, and why? Then, it would be worth to explain the reason with adequate sources of information from another perspective to correct the things. The media I have consulted attributed this slogan to Cummings: is it not the case? If this is not true, then, from where arose this slogan? So, I do not understand the reason of this revert. How would you formulate this paragraph to consider it to be acceptable from a NPOV? Do you have other and better sources. Naturally, this political slogan was by nature misleading, and it was also hard to imagine that the whole contribution of UK to EU could go to NHS only. So, this slogan led to polemic but if this information is correct there is no reason to ignore it. If you have a better way to reformulate, or to refute, this information completed with other more reliable sources, please, do it. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shinkolobwe: let's take it sentence by sentence.

• As key architect of the Vote Leave campaign, Cummings invented the criticised slogan claiming that voting to leave the EU would allow for increased spending on the National Health Service (NHS) of £350m a week.

Three references are supplied for this (a Channel 4 blog, an ITV News report and a libary image of a leaflet), yet neither even mention Cummings, let alone that he was the "key architect" or had "invented" the slogan. The word "criticised" is nothing more that subjective POV unless attributed as to who the critics are, and balanced by "and supported in equal numbers", or whatever. The word "claiming" is listed in WP:Words to watch as a "loaded" term when used in this way to call something's credibility into question.

• This was done despite a letter from the head of the UK statistics watchdog Sir Andrew Dilnot which described it as "potentially misleading".

One reference was supplied to support this (an Independent opinion piece), which does not mention anyone called "Andrew Dilnot" or the phrase "potentially misleading". And the word "despite" is advised against in WP:EDITORIALIZING as it can imply a relationship which is not sourced.

• Indeed, the £350m figure put forward by the slogan roughly corresponding to the UK's gross contribution to the EU omitted to take into account the rebate deducted from the UK contribution to Europe and the receipts for the public and private sectors.

The adverb "indeed" is used in an editorialisng way to emphasise a POV rather help describe a fact.

• Considering these elements, the claimed figure only amounted to £150 million per week.

Supported by what looks like a primary source which like it would need a bit of original research to extract the stated information from it (but if it's just a quick calc, it would help to give the inputs). Also the word "claimed" being pointedly used again.

• Theresa May scrapped this implausible pledge when taking over in Downing Street.

No source supplied, which is needed to support the implied relationship between this and the POV being forwarded. I'm a bit worried about the phrase "implausible pledge" too as it (without support) implies the slogan is a pledge, rather than a thought-provoking political slogan, and pushes the unsupported POV again that the number is unreasonable.

Particularly in a biography such as this, all statements need to be reliably sourced and all POV needs to be attributed as to whose it is, as well as reliably sourced - and possibly balanced with other POVs. Also neutral (i.e. not weighted) language needs to be used and editorialising strictly avoided. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Thank you for your feedback and these detailed remarks pointing where to adapt a contribution on this subject.

Picture

Can we get a picture of Dominic Cummings as an important article like this one should have a picture of the man in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuskyDunes (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any available under a suitable licence - see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Identifying_usable_images. SmartSE (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 lockdown breaking (possible new article)

Any thoughts on giving the Cummings affair it's own page as it's been a ongoing scandal for a few days, doesn't seem to be going away any time soon and has seriously damaged the governments popularity? Llewee (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Not yet. I feel if you created one at the moment you would have quote farm. Games of the world (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Llewee: and @Games of the world: I think it is worthy of a page as it's seen significant coverage; I have been working on a draft at Draft:Dominic Cummings scandal. Other names are available. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

In the coronavirus section of the page can you please make it clear that when Mr Cummings returned to work after his wife had been sick that he was going against the advice laid out in the coronavirus guidelines that clearly state that you should stay home if you "live with someone who has symptoms that may be caused by coronavirus". Ref: https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/coronavirus-covid-19/test-trace-and-isolate/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-infection. 82.17.188.197 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done. OR. Apparently his wife did not have COVID-19 symptoms at that point, she was just ill, in his account and other MPs have said that. Games of the world (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Note

