Talk:Partygate/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Worrying reliance on tabloid press

Sure we can support that the Daily Mirror or Sunday Mirror said this, or the Daily Record said that, or the Sunday Sport, or whatever - if we use a reference citing a third party reliable source. But isn't that simply a crude and unworthy means of inserting their sensationalist, questionable, and scandalmongering content into the article? Currently we have acknowledged the Mirror as the source of content in at least 9 places, the Daily Record 3 times, the Evening Standard 5 times (and there may be others, including even the Daily Mail, that we are proxying in this way). Are we really that short of quality reliable support for the article content that we have to scrape the barrel in this way? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The article has 184 refs, so I'm not sure that's scrapping any barrel. The Pork Pie Plot is reported by sources which are all "upper crust"? So no problem there? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
We are bound by WP:RS and can look to WP:RSP. Part of the point of WP:RS is that we trust RSs to carry out due diligence in their reporting. If RS choose to report what the Mirror has said, we can presume they have done their own due diligence in doing so with respect to, e.g, any libel concerns. We should use the best sources, but equally when the Mirror (or whoever) is part of the story themselves (because they broke a story), we should reflect that.
I note that WP:RSP has both the Mirror and Evening Standard only in yellow, and doesn't mention the Daily Record at all, so we are allowed to use them, with care. I think we should be citing the Mirror more in those cases where the Mirror broke an aspect of the story. I think your characterisation of the Mirror's reporting as sensationalist, questionable, and scandalmongering reflects your, DeFacto's, persistent opinion that Partygate has all been exaggerated. That opinion seems out of step with the nation's and that of quality reliable sources. As far as I can see, the Mirror's reporting has been very reliable around Partygate. We're not facing the imminent end of Boris Johnson's premiership because of sensationalist, questionable, and scandalmongering reporting: we're facing the imminent end of Boris Johnson's premiership because what the Mirror reported was correct.
As these events recede into the past, there will be more tertiary and/or scholarly sources, and we can use those as they become available. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
"Partygate has all been exaggerated"?? I guess we all know who is the worst offender. Well, Nadine Dorries does anyway... If DeFacto has a problem with any flaky sources he's very welcome to replace them with better ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Of the papers you name above, only the Daily Lies is proscribed. The others are not absolutely reliable and, as I have said before, I always try to add a second source for extra verification. Apart from the Lies, the Daily Fascist and The Scum, I see no reason not to use other British papers. I know the Daily Star is also proscribed but, to be fair, that's more satire than news and so not to be taken too seriously, although today's edition is spot on about Pinocchio.
Sensationalism is all part of the game in the news industry – headlines sell papers. Questionable? Well, sometimes they exaggerate or get their facts wrong, especially if someone doesn't tell them something. As for scandalmongering, they are simply exposing the latest lies, sleaze and incompetence by Pinocchio and the Corrupt Party. Nothing wrong with that at all. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
If a reliable source uses a less reliable one as a source, then that's fine for us. I'm sure that there is a specific bit of text about this somewhere in WP: space but it's eluding me at the moment. It might also have come up somewhere in the Daily Mail deprecation discussion. By acknowledging the Mirror as the original source of information we provide more context for the reader but are not directly citing sources of uncertain reliability. This episode and let the bodies pile high demonstrate that a simplistic view of a newspaper being either unreliable or reliable is not tenable. Without examples, it's difficult to know what you consider to be "sensationalist, questionable, and scandalmongering" or what is "scraping the barrel". SmartSE (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow - given what WP:BLPSOURCE adds to WP:VER, "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." (my emphasis), who would have thought we could get so much support for the use of tabloids as sources in an article containing much contentious material about living persons!
My concern over this was aroused yesterday, by the second edit in a pair that were made the night before. First came this one, which added an exaggerated account of an item sourced to The Times. Followed by this one, which converted the barely supported "multiple MPs" to "as many as 20" using a questionable tabloid source. Although what the tabloid said is theoretically plausible, given that there were said, by The Times, to be "more than 20" MPs involved, it has clearly been sensationalised to give maximum possible impact. Do we really need to sink to that barrel-scraping level to 'enhance' our article? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You can, of course, contest specific edits you see as problematic. As I've suggested before, it's not helpful to point to WP:BLP rules for material that isn't covered by WP:BLP. Neither of my edits there are covered by WP:BLP. WP:BLPSOURCE refers to "tabloid journalism": how should we interpret that phrase? I presume we look to WP:RPS, which bans neither the Mirror, the Evening Standard or the Daily Record.
With respect to my 2 edits then, there was widespread reporting, in various sources, along these lines. I provided two sources: The Times and the Evening Standard. (More was available.) I find it odd that you should describe that as that barrel-scraping level. If my wording was off, apologies. I changed the wording in subsequent edits to try to be clearer who was saying what. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, you seem to be implying that because you might have found a technical loophole in the BLP policy, that the addition of sensationalised and exaggerated claims, because dodgy sources do the same, is somehow acceptable. I disagree. We could fall back on WP:SENSATIONAL which says: "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting".
You also seem to imply that because a source has never been discussed at RPS, or because there was no consensus there as to its reliability, that it is implicitly RS. I disagree with that too. We know what tabloid journalism is, we only need to flick through the pages of the Mirror or the Daily Record to remind ourselves of that. Here is an example from today in the Record: "Which of Boris’s acolytes – a suicide squad of invertebrates assembled by him precisely because of their B-team status – could conceivably take the wheel if he is ousted?" Should we squeeze "invertibrate" into the middle of a sentence somewhere and add this reference to the end, after the RS used for the rest of the sentence?
You say of my comment on that edit of yours (the one that looked like you were reduced to using a tabloid source because there was nothing else available that sensationalised the size of the opposition more) that you found "it odd that you should describe that as that barrel-scraping level". Do you know the definition of 'scrape the barrel'?
I maintain that tabloids should be avoided, and that their use raises a red flag to investigate the reason for, and motive behind, their use. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Rather than dealing in hypotheticals, can you please explain what information in the article you think is inappropriately sourced? When I looked through our references on the 19th, I couldn't see a single instance of us citing a tabloid source. Citing a reliable source which cites a tabloid source is completely different. (FWIW I agree that Bondegezou's reasoning about sources not being in RSP being ok is incorrect, but that doesn't seem relevant when we aren't actually discussing any content. SmartSE (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Smartse, we still have the Daily Record used twice, and I haven't checked it in detail, but a cursory glance suggested the list of MSPs might be being misrepresented. The other use is for another sensationalist "as many as" claim. But this discussion has now moved on the the principle rather than the specifics. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@DeFacto:So 2/186, now 1/186. Hardly a "worrying reliance" is it? You can of course try to find alternative sources. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I have not found a technical loophole in the BLP policy: you, DeFacto, are wrongly applying BLP. I've warned you about WP:WL before and will do so again.
I think it's simplistic to make this hard distinction between tabloid journalism and non-tabloid journalism, with the Mirror and Evening Standard on one side and, say, the Telegraph and Spectator on the other. We should be cautious with all journalistic sourcing: any of it may be biased, or may be mistaken. We should distinguish between opinion (whether Boris’s acolytes are invertebrates) and factual reporting. This is all standard Wikipedia policy and practice. The Evening Standard is not the same as, say, the Sun: that's not just my opinion, that is the community opinion expressed in WP:RSP. So, your suggestion that my use of an Evening Standard citation raises a red flag to investigate the reason for, and motive behind, their use is both silly and a violation of WP:AGF.
As for the Mirror, Pippa Crerar's reporting therein on Partygate has proven itself to be correct time and again.
You have raised a concern. I suggest you count how many other editors have agreed with your concern. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, you are misrepresenting my post.
I quoted BLP's reason for avoiding tabloid press and questioned why we would use that type of source for anything in Wikipedia. That you said your stuff wasn't a BLP violation was irrelevant to that point.
We know and accept that most, if not all, journalism is biased, and that is a given. There is a big difference though between being biased and using tabloid-style journalism, and there is a big difference between a straight fact and a tabloid-journalism-style fact using loaded and sensationalist language. We need to differentiate between those, and not rely on any tabloid-style journalism for support for what we add to our articles. That there may be facts buried somewhere in tabloid-style journalism does not justify the use of it.
And it's the use of tabloid-style journalism that raises a red flag, not specifically your use of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the concern about keeping tabloid-style journalism off this page, although I share the concerns (made above) that you (DeFacto) are taking a rather black-and-white view when it comes to tabloid and non-tabloid sources. I also think you've shown a lack of good faith with editors here. If it is the use of tabloid-style journalism that raises a red flag, not specifically your use of it, then why make comments about investigat[ing] the reason for, and motive behind, their use? I think it's good to cast a sceptical eye over all edits (and indeed editors), but implying there is some secretive, ulterior "motive" behind people's use of sources here is coming at this from a bad place, IMO. This phrasing makes it clear that you do think there is a problem with editors' use of these sources – even when justification has been given on this talk page and elsewhere. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's not Wikipedia policy. Assuming good faith is, though...
Talking of which, why do you say of other editors that they engage in 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? Labour supporters can't edit Wikipedia? (note: not even a member!) What nonsense. When you talk about "red flags", what type of "red flag" do you mean, exactly? I notice you didn't reply to this earlier. It's difficult to accept good faith from someone who says things like this. I would be equally appalled if it was a left-winger making the same comment about someone who said they were a Conservative supporter on their userpage on a Labour Party dispute, FWIW. Obviously, if someone is working on behalf of the party in some way, or there are WP:COI issues, by all means "investigate the reason for, and motive behind" their edits – but threatening this on the average Wikipedian seems undue. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
You card-carrying Labour supporters should just get back to your wild Durham beer-swigging parties and leave us in peace. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Beer-swigging business meetings, I think you'll find. The entire Corbyntern was there, in exile of course. Falafel and grape juice all around! (p.s. I'll be seeing you at the un-Wikipedian Activities Committee, comrade.) —AFreshStart (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Just the lentil-burgers and prune juice for me, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, AFreshStart. I'd just like to point out that I would have no problems whatsoever with any "self-professed" Conservative Party supporter taking part in criticism of, for example, Jeremy Corbyn (within reason, I might well agree with them, ha!). As ever, DeFacto is in breach of WP:POINT and is banging on about what he personally doesn't like. The site's position on perennial sources is well presented at WP:RSP – there are certain rags we don't use under any circumstances and the ones which are "no consensus" (e.g., the Mirror) should just be used sensibly. As I have now said three times on this page, always try to support a Mirror citation with one from the Times or Guardian or whatever.
By the way, is Boris Johnson a reliable source? Surely not. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
In all honesty, the ping was unintentional. I was just copying the quoted text and you were linked in it. And I think what you say re the Mirror generally reflects site-wide consensus – obviously, consensus can change, and so I think it is right to discuss specific instances on the talk page. But there is a point where it just becomes cyclical, ad nauseam repetitions of the same arguments... —AFreshStart (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@AFreshStart, my point about tabloid sources was only concerning the interpretation/mimicking of unacceptable tabloid-style journalism, not the physical size of the publications. And thanks for for pointing out I'd used an ambiguous term, I meant this type. You misinterpreted my use of "motive" - substituting the literal meaning of it we get: "their use raises a red flag to investigate the reason for, and reason for, their use", which is a bit repetitive - what I actually meant was: "their use raises a red flag to investigate the reason for (i.e. the info it is being used to support), and necessity of (i.e. what's in the tabloidy source that is not in a more RS source), their use". Is that clearer? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
"Though editors flinch and readers sneer, We'll keep the red flag flying here". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think 'Partygate' has been exaggerated. I think it's a serious problem and I think DeFacto should note that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Or should that be "Happy Alleged Birthday, Dear Lying Scumbag"? Do we deal with this one here or should it have its own article? No Great Shaker (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Content on this has been added to both the 2022 section and the timeline of events. I think the former could be expanded further, and news is still unfolding. I have trimmed your title for the section here. Bondegezou (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose Johnson didn't know it was his birthday. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
There have been no birthdays. It was a birthday work event. And no-one told him, in advance, that it was his birthday. It all seems quite clear to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I really must work on my chronology, ha! Anyway, the "protected characteristic" aspect, per Ms Ghani, could turn out to be the clincher in all of this, according to expert opinion on the matter. We shall see. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Polling graph (again)

