Talk:Partygate/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Blog use inconsistency

Yesterday we had an "unreliable source" tag on a Cummings blog source supporting something he said removed, with the summary "A blog by Cummings is a reliable source for Cummings saying something and is reasonable to have in addition to the RS given".

Today the same editor, Bondegezou, totally removed a similar sentence (Cummings saying something) supported by exactly the same blog, this time tagged as "Non-primary source needed" totally removed with the summary "given a sourcing tag, removed sentence".

Should Cummings's blog be used to support his words, or not? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If they haven't been reported in a better source, they are almost certainly not sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the need to include the links to his blog - it is better to cite the news articles which summarise and quote it as we do for the first link - the blog is only being provided as an extra there. If there is information only mentioned on his blog, it probably doesn't merit mentioning. SmartSE (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I would never regard a blog as WP:RS and, in this case, it is a primary source so its content must be verified by a reliable secondary source. There can be no exceptions to that – it is wrong to assert that Cummings is okay when he criticises Johnson, but is not okay when he doesn't. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In the former case, we have a reliable secondary source supporting the text. In that context, also providing a link to the relevant primary source (Cummings' blog) seems a useful addition to the reader: see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, which encourages linking to primary sources in some situations. In the latter case, there was a piece of text where the only supporting citation was Cummings' blog: in the absence of a secondary source, it seemed safer to just cut that sentence. So, that's the distinction: primary as a supplement - keep, primary alone - cut. Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I should add that I'm happy for the second example to be re-added without the tag, or for it to be re-added with additional citations, of course. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

John Armitage

The article in todays' The Guardian says "Armitage’s intervention comes after a torrid period for Johnson with an investigation by the senior civil servant, Sue Gray, into parties held at Downing Street and Whitehall during Covid lockdowns finding “serious failures of leadership”., so clearly framed within the contest of Partygate? Why else would Armitage make this decision? Because of the Savile slur? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest adding it to Partygate#Within_the_Conservative_Party. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Include it, but with enough context to relate it to the subject this article, unlike the first time it was included. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If Tory donors are leaving the sinking ship as a result of Partygate, then it's relevant. See also the BBC News report. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Proseccogate

Jessica Elgot and Peter Walker at The Guardian identify the open bottle as prosecco. Is this "original research" so that we have to stick with "what appears to be champagne" from the Daily Mirror? Surely, no self respecting oven-ready Brexiteer would have champagne, would they. No word yet on the flavour of the crisps. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable this new source is as it contradicts both the original Mirror report, and The Guardian's first take on it (both cited in the article). This new one says the Mirror's photo shows Johnson and two staff, where the earlier two say it shows Johnson and three staff. If you look at the photo on the Mirror website it clearly shows three staff, albeit with two of them heavily pixelated. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget the one who took the photo. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess they were sober enough to take the photo, but have remained anonymous. Perhaps Pippa Crerar should be mentioned as the journalist who got the exclusive? But yes, clearly Johnson and three others, one only just in shot on the right, with the Santa hat. Johnson seems to be about to start undressing, starting with the tie. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC) (p.s. I expect Boris didn't get heavily pixelated until later in the evening)

This photo, as the previous one clearly was, looks like it was taken from a PC monitor, so presumably taken in another office. Also you can see that the camera/webcam used to transmit the image was in exactly the same spot and pointing in exactly the same direction as it was for the previous one, so probably not hand-held. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, well-spotted. Different versions have probably gone through a bit of clean-up. By the way, I think it was probably a bottle of Canti "Pale straw in colour with bouquet and taste of green apples and flowers. Excellent as an aperitif or with lightly salted dishes (like a half-eaten packet of crisps)..." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks delicious. Can I invite Witman Hung and then maybe go for a spot of golf? Get the whole gang together. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

At least they got a good karaoke session, even if all they had was red wine and purple masks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I asked my missus what is on Johnson's nose and she says it's glue from when he had his clown 🤡 nose on earlier. By the way, has he declared the earnings from his second job at the circus? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Old Plod has now changed his mind about this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate and undue inclusion of opposition party political posturing

Recently I've noticed that this article is concentrating even less on the facts of this saga and more on the opinions - no - on soundbites from, and on the political posturing and grandstanding of, opposition party members, and particularly of their leaders. In fact the article has effectively become a host for as many of these as the opposition party opportunists throw.

The most recent examples include this, this, and this.

I propose removing all of this blatant WP:Coatracking. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If the prime minister breaks the law he can expect to get criticised by his political opponents. Readers can expect to learn what opponents have said in response. All looks like fair coverage to me. This is an article about Partygate, not one for a local Conservative Party support group. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, maybe if it is shown that he has broken the law opposition comment might be appropriate. But currently all we have are worse-case interpretations of unfounded speculation that he has broken the law. No? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Coatracking" refers to the inclusion of material unrelated to article content. The quotes concerned are clearly directly relevant to this article, are noteworthy (and have been widely reported in reliable sources), and one editor's opinion that they are "political posturing and grandstanding" is irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there has long been a tendency for this article to go a bit overboard on soundbites from politicians (on all sides). That's the sort of thing that fills news coverage, but we're WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, we need to cover how political opponents (and supporters) have reacted to events, but I've often trimmed quotations before. I suggest a middle position between the views expressed above. Of the three specific examples DeFacto gives, I'd keep the Starmer quote (given his position as LotO and because it explicitly advances a position), but I don't think the Davey or Rayner sentences add anything. Politicians advancing specific positions are more notable than general criticism.