• See also: Draft talk:Dominic Cummings scandal Hatnote added by Seagull123 Φ at 16:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have created a brief draft, where information is being added, at Draft:Dominic Cummings scandal. Andysmith248 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andysmith248: I think that's a bad idea, for at least two reasons: WP:POVFORK and WP:ATTACK. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: You've tagged the draft article for speedy delete under WP:G10, saying that it was: unsourced and misrepresented attack content. Although the article could be a problem with WP:POVFORK (as you said, although I personally am not yet convinced of this), I struggle to see how it is an "attack page" which may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced (the WP:G10 deletion criteria]]). The draft is/was sourced, and it's not (as far as I can see) libel, a legal threat, or purely intended to harass or intimidate - the draft, to me anyway, appeared to describe the situation, give a timeline, and reactions to this situatuon. There are a lot of RS's for what's going on at the moment with Cummings, and although it may be too early to properly judge this and create a 'sub-article', I don't believe that WP:G10 is applicable to this draft? However, calling it a "scandal" may not quite be WP:NPOV. Seagull123 Φ 15:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Correcting a wikilink in my comment Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seagull123: 'libel' is the key here. The word 'scandal' in the article title is used as if it is a fact, when it is only a subjective opinion. To use that word like that requires a consensus that the consensus amongst reliable sources characterises the event as such, and even then it would probably have to be characterised and attributed as 'opinion'. See WP:YESPOV. There are also assertions, such as "The government confirmed that ... had displayed symptoms of COVID-19 and was self-isolating at home.", which are unsupported. There's an unsupported assertion that "There were reports of the family being seen in a wood near Durham on this day, and elsewhere in the area." There's an assertion that "Reports said that ... was seen in his father's garden.", whereas the cited source only says "was reportedly spotted" - i.e. doesn't say he was spotted. I could go on. Even the evolution of the draft (looking through its short history) suggests it is being edited to maximise the impact of the accusations and implications, rather than to present a neutral representation of the events. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: there are lots of reliable sources I could find which describe the situation as a scandal: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], but I would still have been happy to change the title if another had been put forward. Some inline citations for the lines you mentioned could easily have been added in as the page was further incubated in the draftspace. Regarding the line about him in his father's garden, to say that reports said he was spotted has the same meaning as "reportedly spotted". Noticed you also removed it from List of political scandals in the United Kingdom; why do you give WP:RS as a reason for doing this? I don't understand your last argument - the "evolution of the draft" doesn't suggest anything. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andysmith248: I've replied to this same post at Draft talk:Dominic Cummings scandal#Contested deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andysmith248 and DeFacto: I suggest we keep this discussion to Draft talk:Dominic Cummings scandal to prevent it clogging up this talk page - I'm about to reply there too.  Note: Also, as a note to other editors, there's a discussion about a draft article of what's happened with Cummings recently at Draft talk:Dominic Cummings scandal, where other editors are invited to discuss the issues described there. Seagull123 Φ 16:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll continue there. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

When someone doubts his/her eyesight - Is it legal in Britain to test it by driving 50 km ?

In his view he passed the test for eyesight because he didn't cause a traffic accident, in my view he passed the test for carelessness bordering on criminal recklessness. Why are there no charges for this damning confession? --Quackerump (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It's being investigated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quackerump: it is legal, as far as I know, so long as they can pass the required eye test described here. That doesn't mean that a conscientious driver wouldn't apply a higher standard for their own driving requirements though, and, perhaps, take a short drive to see if they felt comfortable, before, say, embarking on a long drive, and especially if their wife seemed a bit anxious because during a recent illness their eyes had been playing up a bit. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

​​So DeFacto is saying it's legal to test, by driving, whether your eyesight is up to legal standard to drive, -so long as you have first tested your eyesight is up to legal standard to drive? Apart from being nonsensical, that's very generous to Cummings considering neither he nor anyone else to my knowledge has suggested such prior test took place.

It's also generous to suggest it was "a short drive" they took (to a beauty spot on his wife's 45th birthday). A 60 mile round trip, some 95 km, taking an hour to an hour and a half to complete, is not "a short drive", particularly not if undertaken to assess if one is fit (or not, presumably,) to drive.

I can't speak to DeFacto's reasons for cooking up this convoluted and unwarranted defence of Cummings, but I can assert that driving while impaired is illegal, and I would suggest that driving while uncertain of one's fitness to do so would come under "Driving without due care and attention" - also an offence. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC) --- [edit] Some more authoritative voices than mine here.