DeFacto has put a clarification-needed tag on the polling graph at the bottom of the article. I like having a graph there, but I agree that it could be better done and explained. I earlier put a call at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Partygate_article for help. I would like to see more of a baseline before Partygate broke, all the usual parties (as the graph was originally) and better smoothing -- basically, make it more like the graphs at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, which are the product of much editor work. Others may have other suggestions. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the label "%support" is a bit bland without some explanation. One can only assume the polling question was "which party do you support"? The two parties have shared about 75% of the responses since December last year. As it's not an image, one can't click on and open background info on how it was constructed. Some sources are probably needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
"The graph below shows the results of opinion polling carried out in Great Britain for the governing Conservatives and official opposition Labour..'" Does this mean it was carried out/ funded by the two parties separately? I suspect not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Willwal1, can you join the discussion here please, and explain the graph, and why it cannot be sourced in this article, as other content has to be - because WP:UGC does not consider another Wikipedia article, such as that one at the end of the paragraph you mentioned, to be a reliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I've re-created the graph, using data from the sources rather than Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (although I used that list of sources), and added a citation for all 50 data points in the chart. Does that work for you? -- M2Ys4U (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@M2Ys4U, perhaps the graph needs a better explanation. What are all the dots? Who performed the survey(s)? What was the methodology? Who was polled? What were the questions? Who commissioned the polls? What are the 50 sources of exactly? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but another little gripe: the x-axis needs a legend e.g. "Weeks 2020/2021" and the format of the dates should be day first, i.e. 14 Nov, 21 Nov, 28 Nov etc., in line with standard British English format. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. I don't suppose this graph is accessible to people who rely on listening to an audio version of the article?
Oh, and have the smoothed trend lines been plotted from the data points using some statistical package or have they just been drawn by eye? There seem to be some discrepancies in point following. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
So evidently the trend line is generated automatically. I looked at Template:Graph:Chart to find the parameter used to generate a curved line, but I could not find one. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@M2Ys4U, I see you added more about what the dots mean, but I think we still need to know who performed the survey(s), what was the methodology, who was polled, what were the questions, who commissioned the polls, and what are the 50 sources supporting exactly and how do we use them to verify the graph, at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
While I think the graph could be improved, the detailed answers to all this information is in Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and does not need to repeated here. Also, we do not query the methods of every journalist who has written an article we cite: we are allowed to presume that reliable sources know how to do their jobs. Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It would be better that readers didn't have to trawl through that impenetrable article if they are to try and verify the graph, and the details that allow readers to judge the pedigree of the data used should surely be included in this article, and supported by secondary sources - not just raw spreadsheet tables and text files. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
These details are all in the references (which are in chronological order, and the same order as in the graph's configuration). We could list out each of the polling companies (YouGov, Opinium, Savanta ComRes, Survation, Redfield & Wilton Strategies, Panelbase, Kantar, Find Out Now, Deltapoll, and Focaldata so far) in the prose or graph's caption, but that seems a little excessive IMO. I also don't think explaining how opinion polling is done in the UK, or the British Polling Council's rules, is in scope of this article, although I do agree with you that Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election could do a better job of detailing these things (or, perhaps, a new, more general, Opinion polling in the United Kingdom article would be a better place for it).
I will make an edit now changing "% support" to "Vote share", which matches the caption and is probably more of an accurate description of what the polls are measuring, and change the date formatting to be day-month. Hopefully that clears up some of the problems that have been raised here. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@M2Ys4U, so if there's 10 different polling companies, why aren't there 10 dots for each day? And aren't there any secondary sources documenting this sort of mass poll aggregation thing, with analysis of what it's supposed to be showing us and describing the methodology and reliability or margin of error? On the face of it, and with no single sources showing the exact data as we see it in the graph, it looks like an original research exercise. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Each dot is a party's vote share in a single poll, and there aren't ten polls a day with one from each polling company. As far as OR does, I think that WP:CALC applies (which, looking through the archives, is also the consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election). -- M2Ys4U (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Are any reliable sources doing the same mixing of various polls on the same graph? If so, we should cite them, if not, aren't we, in effect, synthesising an unsourced conclusion by doing this? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't support that graph being in this article at all. It's as though editors think that the "Partygate" issues are the only ones affecting poll results - an assumption for which there is no justification. I know they're important - but including the graph in this article seems to give it undue importance in an article about one particular set of issues, and implies that "Partygate" is the only thing that concerns voters. There are vast gaping holes in the much wider article on Premiership of Boris Johnson. If the graph is to be placed anywhere - as well as at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, obviously - it should be there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Many people[citation needed] think he's just a complete tosser regardless. Ah look... it's the "good old days". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I’m happy with the principle of a graph, given multiple RS discussing the polling impact, but I think the graph should stick to the format at the polling article, where all these issues of how to do a graph within Wikipedia’s rules have been worked out. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Allegation or confirmation?

In this source do ITV report confirmation or allegations that "that Carrie Symonds had helped organise a surprise birthday get-together for Johnson on 19 June 2020"? Here is the appropriate quote from it (with my emphasis): "It's alleged that the prime minister's wife, Carrie Johnson, helped organise a surprise get-together for him on the afternoon of 19 June just after 2pm".

We need to be careful to be accurate because it has WP:BLP implications. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

While the original ITV report certainly says "alleged" quite clearly, the BBC report says "Downing Street admitted staff gathered inside No 10 during the first Covid lockdown to mark his birthday", but makes no further statements about Carrie Symonds. I think we should reword this so that the fact that the birthday gathering happened is definitely true, but Symonds organisation of it is only an allegation. Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It might be that only her helpfulness was alleged. There is a slight ambiguity. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not use the words "speculate", "allege", etc. where "said" would do.