While I'm here, I note, DeFacto, that you have previously been very concerned about wording while any criminality or rule-breaking was unproven, sometimes advancing the position that this was just mischief-making from the media and opposition parties. Given some criminality has now been established, I presume you will be OK with reviewing some of the wording in the article to reflect that? Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No criminality has yet been established though - FPNs do not do that. They have always been seen as a controversial measure. They are allegations made by the police which can be accepted or contested. Acceptance is generally recommended as there isn't much to lose, just a small fine and no criminal record. If you choose to contest it, and there is a miscarriage of justice, you get a criminal record which could be life changing. All an FPN shows is the personal opinion of the police officer concerned. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If you choose to contest it, and there is a successful prosecution which is wholly valid, you also get a criminal record which could be life changing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so why risk it? This is why FPNs are so controversial and cannot be used s an indicator of whether the law was actually broken, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are fully convinced you were right and the police were wrong, there is very little risk. Or are you saying that every contested FPN results in a miscarriage of justice? I had always assumed that if you simply paid the FPN fine you essentially admitted that you broke the law, even though you don't get any "criminal record". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You may accept an FPN because you agree it was a fair cop or because, although you know you didn't break the law, you do not think you are likely to get a fair trial. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, thank you for your thoughts on FPNs. Your interpretation would appear to constitute WP:OR. You appear to continue to have an agenda of playing down events, rather than of following what reliable sources say. Here are some WP:RS on the matter:

• [1] "A fixed penalty notice (FPN) is issued as an alternative to prosecution for certain offences. [...] You can accept you have committed the offence, as alleged, and pay a fine."
• [2] "asked about the Met update on Tuesday, Raab, the justice secretary, said the fact that 20 fixed penalty notices are to be issued meant coronavirus regulations had been breached."
• [3] "The imminent issuing of the fixed penalty notices (FPNs) means the police have ruled the law was broken"
• [4] "The decision to issue FPNs means the police believe the law was broken"

Ergo, the police have ruled that the law was broken. (None of the RS support DeFacto's phrasing of the personal opinion of the police officer concerned.) The Deputy Prime Minister said COVID "regulations had been breached". Individuals may contest their FPNs, but paying the fine means you accept you committed the offence. (Again, none of the RS support DeFacto's phrasing of FPNs [...] cannot be used s an indicator of whether the law was actually broken. None have caveats like DeFacto's because, although you know you didn't break the law, you do not think you are likely to get a fair trial.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As you point out, the i says that an FPN is issued as an alternative to prosecution. A prosecution isn't an assertion of guilt either. What the same article also says is that "an FPN is not a fine or a criminal conviction", and what they also say is that the recipient can reject the FPN, in which case "the police will then review the case and decide whether to withdraw it or proceed the matter to court".[5]

Hence, no matter what the reported opinions of politicians or journalists might be, without knowing whether the recipient of an FPN has accepted it or rejected it, we cannot even begin assert as fact anything related to whether any regulations have been broken, or not. And if we find out that a recipient has accepted one, we need to temper any conclusion from that with the knowledge that without a lot of time and money at their disposal to support a court case, recipients are generally advised to pay the fine rather than risk a criminal record, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty.

Asserting the wishful thinking of opposition MPs as if it is incontrovertible fact is simply not acceptable. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right that we do not yet know whether people have paid or are contesting this first batch of 20 FPNs. I agree: let us await further reporting there. But we can assert that the police have made a determination that the law was broken, and we can quote the Deputy Prime Minister. I wasn't suggesting anywhere that we assert the positions of opposition MPs are incontrovertible fact. I can't see anywhere in the article where that is done. I concur that there can be a tendency to litter the article with too many soundbites from opposition MPs; I chopped a Davey quotation earlier for that reason.

The suggestion to temper any conclusion from that with the knowledge that without a lot of time and money at their disposal to support a court case, recipients are generally advised to pay the fine rather than risk a criminal record needs sourcing. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

An article in The Telegraph gives an alternative take when it says: 'A report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights said it would seem likely that for most people,"the stress of a criminal prosecution combined with the significant life impacts of a criminal conviction" would mean they would rather receive a Covid fixed penalty notice - even an "unjustified" one - than attempt to contest it'.[6] -- DeFacto (talk). 20:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source now. It seems rather speculative: it's not saying that has happened with the Partygate FPNs. It's also just one souce, so as per WP:BALANCE, it would be good to see more sustained reporting taking that angle. As we discussed previously, we don't know what's happened with this first batch of FPNs yet: will any of them be challenged? Who's had them? For what events? Let us await further reporting. Bondegezou (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, I was assuming that Mr Johnson and all his colleagues would have every confidence in our legal system. But Sue Grey will make all of this clear, won't she? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So when and how do we learn if e.g. Mr Johnson has received and paid a FPN? Is this information in the public domain? Perhaps he'll announce it at the despatch box? Or will that appear in Sue Grey's final report? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As per the article, who gets an FPN is not public information, but No. 10 have said they will say if Johnson or Case are sent one. Johnson said yesterday that he hasn't been sent one. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure we have every faith in Royal Mail to ensure that FPNs are not lost in the post. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, exactly - that is what we see being added - unfounded speculation about what might have happened and about how much the PM knew about it. Nothing that is related to known facts on the subject of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The so-called "unfounded speculation" - if widely reported - is precisely what this article covers. It's about the controversy, not just the "known facts". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of soundbites, political posturing and grandstanding, you seemed to have missed "spent most of his time [as Director of Public Prosecutions] prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile" from your list. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Slur-coat-racking", perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Police questionnaire

Are the questionnaires sent out by the Metropolitan Police, to people who were suspected of breaching COVID restrictions, in the public domain? Would it be unlawful for someone to publish an image of such a questionnaire, whether or not they were the intended recipient? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

They’re not in the public domain. It would depend on the context whether it would be unlawful to publish an image of such a questionnaire, I would’ve thought. Someone would surely be allowed to share their own answers. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the questionnaires has been published by ITV News, here. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought Martinevans123 meant someone’s answers, but I may have misunderstood. Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I meant either. That source might make a useful addition to the article. I am assuming that because it carries the caution "Anything you say may be given in evidence", a completed questionnaire would be treated as potential evidence and thus not permitted for public disclosure. But I really don't know. That "publishing" is not really full, is it. But it's obvious from the questions that's it's specifically deigned for the Partygate investigation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Coronavirus Legislation