@Captainllama: no, I did not say that about the test, please don't put words into my mouth and then criticise them as if they were mine. There was no suggestion that the 'test' was to establish whether his eyesight was legal, I assumed, from what we know so far, that it was more to confirm that he, and possibly more importantly his wife, felt comfortable enough with his eyesight for the long journey ahead. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto:​​​Although both the question and your reply refer to legality, I can accept you were saying the test drive was only to assess comfort. That's a fine distinction, and the legal bar is surely higher than the comfort bar. I suspect fewer people are unhappy with their legally acceptable eyesight than those who are comfortable with their substandard vision. I'm sorry you feel I misrepresented you, I put it more baldly than you did but I don't discern any material discrepancy. Captainllama (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

​​​Cummings stated in the press briefing that “My eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease.” Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states “If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight he is guilty of an offence”. Most experts describe this as a clear violation of the law. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/05/27/driving-instructors-slam-ministers-and-tory-mps-for-backing-dominic-cummings-defective-eyesight-driving-offence/ PoliceSheep99 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

For @Quackerump's reference, a blog here on the DVLA website discusses eyesight, driving, and the law. And also, the Humanities Reference Desk may be able to provide further insight into this question. Seagull123 Φ 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

​ You know this cool cartoon? --Quackerump (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Can we have a mention of DC's strange claim to have predicted the pandemic which he supported by referring to his blog, which was in fact edited retrospectively. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52808059 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:DD87:4EEC:9978:43F0 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It also gets a mention here https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/26/dominic-cummings-faces-questions-over-claim-he-warned-last-year-of-virus-threat

2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:DD87:4EEC:9978:43F0 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I've closed this as it's not a fully-formed request. No judgement on whether this should or should not be included. SmartSE (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Cummings urged a faster lockdown..." [Fact??]

Under ====COVID-19 pandemic====, this page currently carries (permalink) a claim that,

Cummings urged a faster lockdown and encouraged the scientists to support the closure of pubs and restaurants.

This political (and reputationally) revevant claim is sourced to an article on bloomberg.com [11] and is based on a report of anonymous claims, apparently made behind a wall of secrecy:

Boris Johnson’s most powerful political aide pressed the U.K.’s independent scientific advisers to recommend lockdown measures in an effort to stop the spread of coronavirus, according to people familiar with the matter. ...

According to two people involved,...

Speaking on condition of anonymity because the meetings are private, the people said Cummings asked why a lockdown was not being imposed sooner, swayed the discussion toward faster action, and made clear he thought pubs and restaurants should be closed within two days. They then were.

Two questions:

• Especially on a BLP, is it appropriate to be making statement/s of fact based solely on report/s of anonymous (and possibly unverifiable) claims?

• Is there also an editorial issue (per WP:UNDUE) regarding what sort of weight can reasonably be ascribed to such (apparently unconfirmed) anonymous claims?

  86.134.212.26 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Am unable to find any other press reports supporting the claim, although no surprise when nothing is ever published directly from the SAGE meetings. It came as a surprise to many that Cummings, and data scientist Ben Warner, were participants. Generally Bloomberg is considered a reliable source? But yes, it seems that report is unverifiable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Martinevans123. Hum... I also see in The Guardian ([12], last para),

...insiders say it was Cummings, above all, who persuaded the laissez-faire, anti-nanny state prime minister to go for an all-out lockdown – not least because his focus groups were telling him the public wanted clear instructions.

That seems to offer a plausible explanation, at least. Though I still feel the sentence needs careful rewriting/contextualization. Imo, on Wikipedia, we can't just decontextualize anonymous claims so that they're presented as 'fact'. At present, DC seems to come out of that sentence as the (alternative?) hero who brought the government to his senses... Or at least, that's how I read it. Fwiw, I really wouldn't know what to believe here (especially with these sorts of political characters, and all the 'truth-twisting' going on, whether behind veils of secrecy, or otherwise). 86.134.212.26 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Alas that link now seems to have different last para? ....about Suddeutsche Zeitung saying "the government’s credibility “could have been seriously damaged by the generous interpretation of the lockdown rules in Cummings’ favour”." So perhaps that page has been updated since you saw it. It can now be found here. But all so much opinion and speculation, as far as I can see. Totally agree with your point about "decontextualize anonymous claims so that they're presented as 'fact'". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, woops sorry Martinevans123, I copied and posted the wrong link... Thank you for your patience! Could I ask somebody here to edit appropriately what was, quite clearly (no From Russia with Cum..., I'm glad to say :), a perfectly gf piece of content? Thanks again, 86.134.212.26 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Formal edit request

• Per the above, Totally agree with your point about "decontextualize anonymous claims so that they're presented as 'fact'", the claim "Cummings urged a faster lockdown and encouraged the scientists to support the closure of pubs and restaurants" may be significantly misleading (especially given our almost complete lack of knowledge of historical context regarding the dynamics of the SAGE discussion). Imo, this claim needs careful rewriting, including some contextualization and mention of its origin from anonymous insiders. [13] [14]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.212.26 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please change

  Cummings urged a faster lockdown and encouraged the scientists to support the closure of pubs and restaurants.

  to (per the cited source),

  According to two people who attended a SAGE meeting of 18 March, Cummings played more than a bystander's role: he pressed for a faster lockdown, including closure of pubs and restaurants within two days.