I'm aware my edits on this may have been hasty - but edits like this by DeFacto clearly violate WP:SAID as "speculate" is a loaded term. Thank you to Martinevans123 for undoing this, btw. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think wherever possible, we should attribute quotes and comments to an author, otherwise it may look as if it's been stated in the newspaper's editorial column. I had thought that Peter Walker of The Guardian would be notable, but it seems he is not. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@AFreshStart, in what way was the use of "speculated" is 'loaded' in that context when it literally was speculation? Look up the meanings of the words 'speculate' and 'likely' and you will see that the examples of their proper use look very close to what was written in our article, where "suggested" does not fit at all.
Also, per WP:ALLEGED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined", as is the case in our article. Please be more careful, not only in your blanket changes, but with your interpretation of the MOS. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
So do you disagree with Martinevans123's revert of your edits? —AFreshStart (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@AFreshStart, if Martinevans123 had reverted my edit, I would have disagreed. But as they didn't, I didn't. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
p.s. they have this page on their watchlist, so you don't need to ping them, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
DeFacto, you are splitting hairs. While Martin did not technically undo your usual Tory claptrap, he did completely alter your untruthful and misleading use of the word "speculated" to read: "political editor Peter Walker said". In your edit summary, changing "suggested" to "speculated", you said: "say it as it is". Okay, Martin did that by saying what the Guardian reporter did say. I don't know when your birthday is, but do have a happy one. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Did the political editor know that stuff would be excluded? If he did, he didn't say so, so we can't (and didn't) assert that he did. So he must have been speculating then. Hence my correct use of the word "speculation". Please AGF and concentrate on neutrality and verifiability in the article, rather than making unsubstantiated and offensive allegations about personal politics. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless one is Septic Pig or Richard and Judy's Astrologer, any claims about the future events cannot be known with certainty, so everything is "speculation" of a kind? Walker may have been well informed about what was likely to happen. But "said" (in fact meaning "wrote" in this case) seems a much safer option. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we need everything to be included twice?

Given the number of events involved in this topic, is it perhaps time to rationalise the way we present them? I see it as a problem (for readers and for editors) that we include details of each event twice, sometimes with different details or emphasis in each: once in the appropriate subsection of the 'Timeline of reporting' section, and then again in the appropriate subsection of the immediately following 'Events' section.

Might it be better, for the readers and for the editors, to concentrate all the details of each event in just the 'Events' section, and to move the timeline section to after it, and reduce the timeline content to a table, or list, or chart, or whatever of just the events, with dares, in chronological order (or vice-versa, but with details only once)? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess they are still all "alleged events" until we hear officially from Ms Gray? But yes, I do hope you include "dares"! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit awkward, but I think it's also for good reasons. There are two chronologies here: that of reporting (and reaction) and that of dates. My thinking has always been that the Timeline of reporting is for the main narrative, should come first and be more detailed, while the Events section should be the briefer section for reference where you can see what happened when. As the number of Events has grown, however, that section has become less wieldy. I would suggest trimming the Events listings, moving material as necessary to Timeline of reporting. We have to be careful with trimming that we don't lose important detail or subtlety or wording. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I've done a bit of trimming to the Events section. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that Bondegezou's approach is the right one - trim where necessary, but keep the timeline of events, and the timeline of their revelation, separate, and don't attempt a tabulation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

YouTube clip of Wragg

I'm not sure why the YouTube clip, of William Wragg using the word "blackmail", is precluded by WP:NOYT. It's published there by the Evening Standard. But it's also available at many other news/ media websites if one of those is preferred. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the use of that word already covered in the article with an RS? Why would we want to add another reference for it? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Because the reader will benefit from a view of the entire statement verbatim, obviously untainted by any editorialising or misinterpretation. It's not just about the word "blackmail". The clip has been used extensively by newspapers, so why shouldn't we also use it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough - I wondered why you emphasised that word, that's all. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
"It's a dirty word, but someone has to use it." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
If it's published by the Evening Standard or another reliable media source, then WPNOYT shouldn't apply. Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Partygate SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Westminster lockdown parties controversy → Partygate scandal – I think the use of the -gate suffix for anything and everything is passé. However, in this case, "partygate" has become the common name for this affair in many sources – see Telegraph, Indy, FT, Guardian, NPR, AJ, France 24, Vanity Fair, Forbes, AP. Secondly, on the use of the word "scandal" vs "controversy" – the balance in sources has also leaned heavily towards describing it as a full-blown scandal, and if this event – involving police investigations and mounting calls for Johnson to resign even from normal Tory allies – doesn't count, I don't know what does. Additionally, the other two lockdown breach scandals on these isles – Dominic Cummings and Oireachtas Golf Society – are also described as scandals both in sources and on Wikipedia; this is no different. Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether we refer to Partygate as a scandal within the article text is a somewhat separate matter. In terms of the article title, “Partygate” clearly beats “Partygate scandal” on WP:COMMONNAME criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough - let's leave that debate for another day. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who calls it Partygate

Lots of people call Partygate "Partygate", but DeFacto feels that we need a source saying lots of people call Partygate "Partygate" for us to say that: see this edit. I struggle to follow that logic: I think if we have examples of people calling Partygate "Partygate", then that demonstrates the point. It seems to me odd for us to use DeFacto's desired text that says "British press" call Partygate "Partygate" when we have examples of non-newspaper UK media (e.g. ITV) and of US sources doing so too. Would others like to weigh in? Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's so clear-cut, then reliable sources will be available ten a penny. Let's keep it verifiable for those who follow us after the storm has cleared. Remember, a few (or even a lot of) specific examples do not prove the general point (all they do is clutter the article with useless references and contravene WP:OVERCITE) - we need RSes to support the generality. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
We have reliable sources calling it "Partygate" that are ten a penny. It is readily verifiable that ITV, CNN and the New Yorker have called it "Partygate". We don't need a separate source saying CNN called it "Partygate": we can just look at CNN and see them calling it "Partygate". You can't invent a higher standard of proof.
My edit didn't claim that every media source is calling it "Partygate". It claims that some media call it "Partygate". The article doesn't need a forensic analysis of how many media outlets do and I wasn't suggesting we add that. I'm just suggesting we move from claiming the British press do (as per the current text) to the clearly verifiable claim that more than the British press call it "Partygate". The current article does not tell the whole truth and gives the impression that UK non-press media sources and non-UK media don't use the term. We shouldn't have misleading content! Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
But are we really that desperate to say it that we'd stoop to saying something like "ITV called it 'partygate' in two articles, CNN in one, New Yorker in three", or the weasely "some media call it 'partygate'", or whatever. And that appears to be SYNTHing a conclusion from separate sources which don't try to make that connection. Much better to wait until we find RSes making the point you want made, and much easier to include without question, as we have for the fact that it's used in the British press. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You are massively stretching SYNTH and WEASEL. We know and can verify that more than the British press use the term. We are perfectly allowed to say that under Wikipedia’s rules. The word “some” is not banned. Bondegezou (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is clear: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". WP:WEASEL seems explicit enough too when it says (of a list of phrases that includes "some people say"): "Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint".
Why would we want to combine material from different sources and deny readers the ability to verify a claim in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
So, The Times calls it partygate here and The Daily Telegraph calls it partygate here? Do we have to ignore these as they are headlines? Or are we waiting for such RSs to say "everyone calls it partygate"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
We are waiting for an RS that says the term is used outside of the British press, as I have already found a good RS source, this one, that explicitly supports its use by the British press. Specific examples like the ones you show do not support the general case. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Why do we need "an RS that says the term is used outside of the British press"? Why would not one example, in an English-language RS, from outside the UK, suffice? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
As I said above and in respect of SYNTH and WEASEL. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
A statement such as "the word partygate has also been employed by press in Canada and the US" would be a simple statement of fact. I don't see any "SYNTH and WEASEL" there. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Facts need to have due weight as well as being verifiable. Adding that as a "fact", based on a few samples would contravene WP:DUE. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:WEASEL says, The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. My edit used "Some..." in the lead and then more detail in the article. You can't stretch WEASEL to ban ever using the word "some"!
DeFacto, is it or is it not verifiable that, say, CNN used the term Partygate? Bondegezou (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You could support saying "CNN used the term Partygate", but would have to add "in one of their articles" for context and weight, yes, but why would you choose to do that? We could also dig out another of their stories where they don't use it and say "but not always", and then another and change that to "but often don't" and then another and say "but usually don't" and then another and say "rarely do" and then another...
Why not drop it, and wait for that to appear in a RS? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You seem to think that a Wikipedia article should say, "Source A said X. Source B said Y. Source C said Z." That is wrong. We're meant to write readable encyclopaedia articles with prose that flows. We don't have to go into forensic detail about how often CNN have used the term "Partygate". You're the only one who thinks that. All I want to say is that the term "Partygate" goes wider than the British press, something we all agree is true and verified. I am not trying to do a detailed corpus linguistics study: we don't need to do that and, thus, we don't need to wait for an RS doing that. The current phrasing is misleading: it is not the whole truth. We should not write misleading text. Bondegezou (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
A quick Google search for "CNN Partygate" produces at least three top hits, for me. So adding "in one of their articles" would be wrong? Another option might be to add a brief footnote to explain that the term has been used by news and press agencies outside the UK, which does seem to be somewhat notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with the ridiclousness of this discussion. Maybe it would be simpler if we just moved this to Partygate scandal since this is now how the scandal is being referred to by most RS. E.g. channel 4 hadn't before, but started at least a week ago [5], Peston at ITV is also using it. I've already listed many other examples on this talk page and Martin has also listed more. The BBC admittedly aren't using it much but there are examples where they do [6] and they seem to be the exception at this point. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No objections to a move. But I suspect someone might request a formal RfC before a WP:RM could be raised. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The article title is a different matter. I am happy to follow WP:COMMONNAME on that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I had forgotten that this was the type of awful modern neologism that those dashed Americans might have invented. It gets so complex, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So, do we have agreement from everyone apart from DeFacto that more than the British press call it "Partygate" and that we should thus say that? Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Why apart from me? I never disagreed with that - why misrepresent me? If we put it in the article though, shouldn't it be reliably sourced in the same way as I sourced the fact that the British press use it? If not, why not? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You have expressed your view here and through your edits to the material concerned. You do not support my edit: my apologies if I summarised that poorly. With due respect for your position, I wish to clarify other editors' views as they seem to support the wording I favour, but I wasn't clear on that point. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