Here's a guide to the UK's Coronavirus Legislation. As far as I know this is the law. So anyone who breaches or breached these regulations is guilty of committing an offence. So, for example, paying a Fixed Penalty Notice fine, associated with these regulations is an admission of guilt. And anyone who does this has broken the law. Is this not the case? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, payment of an FPN does not necessarily constitute an admission of guilt. There are other reasons why payment might be made, including lack of time, resources, or will to fight the case in court. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Legally speaking, I think that's untrue. The police and the court system couldn't care less about a person's "lack of time, resources, or will to fight". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the police and the court system couldn't care less about a person's lack of time, resources, or will to fight, but what do you think is untrue? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, it is untrue that payment of an FPN does not constitute an admission of guilt. The sending of a FPN assumes you are guilty and you remain guilty unless you can prove otherwise by appealing with good reasons, or (if that appeal is not accepted) by later appearing in court and winning your case. If you just pay the fine you are agreeing that you were guilty. There are no half measures. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't find a page about Covid regulation FPNs in particular, but I found one covering many other uses of FPNs, and it is very clear that "The payment does not constitute an admission of guilt, but removes the possibility of the creation of a record of criminal conviction".[7] It is also interesting that it says an FPN is not a fine, because "a fine for a criminal matter is something that follows a conviction in a court". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well maybe your source covers all those Coronavirus lockdown parties that involved depositing litter... failing to clean up after a dog has fouled public land... and minor 'fly-posting'...etc. in Newcastle upon Tyne? You must have searched quite hard to find that one. If these Partygate FPNs don't include "fines", why is the press coverage so full of that word? But this is all just semantics. If one breaks the law, one commits an offence and one is guilty. This is how most people understand the FPNs issued for breaches of COVID restrictions. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The citation given refers to environmental and community protection offences, not COVID-19 legislation or Partygate. It is also a primary source. Seems rather WP:SYNTHy to apply it here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, DeFacto, what you're suggesting is that none of the people issued with Coronavirus FPNs should be considered as guilty of anything, because they may all pay their fines just for the sake of convenience and personal expedience. What utter bilge. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not why none of the people issued with the FPNs should be considered guilty of anything. The reason is that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

An FPN is not a substitute for a guilty verdict, it is a substitute for a criminal charge that, if the payment is made, will not be made and will not be pursued through the courts. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

So, you are arguing that if the police give someone an FPN for breaking the law and that someone does not challenge it and pays it, we should conclude that the person is innocent? This fails WP:COMMONSENSE, as well as WP:V. I think you need to ask yourself whether you are approaching this topic in an WP:NPOV manner. Bondegezou (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing that - did you read what I wrote?

And as you seem to want to question my actions, let me clarify exactly what I am trying to do so that you can, perhaps, help, rather than hinder it. I am trying to improve the factual accuracy, neutrality and verifiability of this article. There is clearly a long way to go though, especially when some editors think it's okay to fill it with the sort of heavily spun and misleading verbatim quotes of political posturing and parroted editorialsed commentary from political-agenda-driven journalism that we continue to see added. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, the widespread belief that paying a FPN fine constitutes an admission of guilt, is correct. Making this clear in the article has nothing to do with "heavily spun and misleading verbatim quotes of political posturing and parroted editorialsed commentary from political-agenda-driven journalism." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We'd need RS support for any such assumption we make that, unlike with other types of FPN, that with Covid-regulation-related FPNs paying equates to pleading guilty. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've found some more RS reporting to support the accuracy and verifiability of the article around what the FPNs mean:

• The Guardian: "the Met confirmed that parties were held at No 10 during lockdown that broke the law"
• Daily Mirror: "Downing Street today bizarrely refused to accept that 20 people who have been fined for breaking the law broke the law." Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I wish to step back from this article for a bit. I offer some further citations and hope others can do something useful with them.

• [8] "International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan told Sky News the Metropolitan Police’s move to ask the Criminal Record Office to issue fixed penalty notices on Tuesday meant those people receiving them had “broken the regulations that were set in the Covid act”. She added: “The Police deem that was what they did and therefore they have been fined accordingly”."
• [9] "A second cabinet minister has admitted that lockdown laws were broken during the partygate scandal"
• [10] "This week Downing Street has repeatedly refused to say whether the Met announcement proved that Covid laws were broken, despite Justice Secretary Dominic Raab and Trade Secretary Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan in interviews admitting that receiving an FPN would equate to having broken the law." Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  All that those references do is confirm the level of understanding (or integrity?) of the various journalists. FPNs are not all of a sudden proof of law breaking because some journalists say they are. All that an FPN is is an allegation of law breaking. The recipient has the option of ignoring it.

  Similarly, refusal to agree with the political posturing of opposition party members that an FPN equates to a guilty plea is not a refusal to admit that laws have been broken, it is an acknowledgement that we do not yet know that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  "The recipient has the option of ignoring it." No, that is not correct. If the recipient does this they will eventually receive a court summons. A FPN does not "equate to a guilty plea". There are no pleas in this process. Paying the fine implicitly shows that one agrees that one broke the law. It's very simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, they can be ignored, that is not an offence. That doesn't mean no further action will be taken though.