 Partly done: "played more than a bystander's role" is, in my opinion, needless editorialising, but the rest seems appropriate so I have gone ahead with that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Thank you for doing that RandomCanadian. For the record at least, I cannot agree with your assertion that "played more than a bystander's role" is "needless editorialising" - a point I feel the need to refute. Per the cited source, "The government [had] confirmed that Dominic Cummings was an *observer* at some meetings of its Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)" In other words, as an "observer", presumably, he would not be supposed to engage in the discussions - a key claim that was at the centre of much political, public and private debate at the time. So, when the cited source continues "According to two people involved, Cummings played far more than a bystander’s role at a crucial SAGE meeting on March 18..." it is effectively reporting a real development in public understanding (regarding this political adviser's role in the generation of national scientific advice on major public health decisions). Not "needless editorialising" :-) 86.134.212.26 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

"he travelled to his parents' farm in Durham" should say "he travelled to his second home in Durham". The UK Land Registry shows that Dominic Cummings owns the house the stayed in. 94.193.247.18 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please see also WP:BLPPRIMARY for an explanation of why we don't use primary sources like land records for biographies of living persons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Photograph

I note that the only picture of Cummings, thus far, in this article is one of an effigy of him depicted as a Satanic puppet-master, with devil horns and "DEMONIC CUMMINGS" on his forehead.

If anybody has a more neutral photograph of him to place in the article, then that would be preferable in my view, as per WP:BLP. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is one. [15] One has to ask the copyright holder though. --Quackerump (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Perspective

1) Please, please, please, if you are editing this page, put aside whatever feelings you might have about Dominic Cummings. If you do have strong feelings, perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article at all. 2) The above as a principle being noted (I hope), I make the suggestion that this text: '...In May 2020, two leaders of opposition parties called for Cummings to resign after it was reported that he travelled to his parents' farm...' is absolutely not in order for serving as introductory text. It should be put further down on the page and revised as the facts become clearer. It is a specific incident and opening paragraphs are necessarily of a general nature. I will be making that edit unless I hear some compelling reason otherwise. Knucmo2 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know him in person -- I despise that he won't face any consequences for his wrongdoing of driving 60 miles in order to test that his eyesight is fit for driving. (Imagine someone drinks beer and wants to test if he/she is still fit for driving.)

And I despise that he can even pretend that what he did was legal and reasonable. (And that the Prime Minister endorses that without caveat.)

And I despise that those who call this by its name like Emily Maitlis are reprimanded. (Self-censorship no better than in China.) --Quackerump (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be on here. Emily broke the BBC charter and Ofcom rules, by giving an opinion which she knows she is not allowed to do. Same reason for the BBC racism Trump argument. No one had an issue with what was said, just it was an opinion and not a fact which broke the charter. Although it was a lot more reasonable and less opinionated than what Emily said. Games of the world (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quackerump: rest assured, if Durham police could find evidence of any wrongdoing, he would have to face consequences. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially in headlines on the websites of campaigning newspapers. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quackerump, Games of the world, and DeFacto: Sorry, but I will be referring this upwards unless I receive assurances that we are not here to debate politics - whether that's the rights or wrongs of Emily Maitlis's reprimand or whether Cummings broke the rules - we are here to write articles on people, events and the rest. We read, write and verify. That's that. Respectfully, please ask yourself why you are here if you are not here to write an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT for further details. Knucmo2 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quackerump, Games of the world, and DeFacto: None of these comments have anything to do with the article. Please go somewhere else if you want to debate the rights and wrongs. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As some people have a habit of keeping on pushing their view, sometimes a brief and clear explanation knocks it on the head. Not intending in my comments to inflame the discussion. Games of the world (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Knucmo2: I agree that the opposition leader bit is a bit clunky, but what seems weird to me is that there is no mention of anyone else calling for him to resign. Something along the lines of "there were widespread calls for him to resign" would be a more accurate summary of the coverage and the article should definitely state that 71 % of the public think he broke the rules and 59 % that he should resign: [16]. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please can I thank De Facto for restoring some order and sense to the account of events as set out by Mr Cummings in his press conference. It is the fullest version of the events we have. It may or may not be true of course (incidentally I dislike the Wikipedia convention of not using "Mr" in articles about living people . When I was a prosecutor we always used Mr, Miss or Mrs in court as a matter of courtesy, even when referring to convicted criminals). Can we now leave this section as it is unless perhaps further major facts emerge? The criticisms and any further police statements are of course a different matter. I understand there may be a question of prosecution for a traffic offence relating to the Barnard Castle trip. I have not seen any reported criticism of Cummings for being at work anyway aqpart from Jeremy Hunts brief mention of part of one day. The advice at the time was not to go to work if you could work at home. Some of the time surely he could have worked phone calls,video conferencing and emails but since there has been nothing in the press we cannot comment on this. Perhaps fortunately. We all have prejudices and may not be aware of them. I hope mine have not affected my contributions. For the avoidance of doubt I declare I am not employed by anybody. I have no connection with the Cummings family, Durham Police or any of the major critics of Cummings except that I met Kier Starmer once when I worked for the CPS and he was head of the department as DPP. I have no political affiliations except that I am a registered supporter of the Labour Party (not a Corbinista)Spinney Hill (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC).