First use of term

Re this edit. If the issue did not arise before December 2021, and in early December 2021 reliable sources started using the term "Partygate", it is quite appropriate to make a simple statement that sources coined the term (or, first used the term if that is preferred) in early December 2021. That is not "original research" - it's a simple observation not likely to be challenged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
In that edit of mine I was questioning the verifiability of the phrase "In early December 2021", as the source cited against it did not support that. However, after a bit of OR of my own (in which I found the term used on Twitter on 4 December) I now also question the verifiability of "the British press coined the term" too. When first properly sourced, the fully supported sentence read as 'The British press refer to the controversy over the alleged events as "Partygate"'. This was later was replaced with "The British press coined the term "Partygate" to refer to the controversy" without source support. Because it's not clear who coined it, or when, I have restored the original. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It's incontestable that "Since early December 2021, some British media have referred to the controversy...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
If a source is cited though, as a reader, I would expect it to support that - rather than assume it was an example. And as I'm sure I've said before, a single example of one source doing not prove the general case that plural sources were doing it.
And shouldn't be future-proofing the article? A future reader who may not be aware of the story, would expect to see such claims explicitly supported, rather than being required to use a web search-engine to find out how true that is for themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible to add multiple sources, to demonstrate that multiple sources have used the term. Feel free to do that if you like. I haven't done so, because it would be remarkably silly to add multiple sources to demonstrate a point that is a perfectly simple and uncontentious observation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
From WP:OR:
  • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
  • "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material."
  • "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source."
Imagine a future reader needing to verify it. Why is it too much to expect to have an RS supporting the assertion? That's all I'm saying. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
So, you would prefer to say: "Source X used the term "Partygate" on date A.{{cite}} Source Y used the term on date B.{{cite}} Source Z used the term on date C.{{cite}}... etc." - rather than saying "From date A, multiple sources used the term...". You ask "Why is it too much to expect to have an RS supporting the assertion?". Because, sources do not use the same criteria as you do, as to what needs to be explained to readers. Because it's obvious and does not need any explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I would not prefer that. I'd prefer a sourced sentence saying whatever was supported by the source, as I added wrt the British press. This looks like yet another example of content-based source finding rather than the more desirable source-based content addition as specified in the various Wiki policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We now seem to have two threads on the same topic? - see "Scandalous edit" below. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We have three threads on overlapping but slightly different issues. (1) Talk:Partygate#Who_calls_it_Partygate: should we just say the British press call it Partygate, or should we say more than the British press call it Partygate? (2) this subsection: should we say when the first use of Partygate was (based on what evidence)? (3) next subsection: should we link to the list of other -gates? Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Publication / release of Gray report

Has Gray (or anyone else) made it clear when her report will be fully "published" in the public domain? Is that a decision for Johnson? Laura Kuenssburg said last night, in the BBC News, that it might not be "released" until next Monday? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Some explanation here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Quite a lot of explanation, I'd say. So only partly Mr Plod sticking his size 9 boots in again? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Scandalous edit

DeFacto made this edit. I thought we had an established consensus on this page and elsewhere that Partygate constitutes a scandal. I see no objection to this edit. Can other editors weigh in to give us an idea of support or opposition to adding a sentence saying: "The term is similar to that used for previous political scandals and controversies." Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the term has been used for previous scandals - that is, scandals that happened in the past - does not necessarily imply that this one is a "scandal", though perhaps "past scandals" might be a better wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It makes sense to link to that article, to explain why "-gate" is in the popular name. On the other point, based on the weight of reliable sources that have described this as a scandal, seems fine to describe it as this to me. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
So insert a fully RSed paragraph somewhere then, to support that. That would remove the problem and mean that future readers will have a chance of understanding why that term is being dropped in and otherwise not explained. What would be wrong with doing that - especially if there are so many sources saying why it's called a scandal - to make it all easily verifiable? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
No other editor has a problem with this description and link. Not every reader needs to be spoon fed with a forensic level of evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see that as "parachuting the word in" at all. And I think it's eminently helpful to provide an explanatory link to an existingg Wikipedia article (where, incidentally, it still needs to be added - there is already the 2012 Pastygate, which is a piped link to Pasty tax). Once again, if DeFaco is objecting to that one word, a better adjustment would be to change to "The term is similar to that used for previous political controversies." But I agree it is fully justified to describe it as "a scandal." So no change is needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The situation is so obviously a scandal now, and has been reliably described as such (including sources outside the UK - i.e. France 24, NPR). There is totally consensus to call this a scandal. I don't particularly mind describing it as a "controversy" rather than a "scandal" in wiki-voice, but DeFacto is clearly going against the consensus of reliable sources and misrepresenting what they say in his edit summary – RS do call this a scandal. The reason the article hasn't described it as such up to that point is because of DeFacto's own tendentious edits keeping that word out of this article. Again, I'm not really that fussed about including the word – but to say that sources don't call this a scandal (even with the caveat that they aren't calling it a caveat at that point in time – which seems very weaselly even if it was true), and therefore should not be called as such in wiki-voice, is just completely wrong.
(p.s. Partygate is now mentioned at the other article. - Re-added on 19 December. Guess who had removed the content 10 days earlier?). —AFreshStart (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I bet it wasn't Sue Gray. Having that word as the sixth one, in the first sentence of this article, sets the scene appropriately, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
She may be a self-professed upstart challenger and a disrupter, but a Wikipedian?... highly libellous if you ask me.
I agree. It's also highly amusing that political controversy is just a wikilink to political scandal and has been since 2007, with nobody questioning it. Most political controversies are scandals (and vice versa). The thing is, I understand that 'scandal' can appear tabloidy, and that the '-gate' suffix is applied to pretty much anything nowadays, so I understand the hesitancy at first... But there's a certain point at which one needs to drop the stick. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
OMG! Stickygate?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we have sources for "Doggygate" yet? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Good question. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@AFreshStart, it might be "obvious" today, with it being in every news broadcast, on every news website 24/7, and in every newspaper. But after the dust has settled how will readers be expected to know that? And sure there are plenty of reliable sources saying it too, but they're not being applied to specifically support that.
What about adding a brief paragraph explaining it all, and supported by some of the multitude of reliable sources that support it? That's all I think is missing, and all I think we need to make verifiable to those who have never heard of it. I cannot see why asking for that is so controversial and has attracted so much discussion and rancour. It beggars belief! -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"it might be "obvious" today, with it being in every news broadcast, on every news website 24/7, and in every newspaper. But after the dust has settled how will readers be expected to know that?" Please, stop gazing into your crystal ball. We go with what the sources say now, not a decade or so from now! And perhaps our readers will be expected to know that by us accurately summarising the sources? None of this has anything to do with a preference for the word 'controversy' over 'scandal'. If your issue is that it is inadequately explained in the lead, surely that applies no matter which term is used?
And sure there are plenty of reliable sources saying it too, but they're not being applied to specifically support that. – this is disingenuous. Other editors are adding the reliable sources "to specifically support" the scandal wording; you are removing it time and time again. And then saying that "this row hasn't been reliably characterised as a 'scandal' in the article up to this point" – yes, because you've been exorcising any reference to 'scandal' or 'parties' throughout your edits, despite consensus on the talk page saying these are appropriate terms (when the source refers to these events as such).
Please stop feigning ignorance on why people might be infuriated with this type of behaviour. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
So, we want to "keep it neutral and accurate"? So how about we use the actual words that appear in the lead section of this article?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This is so interesting. This exact same thing has occurred on Talk:List of political scandals in the United Kingdom, Talk:Dominic Cummings scandal, Talk:Greensill scandal, and of course here too, and I even caught this same thing on Political impact of the COVID-19 pandemic after consensus was reached elsewhere. Alleging nothing of course. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris, what is the "exact same thing" - diffs please. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Can't be the "exact same thing" can it, as many of the words differ. But there seems to be a common denominator... the word "scandal"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment I could have been clearer, but I meant by the "exact same thing" in that the word "scandal" has been persistently removed or opposed by DeFacto on numerous articles discussing UK political scandals, in spite of reliable sources using the term and even after other editors have found consensus that Wikipedia articles in question may use the term to reflect that accordingly. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Funnily enough, that's exactly what I assumed you meant. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris, "using the term" is a whole lot different to confirming it is one though. And saying it is one needs a whole lot more robust sourcing.
While you were rooting through my past edits, for whatever reason, did you also notice that I consistently question the mimicking in our articles of any unsubstantiated or loaded terms used by the news media? I don't think we should be asserting anything as fact - "murder", "perpetrator", "corruption", "terrorism", "suicide bomber", "civil disobedience", "corporal punishment", "nationality", or whatever - unless there is coverage in the article and reliable support for any assertion or claim actually being true. If there isn't then it should not be there. So, as you can see, I do not specialise in just 'scandal' articles, I target what I see as WP:VER or WPBLP problems wherever I come across them.
Now rather than hunting for excuses to discredit my edits, why not look for a source to support the assertion in Wiki's voice that this is a scandal. If, on the other hand, you would prefer to continue trying to personalise this, then perhaps you would do me, and others, the courtesy of taking it to my talkpage, and leaving this one for discussions related specifically to this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you think "scandal" is something that needs to be proven, in a legal sense, like "murder" or "suicide bombing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Not 'proven' in the legal sense, but it's use at least justified by the inclusion of a reliably sourced paragraph describing why it might be thought of as such. How will following generations of readers know why it's been called that if we don't explain it?
Trying to justify saying it is one because the term is freely used in the press is no more valid for this than it is for the use of any of those others terms (murderer, etc.) because they were freely used in the press. I can't see any logical difference - surely Wiki demands verifiability regardless of what the actual claim is - no? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I imagine that "following generations of readers" will open one or two of the sources and see the word used there. The meaning of this word is commonly understood. If they are in any doubt as to its meaning, they can look at the whole article we have called Scandal. I think a term like "murder" is logically different as it has legal processes attached to it: a Wikipedia article about a murder can describe how the murderer was convicted (although many of us actually believe that "unsolved murders" are also possible and are, in fact, very common). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@AFreshStart, you clearly missed my point. I'm not speculating what the sources might say in the future, I'm saying we need a section in the article to describe why it's considered to be a scandal now, using today's sources that support that.
Remember a list of sources, no matter how long, showing examples of the use of the term doesn't support us saying it is one because the term is in common use, or whatever, unless they explicitly it is one and why - it would fail OR. And that's what is, IMHO, missing - a paragraph based on a source saying something like "this is widely considered by [the press, the people, the voters, or whoever] to be a scandal because..." Then we'd have it nailed.
That way, future readers won't have to trawl through the dozens of references cited to see if they can find the answer to that question for themselves. Is that really such a ridiculous thing to expect? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary as per WP:OVERCITE. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, no, OVERCITE is when you add excessive cites to support an item. Here I'm not suggesting adding more cites to something already covered, I'm suggesting adding a discussion that is absent, and appropriately sourcing it - to future-proof the article for when everyone has forgotten about this topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It's still OVERCITE. You want to write excessive text that citations can be attached to. Our aim should be to write a good, clear article, with citations. The WP:BLUE essay discusses what OVERCITE says on this in more detail. I think it is entirely clear from the article why Partygate is a scandal. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Publishing of report