  Payment might be seen as the least risky option to go forward with, so is not necessarily an acceptance of guilt. The recipient might not understand enough about the accusation to know if they were guilty or not, or may have been falsely or erroneously accused, but not have the wherewithal to mount an appropriate defence, or the confidence that a challenge would be successful. How can that possibly imply guilt? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please provide a source that somebody breaching Coronavirus Legislation has not committed any offence. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what use that would be. A more useful source though would be one that supported the notion that the receiving of an FPN should always be taken as a confirmation of guilt. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  If would be of use in supporting your argument. Here's another source that says "The policing minister has appeared to back the view of two Cabinet colleagues in stating that the issuing of partygate fines is evidence that police believe the law was broken in Number 10." Your argument seems to be that we can't trust the police and that anybody who never has a case proven in court must be assumed to have broken no law. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  My argument? I cannot see which of mine that would support, please enlighten me. And yes, "... that the police believe the law was broken...". That's a supportable statement of police opinion, there is nothing wrong with that. We can't accept opinion as if fact though, so we cannot translate that into "... is evidence that the law was broken... " and claim the reference supports that too - because it does not. It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of level of proof and consideration of all relevant factors. Or why do we have courts and juries in the first place? Why don't we just leave the police to make all the decisions of guilt, sentencing, etc.? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah right. So you agree that if somebody breaches Coronavirus Legislation they have committed an offence? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Of course, if they have breached them, yes. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  We have courts and juries for more serious crimes. Your argument seems to be this: because the British police are corrupt and because some people may have been incorrectly served with FPNs, we must assume that everyone served with a FPN is not guilty. Or have I missed something? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  You have missed something. My argument is that we cannot assume that someone is guilty of breaching the regulations just because the police allege that they have by giving them an FPN. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  But you are saying that because at least one unnamed person sent an FPN may be not guilty of breaching the regulations, we must assume that everyone sent a FPN is not guilty, because UK police are inherently corrupt or incompetent? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  No I'm not. I'm saying it because FPNs aren't evidence of guilt. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes, of course. Even if Mr Johnson were to be sent an FPN and this was to be reported by the world's press, we could not possibly mention it, because that might imply he was guilty. I think you're living in a parallel universe. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Eh? If Johnson got one, we would of course mention it. What we shouldn't do though is suggest that it in any way proves, or even implies, guilt - because it doesn't. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think it does imply guilt. It may not prove it, but it strongly suggests it is the most likely scenario. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  It implies the police think they have a case that would stand up in court, that's all. As does every criminal charge they make too. But, as we all know, a charge is not the same as a conviction either, and without a conviction guilt cannot be assumed or implied. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

All that those references do is confirm the level of understanding (or integrity?) of the various journalists. Wikipedia's epistemology is very clear. We go by what reliable sources say, not the opinions of editors. We go by those references, not what you think. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that you used to believe in! Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, welcome back - that was a short 'step back'. ;-)

Sources that assert as fact that laws were broken cannot be that reliable because that is simply unknown at the moment. All we have to go on currently are the 20 FPNs, and we know they do not imply guilt, and the spin put on those by opportunistic opposition party members. Currently we don't know of any court cases that have ruled that laws were broken, so anything suggesting they were broken can only be opinion and speculation. Or can you explain it another way?

Remember too what WP:BLPCRIME says: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured".

FPNs are accusations, not convictions - so we currently have no convictions, so cannot assert guilt currently. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder would any editor, who has been fined for breaching COVID 19 laws, be able to report the exact wording of the FPN they received, or even upload an image. Surely these are fully in the public domain. I'd like to see for myself any wording about it being an "accusation", or otherwise. Maybe it's time that WP:BLPCRIME guideline was updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have currently stepped back from editing the article, not from editing the Talk page. WP:BLPCRIME would apply if we were talking about a specific person(s), but we are not. There are no names attached to the coverage of theFPNs. So WP:BLP does not imply. You've tried that argument before and it didn't work then.

Sources that assert as fact that laws were broken cannot be that reliable because that is simply unknown at the moment. This is nonsense. The claim that this is simply unknown at the moment is based solely on your personal reasoning, i.e. WP:OR. Wikipedia's epistemology says we look to reliable sources. I have provided numerous reliable sources that state that laws were broken.

There is no point you repeating your personal opinions (WP:NOTAFORUM). If you have WP:RS that support your thesis, present them. Your struggle to understand what RS are saying is your personal problem, not Wikipedia's problem. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies to living persons. As far as we know, the recipients of the FPNs are still alive - and each of them is a specific person, so it applies to each of them.

If you have an RS that contradicts what I have said wrt FPNs, then please provide a link to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No one has proposed naming them. How do we know who they are? Are your suggesting that Sue Grey will name them? Or are you arguing that BLP guidelines mean we cannot possibly suggest that some unnamed living people have broken the law just in case they haven't? How utterly ridiculous. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

BLP doesn't say we need to know who they are, or does it? They, and their families and friends may know who they are - they are each an individual real, and living, person. Why would we want to assert that they are guilty when we do not know that they are? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP covers this. BLP does not apply to comments about a broad group of people, as here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, this isn't about a collective or group, each of the FPNs addresses a specific private citizen. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Which is it? Do we need to know or not? You're saying that we can't possibly assert that some unnamed person sent a FPN is actually guilty, in case someone in a reader's family and friends has been sent one and they might assume we mean them? Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see where BLP says we need to know, can you? And no, I'm not saying that, or anything like it. What I am saying is we should not assert guilt when it is not known. Those receiving FPNs have the right to expect accuracy and verifiability in anything here that applies to them. Do you disagree with that? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Those receiving FPNs have the right to expect accuracy and verifiability from the Metropolitan Police. But it seems to be your personal thesis that they can expect neither because the police are inherently corrupt. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Eh? What thesis? Inherently corrupt? What are you talking about? This is a discussion about the role of FPNs, not police integrity. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the link you added in your edit today here. But you are saying, fundamentally, the police can't be trusted, are you not? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You clearly did misunderstand it. And no, I am not saying the police cannot be trusted. What I am saying is that FPNs are not equivalent to a conviction, they are equivalent to an allegation, and as such cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Do you follow that? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would follow it much better if you could provide a single official source that clearly said "paying a FPN fine for breach of COVID-19 regulations does not constitute an admission of guilt." You won't find such a statement even at the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I thought we'd already covered all that, but maybe not specifically for Covid FPNs. You're correct that it's difficult to find that specific detail, possibly because it is so obvious, but here's an excerpt from a secondary source covering it - the webpage of a London-based legal services firm: "A person issued with an FPN under Coronavirus legislation who pays the fixed penalty amount within 28 days cannot be prosecuted for or convicted of the offence for which the FPN was issued. Payment of an FPN does not constitute an admission of guilt and does not form part of an individual’s 'criminal record' in the way that a conviction or a caution does".[11] -- DeFacto (talk). 09:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, although that's obviously not an "official source". I'd say that nothing in the legal domain is necessarily "so obvious that it doesn't need a source". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian (clearly a preferred source for many editors of the article) know about it too: "If the police issue Johnson with a fine, he could accept it or potentially challenge it. Payment of the penalty does not constitute an admission of guilt to an offence and does not result in a criminal record, but the failure to pay it could lead to a prosecution in a magistrates court".[12] -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems more authoritative, although again not "official". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This Sky News article has lots more material of use here, with an amount for the first batch of fines (£50) and which event they pertain to. It’s not entirely clear, but it seems to be saying that the police consulted with the CPS before issuing fines, which is significant given the claim asserted above that an FPN just reflects the opinion of an individual police office. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say "consulted with the CPS before issuing fines" wholly rules out it being the "opinion of an individual police officer." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The source doesn't suggest that though. It says the CPS would need to be consulted if the case went to court, and that can only happen if the recipient chooses not to pay the penalty. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, here are the five mentions of CPS in that article:

Sky News understands that the Metropolitan Police investigation has been slowed down by the need to consult the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

A CPS lawyer would be needed if the recipient of a fine decided to fight and take the issue to a magistrates' court.

The CPS can ask the police to do more work, or direct them to collect more evidence until it is satisfied it could prosecute a case.

Sky News understands that the Metropolitan Police did not fully consult the CPS at the start of the investigation.

The CPS could have questions about the unusual questionnaires used to extract more information from those in government.

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very unclear, self-contradictory and at odds with the normal process for FPNs. But nowhere does it say that the CPS were consulted before FPNs were issued. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification required

Bondegezou, please explain this revert, particularly the last sentence of the edit summary. As I read it, the cited source is referring to answers to questions from Pete Wishart during a Commons committee session. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The article used the exact wording in the citation, yet you twice [13][14] edited the article to something that (a) doesn't make sense, and (b) was clearly not supported by the citation. When others didn't accept your revision, you slapped a failed verification tag on. I find it hard to follow the sense in what you are doing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou,

a) We do not need to parrot political editorialisation from a cherry-picked source.

b) I don't think the cited article is referring to PMQ, so I tagged it in good faith for someone else to double-check my reading of it.

Please avoid bad faith interpretations. and please check the cited source and see if you agree that it is not referring to what was said during PMQ. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The citation given is a regular BBC News report on PMQs. To describe it as political editorialisation is odd. However, more sourcing and more precise detail are both good things. I will see what I can do to improve on that front. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As we do not yet know whether any laws were broken (all we have are unscrutinised police allegations in the form of FPNs), it is clearly political spin to say Johnson refused to admit that laws had been broken. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

According to you, DeFacto, the only way we would know that someone really did break the law would if they contested the FPN, appeared in court and won their case. Even then, you seem to be arguing, that could easily be a "miscarriage of justice." You deduce from this, that all recipients of FPNs who simply pay up must be assumed to be not guilty. I do not accept this and I think it is a fundamental error in logic on your part. Do you think Sue Grey will conclude that, if everyone pays their FPN fines, nobody broke the law? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Eh? We'd only know if they were guilty if they refused to pay and then went to court and were found guilty. Otherwise we have no way of knowing.

I deduce that it is not supportable to say anyone who pays an FPN is guilty as accused, because we do not know whether they were, or not, without a court case.

That's quite logical and quite straightforward really. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Really this is just playing with words and definitions to avoid saying something that has already been said by, among others, Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary; "clear there were breaches of the law". Perhaps this is an opinion, but clearly an authoritative one. The fact that his PM is not in agreement with him is also notable. The article should reflect this. Fretting about which individuals are, or are not, guilty is a different matter. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your argument seems to match the one that Emad al-Swealmeen was not guilty of anything as he never went to court; also for Salman Ramadan Abedi, and of course for that leading charity worker. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone claiming that anywhere, but I'd accept that we cannot say for sure that was guilty of anything that he had never stood trial for. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And the only person I've seen, claiming that anyone who has been fined for breaching coronavirus laws should be considered not guilty, is you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

An FPN for alleged breaches of coronavirus laws is nothing more than an allegation and is not an indicator of guilt, even if has been paid without question. Or do you have an RS saying that Covid FPNs are different to all other FPNs in that respect? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We know that laws were broken because reliable sources report that. You may have a different opinion, but your opinion carries no weight because WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As I just said above, sources that assert as fact that laws were broken cannot be that reliable because that is simply unknown at the moment. Unless they are keeping something up their sleeves, all we have to go on currently are the 20 FPNs, and we know they do not imply guilt. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't know that at all. Your own bizarre personal view is that "they do not imply guilt." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, have you changed your mind on this now you've seen the sources I provided in the other discussion above (and duplicated below for Bondegezou)? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, not entirely. I still believe that most people will think that paying a FPN fine implies guilt of some kind, even though it does not lead to a criminal record. I honestly think, in the case of Partygate, the police will have been very careful in their investigations before issuing FPNs. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Your view doesn't carry weight though, we only use reliable sources, and they say that paying an FPN does not imply guilt. They don't say that if the police have reason to be careful then different rules apply. I don't think we have a choice here. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Your personal opinion does not override WP:RS. You are a long-standing and experienced editor. Stop pretending you don't know that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, personal opinion? I thought that was general knowledge. But as you are disputing it, here are a couple of excerpts from sources confirming it (with my emphasis):

• "If the police issue Johnson with a fine, he could accept it or potentially challenge it. Payment of the penalty does not constitute an admission of guilt to an offence and does not result in a criminal record, but the failure to pay it could lead to a prosecution in a magistrates court".The Guardian
• "A person issued with an FPN under Coronavirus legislation who pays the fixed penalty amount within 28 days cannot be prosecuted for or convicted of the offence for which the FPN was issued. Payment of an FPN does not constitute an admission of guilt and does not form part of an individual’s 'criminal record' in the way that a conviction or a caution does".Bindmans

So that leaves the point standing that sources that assert as fact that laws were broken cannot be that reliable because we simply do not know that, and per WP:BLP we cannot imply guilt if it has not been established by a court. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