Hi Spinney. Good thoughts on the whole. I agree with the need to sit back and wait for things to emerge. I think being a supporter of the Labour Party counts as political affiliation though! Knucmo2 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Peoples Vote March October 3959 Demonic Cummings sculpture.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

OR commentary on trip to Barnard Castle?

In the article we have currently got the following commentary on Cummings's statement about his trip to Barnard Castle: "This explanation has left many skeptical, especially since many outlets reported it took place on his wife's birthday." This has been removed and then restored by its originating editor (@Eccekevin:) several times. Six (was seven) references have now been appended to this sentence, as if to 'prove' that it is supported. My view is that I don't think the statement, given in Wikipedia's voice, is currently supported by the references, and thus it contravenes WP:OR - it is the editor's opinion (based on their synthesis of the soures) and not a fact rooted in the supplied sources.

In my mind, there are two problems with it. Firstly, the use of 'many' in "has left many skeptical" If any of the sources did say that "many" are sceptical, we need to identify which, and who they say this group consists of (opposition politicians, general public, etc.) - from a verifiability stance, and so readers can see the context.

Secondly, sure we can say from the sources that his wife's birthday was on that day, but even that, I think, would be to give that fact undue weight and prominence. But what we shouldn't do, is to imply from the fact that six or seven sources say it was her birthday, is to imply that scepticism (if we can reliably source that there is some) is "especially" because of this unless, again, we can identify sources which make this link. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So my proposal is to either remove the whole sentence, or replace it with something less subjective, more neutral, and actually verifiable from the sources - such as: "This explanation has given rise to scepticism in the media." -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To say this is OR is a bit over defensive, clearly the sheer number of negative front page articles clearly, and without doubt, show that many were indeed sceptical. To further support this I have added yet another reference the Guardian report on the Yougov Poll ~ People are particularly sceptical about the reasons he gave for a trip to Barnard Castle on 12 April after recovering from illness, with 72% saying they do not believe that he wanted a trial drive to see if his eyesight was good enough. A massive 81% think Cummings broke the rules. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be misleading, at best, to say that the "scepticism" is restricted to "the media". As reported here, for example, "A fifth of Britons are following the lockdown rules less strictly than before – with a third of those citing Dominic Cummings’ actions as a factor, a survey has indicated..... of the 21% who said they followed the rules less strictly, 32% mentioned Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s senior adviser as one of the reasons for their breaches." User:Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree, in the light of that newly added source. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bodney: I'm happy with "sceptical", as evidenced by by alternaive proposal of "This explanation has given rise to scepticism in the media." I stated above. And thanks for the new opinion poll ref, it actually supports that statement now, and allows us to elaborate on it slightly perhaps. But my main problem, as also stated above, is with the unsupported and unattributed opinion about his wife's birthday. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I agree with User:Ghmyrtle ... that it is misleading, at best, to say that the "scepticism" is restricted to "the media", the poll clearly shows that. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bodney: yes, so do I, in the light of that new and worthy source, it was a best compromise before you brought that though. What about my main point - the unsupported and unattributed opinion about his wife's birthday - are you happy to eliminate that? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this controversial trip, followed by an explanation that left 80% of Britons sceptical and had lead to much discussion, happened on the day of his wife's birthday is a fact that many media outlets have reported and discussed (as shown per sources) and that has been a widely discussed topic in the national conversation. While the wording can be definitely improved, I do not think this fact should be hidden or removed from Wikipedia.Eccekevin (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: the important question is: can you give quotes from the sources that supports the assertion "especially since many outlets reported it took place on his wife's birthday", in relation to people being sceptical? That is, a reference that links the level of scepticism to it having been reported that it was his wife's birthday on that day before they drove to back to London. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I think the are two facts. Firstly, that most people do not believe Cummings excuse for going to Barnard Castle, and Secondly, it is fact that he went there on his wife's Birthday (I am not sure how you can believe that this is unsupported or unattributed).. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Bodney. Further sources: outlets discussing the fact it was his wife birthday . Michael Gove discussing the topic and saying despite public discourse, it is a coincidence: Eccekevin (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: I'm not disputing that we can support it being her birthday, I'm asking for a quote from a source to support us saying that there was more scepticism because it was her birthday. Can you understand that subtle difference? That is the difference between it being OR, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bodney: It is not those two facts that I think are unsupported, I agree 100% that there are those two facts. But, and this is the issue: has a reliable source explicitly connected those two facts - saying that scepticism was affected by it being on her birthday? If there is, then please supply a quote from it and it can be used to support the statement. If, however, that link is not unambiguously made in the sources, then it is OR to make it in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had some sympathy with DeFacto's assertion of original research but felt he had got the focus wrong. The prior phrasing had been