BBC Live update says this:

"Downing Street has said it will publish Sue Gray's report this afternoon in the form it receives it from the inquiry team - but it has not committed to publishing a fuller version in future.
"The prime minister's official spokesman says the findings will be published on gov.uk and made available in the House of Commons library this afternoon, with the prime minister making a statement to MPs after people have had an opportunity to read them.
"Asked why the report has been described as an "update" on Gray's investigation, the spokesman says: "It's a reflection of the fact there is an ongoing police investigation and the Met have been clear about what their expectations are about what can or cannot be put in the public domain while that's ongoing."
"Asked whether Sue Gray will seek to publish more details in the future, he says: "Obviously we will need to consider what might be appropriate and we are discussing with the Cabinet Office team in due course about what might be appropriate, but at the moment it is unclear how the ongoing Met Police investigation might interact with any further work on that. But obviously it's something we will want to keep under review.""
Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
So a possible whitewash still on the cards, thanks to the Met? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I've amended the article text to note some of these caveats. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Um, Gray is "still undertaking" her enquiry? I thought it was concluded, her report had been written, it had been delivered and had now been published. When will she finish? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
It's an interim report and a longer version is to follow, which implies to me that she is "still undertaking". Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought she had already written the full version but was holding it back. Anyway, here's the current one. I see one instance of the word "party" but no instances of the phrase "social gathering". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
AIUI, she wrote a full report, then had to edit it because of the Met Police request, so it may be that all that she will do later, after Met Police action over, is release the full thing. However, I don't see RS saying that. She chose to call today's release an "update", implying she's still working on a final report in some sense. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that may be correct, i.e. we have not actually been told. As for this "update" report.... WOW!! what incredible revelations. A huge mass of new "incontrovertible facts" that nobody else could possibly have known before 14.20 today (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What Gray says is: "... I did consider whether it would be better to pause, as provided for in the terms of reference, and wait until the conclusion of the police investigation before publishing anything. However, given the widespread public interest in, and concern about, these matters, and to avoid further delay, I am providing an update on the investigation and I am setting out some general findings now." To me, that implies that her investigation is continuing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This is very much an update, not a finished report. It says almost nothing. Gray does say that the evidence gathering is done, but she can’t talk about the events under Met investigation and chooses not to about the other events (because to do so would be a biased view of what happened).
How do we best show our Events timeline with notes as to which events are covered by this report and which are under investigation by the Met? Would a series of tables work? Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
A summary table would be good; do we think this should be in replacement of or in addition to the bullet pointed list? There are 16 gatherings covered in the report, more than were in the media thus far, according to the BBC coverage, so that list needs to be updated. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I think a separate table for each time period that has columns as follows: date, description, response (e.g. apology, resignation), covered by Gray report y/n, covered by Met investigation y/n. What do people think? Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. This also in my opinion have a column for "restrictions in place" i.e. First national lockdown, London in Tier 2, etc. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The same restrictions apply to everything in each subsection as the subsections are split by changes in the restrictions. Ergo, that doesn't need to be in each subsection's table (but could be before each table).
I have gone through the Events. I've added the new ones revealed in the Gray update. I've noted which events are covered or not by Gray, and which are or are not currently under Met investigation. Bondegezou (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I also think some of the speculation as to the release date and contents of the Gray report in the section can probably be summarised or cut down now with this interim update being released, to avoid it becoming overly bloated. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, although we still await the publication of the actual report! Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Met investigation into gathering on 13 November 2020

A private party in No.10. Headline that day: "Dominic Cummings to leave Downing Street role by Christmas". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Did he get ambushed by an early Christmas cake? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
BBC's Newsnight just played the clip (from about 22'45") of Johnson being questioned in the house last December, by Catherine West:
West: "Will the Prime Minister tell the house whether there was a party in Downing Street on the 13th of November?".
Hoyle: "Prime Minister?"
Johnson: "Mr Speaker, no, but I'm sure that, whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times."
The preferred explanation is, of course, that he meant "no, I will not tell the house" rather than "no, there was no party". It's unclear how he could be sure, if he did not even know what happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Big Dog, little p?

Across the 59 instances, we seem to have a mixture of "Prime Minister" and "prime minister". Which is correct and/or what are the WP:MoS "rules"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES is the shortcut to what the MoS says. As I understand it, it says it should be all lower case when used in talking about a generic job role or 'office' rather than when addressing a specific person, and with caps when used as a 'title' when addressing a specific person. So it seems possible that both of your examples could be correct. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Were 16 April 2021 events parties?