But a statement such as "In response to the FPNs, Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister, said it was clear that the law had been broken... " is clearly attributed to him and so is perfectly valid? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so long as its context is clear and it is clearly attributed as his personal opinion and balanced with the fact that FPNs alone do not imply guilt. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If we have some reliable source(s) that "balance with the fact that FPNs alone do not imply guilt" in that same context. Otherwise that's WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, per WP:NPOV, which says: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance". The other point of view, that FPNs cannot imply guilt, is supported by by reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We have reliable sources specifically on the question at hand that say the law was broken. We then have the (smaller number of) sources you have provided that you then interpret as disproving that. There’s more WP:SYNTH on your side of the argument. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop all the WP:Wikilawyering to try and keep relevant facts out of the article. It is not SYNTH to compare countervailing sources, it is policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest Govt line from Rees-Mogg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60980892 Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Poor Boris, misled by his own advisors. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Material not supported by citation

Could someone revert this [15] edit by DeFacto, which is not supported by the citation given? Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying then that he did confirm that laws had been broken? That is not supported. What we do do know for certain that it was impossible for him to 'admit' that laws had been broken, because that has never been proven. All we currently have are the allegations embodied in FPNs, and the knowledge that even if the FPNs are paid without challenge, that is not considered to be an admission of guilt. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no support for the phrase “could not”. That is never used in the citations and is your own interpretation. Please stop edit-warring to add WP:OR. Please revert yourself or come up with a new wording that corresponds to what is in the citations given. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Johnson's spokesman just said: "The prime minister has said he respects the position of the Met, and also equally that this investigation is ongoing. You’ll hear more from the prime minister at the conclusion of this process rather than in the middle." There is a complete transcript at The Mirror here with the headline "Downing Street refuse to say 20 Partygate staff broke law - read the toe-curling exchange". So I also think some rewording is required. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I chose "could not" because we know there haven't yet been any convictions that would allow him to confirm that laws had been broken. How could he confirm something that no-one yet knows? He certainly couldn't be said to have "refused to admit the laws had been broken". How about "were unable to confirm whether laws had been broken"? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

He may have been perfectly able to. According to the spokesman, he chose not to simply because the investigation had not yet concluded. Maybe a direct quote would be better? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

How could he have been able to before any convictions have been made? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, your WP:OR is irrelevant. Materials has to be supported by reliable sources. "Could not" is not. Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not my OR, there are reliable sources telling us that FPNs cannot be taken as evidence of wrongdoing - for that we need a court conviction or a confession, even if they have been paid. However, after today's news, it seems we can say that at least one person has accepted they had done something wrong. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If the fines have been paid, of course we won't ever get a court conviction - that's the whole idea. And how would you interpret admitting an "error of judgement". Not as an admission of guilt, I'm guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As said in the post you replied to. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Fines

Fines have issued, people have been named. The edits naming people who have been named should stay Star-one (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Only if they are verifiable and policy compliant, which the ones you made were not. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, so they’re Fixed Penalty Notices — given ‘Fine’ is what most people call them, it’s fine to keep Fine as the section title Star-one (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Above DeFacto said "If Johnson got one, we would of course mention it." So who are we allowed to name and who not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is immune from being mentioned, so long as what is said about them is verifiable and policy compliant. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Fine" is ambiguous and potentially misleading. Our aim should be to provide a clear and unambiguous text, not follow the editorialising practices of a cherry-picked source. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If the names individuals were being reported in partisan blogs such as The Canary or Guido Fawkes then I’d say DeFacto here would have a point, and the information should not be replicated here in Wikiped. But since the names are being reported by the BBC and the Daily Telegraph, two reputable news organisations who would not publish tittle tattle and speculation without having a reasonable degree of factual verified confidence in it, I think it’s sufficiently factual to be included on Wikipedia. Star-one (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I'm just asking what our criterion is? Presumably if the person is deemed notable by Wikipedia, i.e. has an article? But I'm surprised that DeFacto can agree to this, given their argument that no guilt has been established. Presumably Ms. MacNamara might still wish to challenge her FPN and prove her innocence in court. I doubt she was the one sent to the Co-Op to get the suitcase o' booze. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto does not WP:OWN this article, as nor do any of us. We can collectively agree on what to say. That process may involve an individual voice being overruled: it frequently has before!

We should be led by the weight of reliable source reporting. We should use appropriate caveats, again taking our lead from reliable source reporting. WP:BLPCRIME applies once we start naming individuals. BLPCRIME doesn't say anything about these sorts of fixed penalty notices, but the basic principle from there is that we should err on the side of not saying anything about individuals who are not public figures. But, In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

So, who counts as a public figure? WP:LOWKEY details this. In particular, it has an "Eminence" category and counts as public figures those who, Has sought or holds a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor, usually at more than a locally-significant level. Such a position does not necessarily convey notability, but is evidence of projection of self-identity into the public consciousness. So, public figures are not necessarily notable (i.e. they don't necessarily have an article). The wording focuses on those who seek political office versus civil service roles, but I would've thought that senior civil service roles at No. 10 are a position of pre-eminence [or] power. Helen MacNamara surely qualifies as a public figure in this context. It is possible others do not. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, naming isn't the problem, what is said about the person might be though. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't the naming that was the problem, it was the unverifiable stuff being said about them. There was verifiable stuff that could have been said, but accuracy didn't seem to be the main objective. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the former Director of Ethics is perhaps sufficiently notable that if she gets fingered by the bizzies for illegal behaviour, that’s of itself notable enough to be referred to. Some office junior getting a fine^WFPN yeah indeed they count as being sufficiently low key as to not be mentioned, but Helen MacNamara whilst nobody might have heard of her until now is a senior figure Star-one (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

MacNamara says she did wrong and paid the fine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60983517 Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes she said, "I am sorry for the error of judgement I have shown." Perhaps someone will interpret this to mean "I am sorry for the error of judgement I have shown in paying the fine when I should have gone to court to prove I was not guilty"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe ""I am sorry for the error of judgement I have shown in not getting the Co-Op's Festive three-for-two offer on Bulgarian Prosecco." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the words "fines" (not "payments") - so should we. They note the responsibilities of her post (at that time) - it's relevant to the scandal, so we should mention it as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, I assume that here you are referring to my replacement of the word "fines" with "payments" in the phrase "collects any fines". Do you honestly think that the word "fine", used as a noun, is more appropriate, more grammatically correct, and more technically accurate than using the noun "payment" when referring to what has been received when someone pays a fixed penalty notice? There is no Wiki requirement to always adhere to to precise vocabulary used in sources, especially when, as here, it is ambiguous ("collecting fines" is also what repeat offenders do). FPNs are "paid" and the money received by the authority is a "payment" - payments are collected, the authority collects the payments. Would you have accepted my copy edit if I had replaced the cited source with one which used the word "payment"?