"Cummings stated that this was to assess whether he was well enough to drive, as his wife was concerned that the disease had affected his eyesight. This explanation has left many sceptical, especially since it was his wife's birthday."

I am not aware of any source openly stating scepticism (however implied it may be) whereas virtually every source refers to her birthday. Yet DeFacto kept the scepticism and removed her birthday.

My edit said "It was widely noted that this was on his wife's 45th birthday" and gave 5 sources with birthday quotes, and the summary "exceptional [sic] and sceptical" removed, it is not for Wikipedia to say if his wife's birthday is pertinent, but to report that reliable sources consider it to be".

User Games of the world removed the quotes without explanation, and then DeFacto removed the whole thing as "original research" with the rationale that none of the 5 sources said it was widely noted. By that reasoning, rather than saying "widely" I could have written that 5 sources say it, but been reverted because none of the 5 sources say that 5 sources say it. Whilst assuming good faith, this circular logic is akin to DeFacto's earlier assertion that it was ok for Cummings to test his eyesight was up to driving standard by driving, so long as he had previously tested his eyesight was up to driving standard.

For what it's worth, the Wales online source brought up says nothing about scepticism that the trip was to test his eyesight on his wife's birthday.

Also in my edit I was careful to make clear that Cummings confirmed his eyesight had been affected, not merely that his wife was worried it may have been, as evidenced here:

https://youtube.com/2boj3uBU2lY?t=570

I propose reinstatement of my edit as properly neutral reporting of what reliable sources actually say. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Captainllama: please do not use misrepresentations of my contributions to other discussions as an argument against my case here. This discussion is about whether there is a reliable source linking the birthday with the level of scepticism. Are you able to provide one? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the quotes as they were in the references and no one can see them in the article as noted in my edit. Secondly they were fairly lengthily and took up unwanted space. I also will object to you reinstating the post as it was for the following reasons. 1 tatler no idea how RS that is, but OK nothing controversial. 2. Forbes is controversial no other source states that his eye sight was or that he thought his sight was illegal to drive and including it is OR and based on 1 source is not strong enough to be considered fact. 3. The rest of the quotes all say the same thing he took a drive to the castle to check his sight. This is overkill. 4. Quotes not in the article and in the references. That's not correct, since you feel it was that important to quote then quote in the article. Not outside of it. Games of the world (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: "...is a reliable source linking the birthday with the level of scepticism. Are you able to provide one?" No, of course not. Had you read my edit, my edit summary, or my post above, you would know that I specifically rejected the term "sceptical" as unsourced pov. Kindly re-read, you will see I am broadly in agreement with you but I am baffled that you took out the well-sourced references to his eyesight but left in the unsourced term "sceptical".