I edited the lead to change reference to these from "events" to "parties", but DeFacto reverted. Do we have sufficient reliable sourcing to call these "parties", or just "events"/"gatherings", or something else? It would help if a broader group of editors could weigh in; some discussions lately are just the same 4 people talking and, wonderful though we are, a broader consensus is valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Review of sources
BBC, Telegraph, i, Sky, Al Jazeera, FT, New York Times: "parties"
Mirror, NPR, Press Gazette: "party"
Guardian: first "leaving party", then "leaving events"
Independent: refers to alleged parties, citing Telegraph report
Evening Standard: quotes Gray update, thus "gatherings"
ITV: "gatherings - alleged rule-breaking parties"
Telegraph & Argus: "alleged parties", then "reported parties"
Gray update: "gatherings" Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
No, you changed them from "further gatherings" to "parties", I changed them back. As we cannot know for sure, before the investigations are complete, what the actual nature of either of these events was, whatever individual sources choose to call them can only be down to how they editorialise them. As we have a duty to be neutral, I suggest we stick with the neutral term of "gatherings" (as Gray uses in her report when referring the both of these). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@DeFacto: You once again, seem to be misunderstanding what NPOV means - it means following the sources, not making an editorial judgement about whether or not something has been proven or not proven. It's ironic that you rally against editorilisation by the sources and yet this is exactly what you are doing by not accurately repeating what they say. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
What Smartse said: we follow WP:V and WP:RS. WP:SECONDARY sources have precedence over the Gray update, which is a primary source. I take it we are 3:1 in favour of saying “parties” now. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I do think we need to be clear about what we refer to as "parties". The Gray investigation was (is) into "gatherings". All those gatherings were reported in the media as either "social gatherings" or "parties", but some apparently started off as work events before they were "allowed to develop as they did". We should try to be careful over the wording, rather than referring to everything as a "party" when other words are clearer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't refer to everything as parties willy-nilly. We should refer to those things that (secondary) RS (generally and unambiguously) call "parties" as "parties". I suggest we have passed that threshold for the 16 April 2021 leaving dos. There is a discussion above about how we talk about all the events in the lead, but in this section, I'd like to focus on 16 April 2021. So, Ghmyrtle, in this specific case, what wording do you favour? Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Not an easy one to answer, as we don't know exactly what Johnson apologised to HM for. Was it the simple fact of "gatherings", or was it the fact that they apparently (allegedly) developed into a full-blown "party" with "loud music" and copious supplies of alcohol? I don't think sources make clear whether there were two "parties" (plural) or whether they were two "gatherings" that developed into one "party" (and we shouldn't get too forensic about it). I'd be happiest with a wording of "Both gatherings took place.... the partying continued....". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
We've got 7 good quality RS saying "parties". Is that not sufficient? Bondegezou (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Bondegezou, surely the answer to that question depends on how many RSes we have that don't say "parties", or are saying something different. If that is more than zero, then it probably isn't sufficient to support saying that alone. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean to answer for Bondegezou, but do you think there are many RSes that say something "very different"? Perhaps you can provide a few? Or even one? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean to answer for DeFacto (!), but we need to take account of WP:NOTNEWS, particularly "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics.... Wikipedia is not written in news style." "Parties" takes up much less space in headlines than "social gatherings", let alone "work events that were allegedly allowed to develop into social gatherings". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)e
I don't see "social gatherings" as being "very different" to parties? Not in the way that e.g. "business meetings" or "policy focus groups" might be very different. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I've given an analysis above. Your more than zero formulation is not consistent with WP:NPOV, but of course we need to weigh up the full range of what RSs say. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
So, I count 7 good, national/international RS (BBC, Telegraph, i, Sky, Al Jazeera, FT, NYT) going with "parties" + 3 good, national/international RS (Guard, NPR, Press Gazette) and 1 so-so RS (Mirror) going with "party". 2 good, national/international (Indie, ITV) + 1 local RS (T&A) go with "alleged parties". 1 so-so local RS (ES) + 1 primary RS (Gray) go with "gatherings"; one of the "alleged parties" RSs also uses "gatherings". That looks to me sufficient for us to use "parties" in summary. Bondegezou (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Ghmyrtle is encouraging you to confirm that your sources use these words in their text, not just in their headlines? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Aha! Ghmyrtle, I carefully looked at the text of articles and ignored headlines. Bondegezou (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, even the 'nutshell' summary of NPOV makes it clear that's not what we do, we don't just take the majority view and ignore all the rest, it says: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it". If we don't agree a neutral wording that encompasses all the RS views, we need to summarise, with due weight, all views in the lead to. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Smartse, I don't misunderstand what NPOV means, but perhaps you do.
One of the things it means is avoiding stating contested assertions as facts – so if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions then we need to either present and attribute all versions per weight in the sources, or find a compromise wording (eg. a 'gathering' is inclusive of 'parties', 'social gatherings', and 'work events', etc., but a 'social gathering' or 'party' is not necessarily inclusive of a 'work event'.
It also means we need to be impartial and prefer non-judgmental language and not editorialise - so not favouring one or other side of an opinion divide and being careful of what words we use by avoiding loaded, flattering, or disparaging words or phrases and any other words that may introduce bias and expressions of doubt - we must not appear to promote one position over another. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states clearly that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We are clearly led by what RS say. That central point is what your earlier comments seemed to overlook. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Bondegezou, not at all, that is obvious and almost goes without saying. The problem here is what those RSes are telling us - they don't give a consistent message. According to NPOV, that means we have to treat the different takes on this as opinions, not facts. That's obvious too - we can't assert all versions as fact. As I said above, there are two courses open from here: document all viewpoints per weight and with correct attribution, or go for a compromise single wording that covers them all. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
That's not what NPOV says. We have a large majority, even more so weighting by quality, going with "parties". It is acceptable to therefore use "parties". Each RS does not get a veto; we never need unanimity. The RSs are not wildly different. All RS are in agreement about the events of 16 April, events that any reasonable person would describe as a "party". A non-independent primary source, which carries less weight, uses "gatherings" and one RS merely copied that wording. The others go with "parties" or "party", but a few caveat that with "alleged" or "reported". So, "parties" is clearly the right word. Do we need to caveat that? Well, a large majority of RS don't, so, no, they don't, so we don't.
But I don't see you budging on this, so shall we go for an RfC? Or will some further editors weigh in please? Bondegezou (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Happy to use "social gatherings and parties" But, as Ghmyrtle has already pointed out social gatherings redirects to party anyway. I think an RfC would reach the same conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I think you’re in the wrong Talk section? This discussion isn’t about how to describe the range of events in the lead, it’s about how to describe specifically the events the night before Philip’s funeral. Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The events the night before the funeral must, of course, not be described in a way that takes sides, and should explain all sides fairly and without editorial bias. So, given that 'party'/'social gathering' are very one-sided, they must be avoided. On the other hand, 'gathering', as used in Gray's report, is not loaded either way. Let's not further compromise our article by veering even further away from the policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, that's not what WP:NPOV says. We are absolutely allowed to take sides, following what reliable source reporting says. Calling a gathering of people celebrating the departure of a colleague into the early hours of the morning with alcohol and loud music, requiring an apology to the Queen to be made, a "party" is not "very one-sided". It's using plain English. The Gray update is a non-independent primary source and policy is very clearly to give priority to WP:SECONDARY sources. Stop claiming things are policy that are not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, it's all there in WP:NPOV (my emphasis):
  • Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias
  • The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view
  • Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words
"Party" is loaded when whether it was a party or a work event could affect the consequences. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry. Easily confused. I agree those could be described as parties. Maybe "disco raves". Hard to know without the DJ's playlist. Martinevans123 (talk)
Hmmm. Maybe we need to move the article to Gatheringgate? And, yes you are four wonderful people. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Too many words of perception

Ghmyrtle reverted my trimming of a sentence in the lead in this edit, saying "Reverting to more specific form of words - we are describing a *perception* here". Ghmyrtle, with respect, I think you're unnecessarily tying us in knots here. The sentence begins "Public disquiet...". Public disquiet is ipso facto a perception. We don't need a slightly WEASELly "were perceived to have been breaking restrictions" to spell it out. There were events, there is public disquiet about them. The trimmed sentence makes no comment on the fairness of the public's judgements, nor does it pin us down to the details. Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The opening paragraph refers to a "public backlash", and this is addressed in the article text, but the opening words of the fourth paragraph seem a good place to give the first explanation, in brief, of why there was a public backlash. The words "Public disquiet over events..." do not give any explanation of that - they simply state that there was "disquiet". But words such as "Public disquiet over how government staff and others in Westminster were perceived to have been breaking restrictions...." at least start to provide an explanation of why there was a backlash, and in my view are necessary at that point in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"Public disquiet"? Millions of British people are outraged that Johnson is a hypocritical liar who cares more about himself than the integrity of his office. Just my perception, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point, Ghmyrtle, but half of me still thinks it's obvious why there is disquiet. Do we need to spoon-feed the reader here? If we do need an explanation, I think the current sentence is still too long and clunky. I also think "perceived to have been breaking restrictions" fails WP:WEASEL because we're implying there's only a perception of rule-breaking whereas, in some cases, we definitively know rule-breaking occurred, with resignations and apologies having followed.
The anonymous comments above also has a point. Is "disquiet" enough! Johnson's Premiership is under threat. The betting odds have him likely to leave this year. Should we beef up the final paragraph in terms of the threat to Johnson? Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sticking with my suggested wording. There was disquiet about the allegations, before anything was proven - of course, it's still not proven that anyone was "breaking restrictions" - and I think that the word "disquiet" meets WP:NPOV (whatever any individuals might think - though I do sometimes worry that I'm morphing into DeFacto...!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Be alert. This article needs more lerts. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Article split

It's just a thought, but I'm wondering if we should split the Gray report into a separate article once the full version gets published. This article is currently 157K long, and can only get longer. What do others think? This is Paul (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but would we then need a separate report on the police investigation..... etc. etc.  ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
To be honest I think the "timeline of reporting" section is the main length and structural issue here (see "section sizes" above), which could be summarised or potentially split off. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think once investigations came out, some of the current text speculating about what will happen and much of the "sources alleged" stuff, can be chopped, which will help solve the problem of length.
Depending on how things unfold, it might be appropriate to split off the stuff about alleged intimidation of MPs. I'd do that rather than splitting out the Gray report. If it goes anywhere...
It's possible that events will lead to Johnson's downfall and a new leadership election. Some of the material tracking Tory disquiet with Johnson might then go to other articles about that.
So, basically(!), let's wait and see! Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Letters of no confidence

I realise that we don't need to do Graham Brady's job for him, but should the article mention the total number of Tory MPs who have publicly stated they have sent letters of no confidence? I'm not sure if there is an RS that's keeping a running total. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, we are in danger of letting this article spiral out of control into a general discussion of Johnson's problems. We have a much wider article at Premiership of Boris Johnson, which receives dispiritingly few edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Like the town of Pripyat gets dispiritingly few vistors? Yes, except I suspect the letters are all directly because of Partygate. We already mention individual MPs. A table might be clearer! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Some of the knee-jerk reactions from individuals at various points in this saga need to be trimmed as of no long-term encyclopedic significance. We need this article to stay focused. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess so, but unless it's a rescinded knee-jerk, I guess it still counts. One will have been binned, of course. But we can't be far off the 54 threshold by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The BBC reports Tobias Ellwood: "Mr Ellwood, who chairs the Commons Defence Committee, said he thought it was "inevitable" the 54 letters threshold would be reached." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's difficult. I think we should cover that some no-confidence letters have gone in and that there is serious talk about the possibility that it could hit the 54 threshold. That's a key part of the story of Partygate. I don't think we need, "On this date, Tory MP XXX said he had sent in a no-confidence letter, saying "Quotey quotey quote quote."" for each one. A running total would be useful if it allowed us to trim the detail... except a running total is almost impossible. While there is much reporting, no-one other than Brady actually knows how many letters there are. There will be letters where the person hasn't said anything. There may be cases where someone is saying they'll send a letter in, but they haven't actually done so, or not yet. I would take any letter count reporting with a mountain of salt. Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Brady might struggle with the letters where the person hasn't said anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the table that an IP added without any prior agreement here. It's inappropriate. Firstly, we have no idea of how many MPs have sent letters - it's a secret process. Secondly, as I keep saying, their views are not necessarily a response to this scandal, and we need to keep this article focused. Also, see WP:NOTNEWS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's now been re-added, without explanation. The first entry, at least, is clearly unrelated to the topic of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree about Sir Roger Gale, so I have removed that one. Although I suggested a table, I'm really not sure it's useful, as it suggests that only six MPs have sent a letter. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it's excessive having a table listing them, especially including their photographs and constituencies. Most of the comments are already in the article and if there is anything that isn't, that should be merged into the text and the table removed. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree – it is overkill.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Sky News are keeping a running total. However I agree that this table is inappropriate; this is just giving WP:UNDUE prominence to these individuals' actions. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
We seem to have a majority of editors opposed to including that table in the article. Perhaps @Proxima Centauri:, who re-added it, would like to remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, let’s cite that Sky News piece and lose the table. Bondegezou (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Gordon Brown comments