Note (FWIW): Regulation 10 in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020[16] (the regulation that describes the use of FPNs for Covid offences) does not use the word "fine" at all, but uses the words "payment", "pays", or "paying" 7 times. So it's not that "payment" is the wrong word. Perhaps you just prefer the spin that the loading that accompanies the word "fine" gives? We know that news journalists specialise in the use of journalese, but we also know that we should not parrot that habit in Wiki articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"Would you have accepted my copy edit if I had replaced the cited source with one which used the word "payment"?". If it was a reliable source, yes, of course. It's best to use words that are used in the sources, and not to presume that you know better than those sources. If you dispute the reliability of sources like the BBC, I'm sure you know where to go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you accept that "payments" accurately describes what ACRO is collecting wrt FPNs, or not? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A "fine" is a form of payment. But we should be more rather than less specific, and if sources use "fine", so should we. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A "fine" may be a form of payment for fines, but it is controversial, inaccurate, and non-neutral to characterise an FPN penalty payment as a "fine". An FPN is the option to pay a civil penalty to prevent prosecution, and a fine. The legislation doesn't use the term (it calls it a "fixed penalty" or just "penalty"),[17] the Human Rights parliamentary committee looking at these doesn't use the term (they also call it a "penalty"),[18]. Per WP:NPOV, we should should surely stick with more neutral term. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No, we should stick to what the sources say, rather than relying on your original research and opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So you'd ignore WP:NPOV? It explicitly says: "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Implying (deliberately or by the omission of clarification) that an "FPN" (or the penalty payment) is synonymous with "fine" is, at best an opinion, but at worst a lie. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"A fine or mulct is a penalty of money that a court of law or other authority decides has to be paid as punishment for a crime or other offense.. (My emphasis) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but an FPN is neither for a crime nor an other offence. It is a civil no-blame penalty option to avoid being charged with an offence. The use of the word "fine" here is totally ambiguous to the extent that it obfuscates the difference - as I said. We have the choice to add clarity by using a more specific term or by qualifying it with added verbiage. Why not choose the path of clarity? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think most people would term the partying as "offensive". But, in any case, we must go with what reliable sources say, not with our interpretation of it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, thanks for the link to the regulations. Is that a "primary source", or is it just "cherry-picked", as you might say? But I am having difficulty in finding the word "payments" in any of the very widespread press reports. They all seem to use the word "fines". Perhaps you have an example? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with going back to the horse's mouth to support points on a talkpage, is there? Should we be providing NPOV encyclopaedic content, or parroting the news journalists' use of loaded terms and editorialisation? I'm uncomfortable with the use of (deliberately?) misleading terms when there is a neutral alternative (as you might already know!). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so you haven't. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Haven't what? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I said "Perhaps you have an example?" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought you was more of your sarcasm! I think all the usual source sources have used it. Here are a few examples (with my emphasis)...

• "It [Acro] will receive and process the payments required from each person who has been found to have breached the regulations". - BBC News
• "According to snapshot figures from early January, of those 196 [FPNs] issued in England five had been paid, 53 were being formally contested, 42 had been ignored, and 96 still had time left to pay in the 28-day payment period". - ITV News
• "If a payment is not made, a person can be summoned to court for prosecution". - iNews
• 'The notification, which was received by some late last week, added: "In light of this, you are to be reported for the issuance of a fixed penalty notice (FPN), offering you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty"'. - The Guardian
• 'The email, which was received by some late last week, added: "In light of this, you are to be reported for the issuance of a fixed penalty notice (FPN), offering you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty"'. - Independent
• 'The notification was said to have been received by some people late last week. It said: "In light of this, you are to be reported for the issuance of a fixed penalty notice (FPN), offering you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty."' - The Times

Are they the sort of thing you couldn't find?

Sure they all also refer to an FPN as a "fine" and to the payment as a "fine", but that's just more sloppy journalism (or maybe deliberate spin to obfuscate the difference between a civil penalty and a criminal conviction?). Do you think Wikipedia should echo that sloppiness, or should it attempt to use clear and accurate language to help readers to understand that an FPN is the option to pay a civil penalty to prevent prosecution, which if resulting in a guilty verdict would lead to an actual fine? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you also favour use of the phrase "reported for the issuance of a fixed penalty notice (FPN)"? That really is appalling use of English. But those are just journalists quoting from the original primary source. I don't think it's "sloppy journalism" at all to use the word "fines", it's just using the common name. Maybe we ought to see what Hansard says on the use of payments vs fines? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hansard? How do you think the party political spin of, err, party politicians is likely to help? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it's not the primary source and it provides an example of "official use". But perhaps you think, since politicians (like the police?) can never be trusted, that the Civil Service and the Department of Justice are the only proper "official" sources here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an 'official record', but politicians' speeches, etc. couldn't be classed as "official use", could they? How would you reconcile the likely differences between language used by, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg and, say, Angela Rayner? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You're saying Rees-Mogg says "payments" and Rayner says "fines"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, when you start going on about parroting the news journalists' use of loaded terms and editorialisation, it again appears that you wish to put your opinion above that of reliable sources. That is not how Wikipedia works. We favour secondary reliable sources over WP:PRIMARY sources, WP:SYNTHesis or WP:OR. You have been around here a long time. You know this. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The only opinion I have is that should learn to recognise the difference between opinions and facts in secondary sources, and then either fully attribute the opinion and contrast it with alternative opinions, or cut through it altogether and present only the underlying facts.