@Games of the world: That is not policy regarding quotes in references, they are perfectly acceptable whether also in the article or not, in fact it would be redundant to have them both in the reference and the article. Captainllama (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed my own wording to more accurately mirroring what the sources say, such as "Many people have questioned whether it was dangerous to test his ability to drive with his wife and child in the car and said it was a breach of the Highway Code and motoring laws. Others have pointed out that it took place on his wife's birthday."Eccekevin (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Many outlets have simply reported the fact in conjunction with reporting the skepticism of Britons, but Wired U for examples makes it more explicit, as you were asking: "Cynics of that theory have pointed out that the trip to Barnard Castle suspiciously happened on the same day Cummings’ wife celebrated her 45th birthday: April 12. " Eccekevin (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure there will be political, axe-grinding, campaigning and otherwise partisan accounts given. We need to be careful though to give just the duly-weighted balance/consensus of what the cross-section of reliable sources are saying, and not the fringe view from one side of the divide. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Still problematic

We've still got problems with this. Currently we have this sentence: "Cummings's statement was met with scepticism from both the media and the public, with some journalists commenting on the fact that the journey to Barnard Castle took place on his wife's birthday."

The first phrase, up to the comma, still doesn't have a source to support it as a fact rather than as an opinion, so it needs to be stated as opinion, and attributed as to whose opinion (journalist or publication will do) it is. I tried to do this, but was reverted byDeb who just added another reference which didn't support this.

The last phrase has "some journalists", classic weasel words, and a string of now ten references behind it doing nothing. And there is still no reason apparent in the prose for mentioning it was her birthday in the same sentence as the opinion about scepticism, rather than as another sentence elsewhere in the account. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not revert you, I improved the wording yet again and added more references to try to address your concerns. Don't forget I didn't write any of this, I'm merely trying to improve it. Feel free to do that; just adding tags is not really likely to help. Although I agree that the mention of the birthday is perhaps superfluous, a sentence that says the media have commented on it being her birthday is a statement of fact. The implication is clear to us but we should go no further in making it apparent to a reader. Deb (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

With no other editors taking this up, I've moved the birthday bit to where the date is mentioned, and provided a single ref to support it, thus eliminating the weasel word and the excessive references. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Another aspect

@Smartse: in this revert you ask "Why is this commentary relevant?" Because it looks at another aspect of the story, an attempt to rationalise the backlash, why not? If you are aware of "hundreds of commentary articles about the saga" doing a similar thing, perhaps you could bring a cross section of them here, and see if we can build an interesting and neutral paragraph, or two, on 'reactions to the backlash'. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My point is why is this particular article relevant, i.e. WP:WEIGHT. It could potentially be used alongside other pieces of commentary, but at the moment there is no commentary included in the article and just including Slate gives undue weight to that perspective. If we had a seperate article about it, it might belong there, but only alongside other commentary pieces e.g. [17] [18] etc. We'd need to do a lot of research to ensure that we are providing the correct weights to different sources however. SmartSE (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smartse: my point is that another aspect (one other than those from partisan British media, especially the Guardian which, along with the Mirror, created this story) adds interest and balance. Weight comes from the reputation of the source. Can you find other uninvolved sources with a take on this story? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian (and certainly the Mirror) might be partisan, but it is a high-quality source as far as reportage does. Guido Fawkes it is not. --Knucmo2 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth including?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/07/dominic-cummings-call-for-new-investigation-into-durham-trip / https://www.hja.net/press-releases/launch-of-citizens-bid-for-prosecution-of-dominic-cummings Selroh18 (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing picture

Other profiles have a portrait picture of the person/subject. Could we add one to the box on the right like for example Boris has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flippycurb (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flippycurb: We could, if there's a free picture available. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Seem to be picking up the newspapers are talking about Cummings in the last week and bringing up new things. Unsure if these are simply easy bits for journalists to add to stories or if there is substance behind some points, and some journals may have anti-Cummings bias. [19]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies to those stories, so far as I can tell. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cummings work relationshio with No. 10

Please be careful about exactly what is being reported about Cummings position from 13 November 2020. It may be unclear if he actually "resigned" and there are indications he may be working from home". In particular beware of using [20] to source the fact he has resigned ... and remember there are at least two different versions of that with different titles: [21] (Cummings to leave No 10 with immediate effect) and [22] (Dominic Cummings: PM's top adviser leaves No 10 to 'clear the air'). Its not clear any use the "resign" word at this moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems clear that Cummings is no longer in the job. There may possibly be a suggestion that he will return but this seems unlikely. There are two probabilities: he resigned or he was sacked. It seems to me to be impossible to come up with wording that implies neither. "left" implies resignation. What should we do about this?Spinney Hill (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Current reports seem to suggest he was given notice but is still working offsite. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think ye are clutching at straws. He was descriibed by the Guardian as a "former advisor" at noon this morning.[23]. The consensus is clear that he was pushed after a failed power struggle. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, my point is that it was wrong saying he had "resigned". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Change from: Registered companies Cummings is registered as a director of the non-trading company Klute Ltd, which formerly owned the Klute nightclub in Durham,[130][131] and Dynamic Maps Ltd, an information technology consultancy.[132] He runs another company called North Wood that "tries to solve problems" related to management, politics and communications.[133]