Should we include these comments, as mentioned at Premiership_of_Boris_Johnson#Lockdown_parties_controversy:

Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown said, "My fear is that scandal is going to follow Boris Johnson as long as he is prime minister. We don't just have the scandal – and all the details will probably come out later this week [late January 2022] about partying – we have the conflicts of interest, we have the dubious appointments, we have foreign money and question marks over that: who is paying the bills for what? And I don't think we are going to see this administration end in anything other than scandal."[1]

?—AFreshStart (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Encyclopaedia articles are not typically full of quotes from competing politicians. We should focus on events, not this sort of commentary, as per WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Not in full, but a summary of the comments made by a former PM are significant (as are those of Theresa May). Brown is not "competing" with Johnson. My view is that a few words would be appropriate - perhaps as succinct as: "Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown said, "My fear is that scandal is going to follow Boris Johnson as long as he is prime minister... " " Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Walker, Peter; Stewart, Heather (23 January 2022). "Dominic Raab refuses to confirm full publication of Sue Gray partygate report". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 January 2022.

Savile in some way "protected" by Starmer

The displeasure and anger of back-benchers and grass-roots Tory members now seems to be focused on the "outrageous slur" of Starmer from Johnson over the decision to not prosecute Jimmy Savile. Although more outrage ensues this morning after Michael Gove's comment "apologise for what?" on TV: [7] Should this be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems very tangential to me, or something better covered on Premiership of Boris Johnson and/or Keir Starmer. It depends whether there is sustained reporting of the issue and if this goes on being an issue, then I would be persuaded to change my mind. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's simply deadcatting (good word) - deliberately distracting the media and public from other issues. It's really not relevant to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
More generally, I think a lot of the quoting of political rhetoric on this article could be shorn. This is an encyclopaedia article and WP:NOTNEWS. Politicians argue is not encyclopaedic. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, but only if it's in support of Johnson, and not if it's critical of him? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The example I removed was of a councillor saying nice things about Johnson, reported only in a local news source. The second example you removed was of the leader of a Council resigning, reported in a national news source. Council leader > councillor. Quitting the party > giving a quote. National news reporting > local news reporting. The first example you removed wasn't about Johnson at all! Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, did you look for wider coverage before removal? Because that was restored citing a national news source (BBC News), but removed again (by someone else) almost immediately. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Council leader > councillor. Quitting the party > giving a quote. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Munira Mirza, Director of the Number 10 Policy Unit, has resigned over the Savile slur, after Johnson refused (yet again) to publicly apologise. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jack Doyle

Jack Doyle, Downing Street Director of Communications, has now also resigned. [8], [9], [10]. I think this may be significant. But Jason Groves of the Daily Mail has said on Twitter: "He's told friends he always planned to leave after two years and that his departure is not linked to that of Munira Mirza." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither have said they're leaving because of Partygate, although Mirza is leaving because of something Johnson said in PMQs when pressed on Partygate. I suggest the main coverage of these events should go on Premiership of Boris Johnson, but maybe a brief mention here? Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Some sources portray both events as connected, e.g. Sky News: "Two more senior officials are leaving Number 10 in an apparent mass exodus from Downing Street amid the fallout from the partygate scandal." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I've added some text (in the Timeline of Reporting) -- see what you (and everyone else) thinks. Bondegezou (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I think those additions are balanced and well-written. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible rename from Partygate

It took me a bit of googling to find this article, since I don't follow the tabloids that use 'partygate' to describe it. I think it would be better if this article was renamed to something more descriptive, but I'm not sure what - maybe "Westminster lockdown parties controversy" (which is already a redirect)? Any thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lolness. You missed the RfC 6 days ago (see above)? Late to the party, it seems? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, it was decided it has become the WP:COMMONNAME, so is a legitimate title for the article. As a redirect though, "Westminster lockdown parties controversy" will be searchable too, so the current title shouldn't cause any problem in that respect. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Very weird decision - doesn't look like it was advertised/attended very well? The redirect doesn't appear to show up in Google. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The rename discussion was only open for just over four hours, but there did seem to be a consensus to use "Partygate", as it is now widely used even in non-tabloid sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Just for future reference - where would be the best place to advertise? If there was an overwhelming influx of new editors who disagreed with this, I guess another RM could be triggered? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC) p.s. Kirsty Wark quite happy to use it in last night's Newsnight.
WP:RM#CM, for moves where "there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; [or] someone could reasonably disagree with the move.". Captain Hindsight = Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I would agree, particularly since we generally try to avoid -gate articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal, is there a consensus somewhere, or a policy or guideline or essay about -gate articles? This wasn't created as a -gate article, but later adopted that name when it became the clear common name for the controversy in the press. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
There is WP:POVNAME, which discusses how we avoid colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, with -gate being an example. It is also discussed in more detail elsewhere, but I can't find where at the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the last move discussion was perhaps rushed, but I do note there are a large number of -gate articles on Wikipedia. There's Sharongate, Pizzagate, Italygate, Nutellagate, Bendgate (as a subsection), Batterygate, Lochtegate, Grannygate, Bananagate (as a subsection), Cashgate, Coingate, Corngate, Elbowgate, Fallagate, Fajitagate, Plebgate, Leakgate, Memogate... at which point I got bored of writing them down. Bondegezou (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I've asked the closer to revert their close, as I don't believe four hours is long enough particularly that there are now objections. Those other examples do exist, but they don't mean we need to use the less encyclopedic example here. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I assume you mean Memogate (Pakistan)? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I assume so. The counterpoint to those examples would be Burning Sun scandal, Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, Brian Cowen nude portraits controversy, The Russell Brand Show prank calls row, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Mitterrand–Pasqua affair, Bank Bali scandal, 2006 Pennsylvania General Assembly bonus controversy, Fort Lee lane closure scandal, Willie O'Dea affidavit incident, United States diplomatic cables leak... at which point I also got bored of writing them down. The point is that there is no consistency in whether we use -gate or not, but I would think that it is better to use the more encyclopedic alternative. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Um, were these all widely portrayed in the media, colloquially, as something-gate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes; Burning Sun gate, Nipplegate, Portraitgate, Sachsgate, Climategate, Reutersgate, Angolagate, Baligate, Bonusgate, Bridgegate, Brothelgate, and Cablegate. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
You are right that there is no consistency in whether we use -gate or not. I am certainly not pushing for -gate uses to be mandated: I just thought your earlier comment that we generally try to avoid -gate articles was perhaps in error. WP:COMMONNAME appears to be the key policy here, so I sympathise with the arguments made that led to the switch to "Partygate". As I said, that move was perhaps mishandled and I don't recall participating in it at the time, but, as one Australasian mammal username to another, I can't say I see much point in re-litigating the decision now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I think COMMONNAME is a policy here, but one that we are encouraged to dismiss in favour of more encyclopedic alternatives, as we did in some of the examples I provided. However, my comment might have been in error; "sometimes avoid" might have been more accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing not Porkpiegate, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Beer

The Daily Mirror is saying the police have a photo of Johnson drinking beer at one of the parties (obviously, Johnson didn't know it was beer and no one told him it was beer!), but the photo can't be published while the police have it and so the alleged word must apply for the time being. I'm mentioning it because the photo could be a key piece of evidence, but we probably shouldn't include it in the article just yet.

In other news, the Queen is enjoying cake today. Is she planning an ambush? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good old traditional British beer. What a star. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I added text about this when the news broke. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I somehow didn't see that and I'm sure I did a search for beer. Must have spelt it wrong. How on Earth could I spell bear wrong!? I'm busy with other things at present but still watching this. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It was really lager. But the party never happened anyway, did it, if it was a party, which no-one told Boris about... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Social gatherings?