Change to: Registered companies Cummings is registered as a director of the non-trading company Klute Ltd, which formerly owned the Klute nightclub in Durham,[130][131] and Dynamic Maps Ltd, an information technology consultancy (Dissolved on 13 October 2020).[132] He runs another company called North Wood that "tries to solve problems" related to management, politics and communications.[133]

Evidence to show the company was dissolved: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11000656 Csmith500 (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"Chief Adviser" or "Assistant"?

Ought Cummings's title be changed to "assistant" as per his claim yesterday that he was never official recognised as the "chief adviser" to the PM?

The sources for the current title use the term "chief adviser" without capitals, as that was his de facto, rather than de jure, rule.

edit: Here's the source for that: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2249/pdf/ Q980

--KingUther (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Refering to Cummings as the Prime Minister's chief advisor is useful as a description, but in places like the infobox, the first line of the lede and relevant section header "Assistant to the Prime Minister" should be used. I was actually coming to this talk page to suggest exactly the same thing! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Number Cruncher Politics poll

To editor Smartse: yes, that Telegraph page has moved on since I cited it. Luckily the Wayback Machine shows I wasn't imagining it though! However, I do accept that the poll results haven't achieved significant coverage, in fact I couldn't find any other RS coverage of them just now, and so am happy to leave them out. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: That link's not working for me either... regardless, The Guardian are today reporting the opposite to what The Telegraph reported on Friday, which I think demonstrates the problem with trying to ascribe anything to individual polls. SmartSE (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Smartse, weird, but for what it's worth, it has turned up in this Telegraph article now. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In general I would be against including polls in individual people's articles, unless there is a clear link shown. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to Substack

In this edit, I added a link to Cummings's Substack newsletter. In this edit, @Djm-leighpark: removed it, alongside another link I have no opinion on, calling it "spam". I disagree with this description as it is a newsletter/blog run by Cummings himself and is used as a source by the BBC. Considering that we link to his old website (labeled "Official"), which itself was only a blog, it seems appropriate that we link to the website he links to on his twitter page.--Noaht2 (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In a nutshell I take the view per WP:ELNO an entity is expected to organise its "primary" website to point to others. Essentially If there is consensus "substack" is Cummings primary website as opposed to others then I have no object to that being marked as the primary website. Having checked his blog (which is marked as his primary website) with its domain name presumably under the control of Cummings I would regard that as his primary website. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

Add link to Sonia Khan in article, i.e. 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Khan'. 139.181.48.2 (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - The political adviser Sonia Khan does not have an article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you were confusing her with the actress Sonia Khan. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021 (different request/editor)

The Spitting Image (2020 TV series) voice actor is Danny Barker, not Baker, according to that article. Not in either refs 128 or 129 of this article, but here at IMDB. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted. Have adjusted the text. But I'm not sure that IMDb is considered a WP:RS. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think IMDb is RS in general, which is why I didn't suggest adding it as a ref. But the RS such as Radio Times seem to be {{subscription required}}. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is Daniel at comedy.co.uk, but no mention of Cummings, alas. Unable to find him at Radio Times. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dominic Cummings speaking to a parliamentary committee 1.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dominic Cummings speaking to a parliamentary committee 1.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Campaign to leave the European Union

The statement I have just restored is an opinion in which it says Brexit would allow the Government to spent the money saved on the NHS. Nobody suggests the Government would have no choice except to do this. "could allow".suggests that Brexit might still not allow that money to be so spent. It was clearly not intended to imply that no money would be saved..The slogan on the infamous bus said something else viz."We send the EU £50 Million a day.Lets fund the NHS instead." Spinney Hill (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Source The Guardian 27 May 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/27/the-guardian-view-on-the-leave-campaign-show-some-respect-for-truth It may be said that the amount of £50M was a matter of opinion but that is not what the slogan said.Spinney Hill (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)