Smartse, events described simply and neutrally as 'gatherings' in the referenced article body, should not become described as 'social gatherings' in the lead summary. This is a particular problem because whether the gatherings are judged to be "social gatherings" or "work events" or "parties", or whatever, is what the investigations will have to decide because that will determine whether specific Covid regulations applied to them, or not. Some are alleged to be 'social gatherings' in attributed quotes, but there is no support to describe them that way in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn they had been described as "social gatherings" before this edit. As they have been in almost every cited source, I think. Social gathering redirects to party, by the way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle, yes, but only in the lead (and 1 image caption) and that was why I made that edit, to bring the lead into line with the referenced article content. It's there for all to see - search the article for 'gathering' - and you'll see what I mean. And that's why I'm questioning Smartse's revert. Wasn't that clear? Anyway, don't you think the lead should be purely a summary of the body, and not undermine the body's neutrality with these unfounded assertions in Wiki's voice? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess Sue Gray's report will soon tell us how social all those gatherings were. (If Boris decides to publish those bits.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've set it back with no justification forthcoming after more that two days. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Surely no-one disputes that the 19 June 2020 Shaun Bailey event and the 16 April 2021 pre-Philip funeral Downing Street events were anything other than parties? We can call those social gatherings in Wikipedia's voice. The 17 December 2020 Cabinet Office event and 16 December 2020 Dept of Transport event were less raucous, but relevant people have apologised for these and RS call them parties. Again, I don't see a problem with "social gatherings". Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
If there are RSes to support it, we can add it in the body. The lead though is an overall summary, and for the general overall case, it is neutral to say just "gaterings" as it doesn't imply one type over another, no matter what specific examples might be supported as being. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the criterion being used here? That some were parties, "social gatherings"? That the majority, i.e. more half of them, were parties? Or that every single event mentioned was a party? And from where has this criterion come? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
We are summarising the article body in the lead, and "party" and "social gathering" are conspicuous by their absence in the body as Wiki voice descriptions of any of the events mentioned. Why is that - is it because the sources can't support it, or is it that editors have held back from describing them that way? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm in favour of being cautious, but not as cautious as DeFacto. This would be less of a controversy if the reported gatherings were demonstrably for work purposes. They were not. They were reported as social gatherings or parties, and we can report the fact that they were reported as social gatherings or parties. Whether in fact they breached the regulations seems to be still in dispute, but clearly the whole controversy revolves around the fact that, to a very large number of people, and media, they appeared to be social gatherings outside the rules that were in place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to make that clear in the body as well then. We could also add a brief discussion about it being the way they appeared, rather than what they might have been, that has caused much of the bad press and furore over this. As I've said before, that might not be obvious to readers who have not been close to UK press output for the period concerned. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
We can't seem to even agree that the 100-invitee bring your own booze cheese and wine "event" on 20 May 2020 was a "party." But, as a first step, I would strongly support describing events as "parties" or "social gatherings", in the main body, where appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that if they are disputed or reported as allegations rather than as accepted and incontrovertible facts, then we cannot assert them as fact in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The "problem" as I see it is that the words commonly used to describe such events, in common parlance and in very many media reports, have become implicitly "outlawed" until the contents of the official report are published (if they ever are published). Martinevans123 (talk)
I agree that "social gatherings" is the appropriate term to use in the lead - the word "party" has been used in all titles of this article so far as it reflects how reliable sources have characterised such gatherings, in that they were specifically social gatherings and therefore have been seen to contradict the government's own guidelines. We could even link to the term in the lead if there is any doubt. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
However, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body that terminology would need to be supported in the body first (as it currently is not). It would it would fail WP:VER otherwise, if added solely to the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What about just saying "social and other gatherings" in the lead? Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess we still need the s-word in the main body. Martinevans123 14:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Re this edit. The gatherings were reported as "social gatherings" (or "parties"). Where the article summarises published media reports, there is no problem with describing them as "reported social gatherings" - not simply "gatherings". Where we are summarising Gray's report, which describes them simply as "gatherings", we use that word. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
"Reported social gatherings" means the social gatherings that were reported, and that cannot be said in Wiki's voice. Check-out Gray's report - none of the gatherings are described as "social". If you insist on using the phrase "social gatherings", then we need to qualify that the reports were of allegations of social gatherings, per the article body. So something like "Whilst several lockdowns in the country were in place, social gatherings were alleged to have occurred at 10 Downing Street, its garden, and other government buildings", perhaps. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
"Reported social gatherings" does not necessarily mean that they were really social gatherings - it says that they were reported as social gatherings - which is neutral, and true. Yes, Gray's report refers to "gatherings" - but this article is in part about the reports of social gatherings (or parties) - not simply about what Gray has said about them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
"Reported" is, at best, ambiguous. It's primary meaning is "Having been formally or officially announced or described".[11] See WP:Ambiguous words, which advises "If an ambiguous term cannot be avoided, then the context must make its meaning clear". The context is that what was reported were allegations of such gatherings. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah right. We'd better strip out all those newspaper and media reports, because they aren't "formally or officially announced". Wow. How about "possible speculation about alleged gathering some of which may have been parties"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

All that is required is the use of clear and unambiguous language. Or is that too much to strive for? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
[12], [13], [14] all refer to "social gatherings". Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
You are missing the point - again. The lead is supposed to be a summary of our article, not a review of the most editorialised terms used by the world's press. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Referring to the most editorialised terms used by the world's press does not suggest that you are approaching this article from a WP:NPOV. We have citations referring to "social gatherings". They can be included in the body of the article to support the wording in the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought you were saying we could use it in the lead and in Wiki's voice, even though we do not use it that way in our article body, simply because it's used that way in three random (unused in our article?) press references. Isn't that what you meant? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
You appeared unhappy with the current sourcing, so I found some more sourcing. The basic question is: is it verifiable that social gatherings occurred? It appears to me that, yes, it is verifiable that social gatherings occurred. (That doesn't mean every gathering under discussion is characterised that way.) Given this, the article should say social gatherings occurred: in the body of the article and in the lead. In doing so, we will be reflecting existing RS coverage, as should be the case. Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
"The lead is supposed to be a summary of our article, not a review of the most editorialised terms used by the world's press." I thought you had agreed that all we need, to have "social gatherings" in the lead section, is to have "social gatherings" added to the main body? What's all this nonsense about "the world's press"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Per my 10:29, 1 Feb post. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Per my 14:30, 31 Jan post. But I'm not sure "three random (unused in our article?) press references" constitute "the world's press". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The public thinks they were psrties. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto is still trying to change it.] Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I modified the start of the article to

A political scandal, which was nicknamed partygate, broke out in the United Kingdom regarding gatherings or festive parties of government and Conservative Party staff

from:

Partygate is a political scandal in the United Kingdom, regarding gatherings or parties of government and Conservative Party staff

This was reverted with the summary: "This is a more usual start to a Wikipedia article". Whether or not it is more usual doesn't make it more correct. "Partygate" is an informal nickname; what happened is a particular political scandal. ("Watergate" is an exception, a name which became iconic and started the "-gate" suffix.)

So I'd suggest that "Partygate is ..." is not the best way to start the article. Opinions?

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:FIRST, specifically: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". Opening with "Partygate" is fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Per Ghmyrtle and MOS:FIRST, I prefer the second version starting with "Partygate". No Great Shaker (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I also prefer the second version, simply because it reads better! Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Plus, some of the parties (sorry, gatherings/work meetings with cheese and wine/beer/cake) weren't technically 'festive' – Johnson's birthday was in June. I think the "gatherings or parties" phrasing seems a bit clunky, though. —AFreshStart (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree with AFreshStart that the "gatherings or parties" phrasing seems a bit clunky.
A party is a gathering. We don't say "people or the prime minister", "drinks or beer", "cakes or birthday cakes", "buildings in Westminster or Downing Street", ...! I know it's an attempt to make sure we squeeze the 'party' word into the first sentence somehow, but that way simply does not work. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The "...or parties..." wording comes from this edit, I think. I don't think it's necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

We need to consider the whole paragraph here: Partygate is a political scandal in the United Kingdom, regarding gatherings or parties of government and Conservative Party staff held during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, when there were public health restrictions that prohibited most gatherings. It ends with "most gatherings" so, to maintain context, the first sentence should just say "regarding gatherings of" by removing the words "or parties". No Great Shaker (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

We could say "parties or other gatherings", as I think was discussed before. Some events were verifiably parties and we shouldn't be using a euphemistic "gathering" instead. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
That places the emphasis on parties so I would go with that, but "gatherings or parties" is plain wrong because, as DeFacto said, a party is a gathering. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Removing the specific reference to "parties" in the lead sentence makes a nonsense of the article title. The scandal is because they were parties (or allegedly, depending on your view) and is how they are referenced in most sources. So Wikipedia does not need to be coy about calling them such. Had they been vague "gatherings", which includes much more innocuous events, there wouldn't have been anything like the outrage generated and this article would either not exist or would not be called "Partygate". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree (this is why I RV'd DeFacto's removing this from the lead in the first place). "Parties or other gatherings" makes a lot more sense; as you say, if these were genuine "work events", this would not be as much of a controversy. But there are other gatherings caught up in this scandal that are more ambiguous. The way it reads now is okay (I'd remove 'festive' personally, but I guess the Christmas parties started the whole thing off...) –AFreshStart (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Events with wine and birthday cake were definitely festive gatherings whether they were parties or not. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pol098 is right that "parties" must carry an adjective to dissociate itself from politics but "festive" is incorrect usage in BE. "Celebration parties" fits the bill, especially as it can be linked. In BE, "festive" is used almost exclusively in relation to the Xmas/New Year period. It isn't used for birthday parties or for leaving does. However, when Johnson goes, that will be a festive event, a nationwide one. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The streets will be festooned with bunting. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just changed the text from reference to "celebration parties" (with link) to "parties" on the grounds that "celebration parties" is not a phrase anyone normally uses. I've also gotten rid of the link, as per MOS:OL. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought 'parties' without an adjective had been ruled out because our readers would confuse it with political parties. How about "bashes", "dos", "shindigs", "get-togethers" or "functions"? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I think "parties" is appropriate; "parties and other gatherings" is fairly obvious to most that they're not referring to political parties. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
We've been going round in circles here and it's back to "parties and other gatherings". I think this makes the most sense and I agree with AFreshStart that "and other gatherings" makes it obvious that the activities were social and not political. As I read this thread, the current wording is the closest to a consensus. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Partygate/Archive_2&oldid=1080267240"