Although it is clear why news journalists might want to, I cannot see why Wikipedia editors would want to potentially mislead their readers into thinking a civil FPN is equivalent to a criminal fine. If you think the fact that news journalists choose to use the misleading language is relevant to the topic, then why not add a section about it? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth adding a footnote to make the legal distinction clear. Even though most British people call them "fines". Like "parking fines" or "speeding fines" - those are quite ubiquitous phrases, aren't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

How would you source the footnote? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, that might be problematic. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I like footnotes. Using straightforward English, but using a footnote to explain technical points can be a good way forward. There may be appropriate sourcing for a footnote. Some Partygate apologists have sought to cast FPNs as being the same as a parking or speeding fine, which they are not (they are more serious). DeFacto is concerned about confusion with a criminal fine. A footnote could make all that clear without overloading the main text with convoluted language. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

How many journalists' interpretations do we need

Two journalist interpretations on the decision by Downing Street not to comment on an ongoing investigation were added to the article yesterday. Do we believe that their personal interpretations have WP:DUEWEIGHT here. If we do, I guess there are going to be a lot of other journalist/political spins that will need to be added to almost every other statement in the article.

Surely a single concise summary, as we already had, that a cuts through the spin is all that is required. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on whether they are included or not. What I object to is DeFacto seeking to cast doubt on their value as reliable sources by claiming that they are merely "journalist interpretations". It's a bit Putin-esque. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To attribute them and describe them correctly is expected by WP:NPOV, particularly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and that should not be characterised as "seeking to cast doubt on their value", or worst still as "a bit Putin-esque". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers "biased statements". Are you suggesting that sources like the BBC and The Independent are "biased"? If so, you need to head to WP:RSN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that every (or even any) cited source used in the article is neutrally written? Sources are not required to be neutral, just reliable. That means that the personal opinions of individual journalists and/or of editorial direction will be present in most sources. That doesn't mean that we have to accept their non-neutral POV without appropriately describing it though, and that is explained in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? So for "most sources" across the 6,479,806 Wikipedia articles we have to step in to explain to the reader what the "non-neutral POV" of the author is? You're going to be pretty busy with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about the sources used in this single article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well yes, hardly surprising that sources reporting highly political events may have some personal political opinions from individual journalists and/or signs of editorial direction. But it's our job just to provide clear attribution to author and/or outlet and let the reader decide for themselves. Not to provide some kind of arbitration service to explain what the "real" meaning is behind those reports? 09:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? It gives a similar example thus: 'Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited'. That's what I attempted to do, but obviously, it wasn't 'praise', it was an 'interpretation'.

Perhaps, if we choose to keep biased opinions like these, we should follow the example even more closely, and say something like: "Downing Street's decision not to comment has been interpreted as a refusal to admit that laws had been broken by [insert an appropriate characterisation of them here, analogous to 'baseball insiders' in the example] news outlets such as BBC News and The Independent". What do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Might be easier to just wait until Johnson admits people broke the law. But of course, Sue Grey's final report will probably now be delayed until after the local elections. So we might have bit of a delay. Mr Plod as methodical as ever. But your suggestion may be a reasonable one. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Perfectly happy with the version by Ghmyrtle here. Thanks for asking (instead of instantly reverting, like an infant throwing toys out of the cot). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, I am surprised that you feel WP:BRD applies with an edit like this. You are the only one taking this position. You have repeatedly Reverted others' edits and we've seen repeated Discussion above. Multiple other editors have clearly disagreed with you already. There are screens and screens of discussion above and no-one has supported your case. We've done the D and your position was rejected. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The controversial content was added yesterday, my attempts to make it policy compliant were removed, we have no agreement to keep it as was, or as made worse in this edit, so it is a classic BRD case. Thanks for adding your own personal opinions, but we should be arguing from a policy-based, not personal-opinion-based, perspective. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We're going to get a classic BRD case for all the "controversial content" that you don't like, each day? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't often do a 'BRD', but with a deadlock on a serious policy point it can help focus minds and more effectively deliver a consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the BBC and The Independent are both reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, that's good to hear, but that is not the issue here. I don't think their reliability has been questioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, you appear to be unnecessarily complicating the discussion. It looks pretty clear. You've cited BRD and brought the matter here for discussion. Ghmyrtle, Martinevans123 and Proxima Centauri all oppose your position; no-one supports you. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is only a couple of hours old, and I don't see anything close to a policy-based consensus to restore that content. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is basically the same issue discussed in Talk:Partygate#Coronavirus_Legislation, Talk:Partygate#Clarification_required, Talk:Partygate#Material_not_supported_by_citation and Talk:Partygate#Fines above, so we've been discussing it for about 6 days. No-one has supported your position in any of these discussions. Your interpretation of what constitutes policy has been robustly challenged. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The first of those was about the status of an FPN, the second about whether remarks were made in PMQs, or elsewhere, the third is similar about a different occasion - but that petered out with no consensus, and the fourth was about potential BLP issues wrt naming an individual based on unsubstantiated hearsay. I cannot see their relevance to this discussion. Also, I'm not sure what, relative to this discussion, you say was "robustly challenged". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

All the discussions are around what we say about the fall-out of FPNs being issued. The first of those was about the status of an FPN: the debate was about whether we write what RS say or follow DeFacto's interpretation. the second about whether remarks were made in PMQs: the debate was about whether we write what RS say or follow DeFacto's interpretation. the third is similar about a different occasion: the debate was about whether we write what RS say or follow DeFacto's interpretation. but that petered out with no consensus: you said one thing, no-one else agreed with you. the fourth was about potential BLP issues wrt naming an individual based on unsubstantiated hearsay: the debate was about whether we write what RS say or follow DeFacto's interpretation. I suggest the article should follow what WP:RS say, using the words they use. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There was a common thread though, failure to qualify reliably sourced biased opinion with reliably sourced fact per (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).

We seem to have got into the bad habit of adding biased opinion and assuming that because it is RS-sourced, it is incontrovertible and cannot be challenged or properly annotated and compared or contrasted with known facts. Let's try not to impose our own cherry-picked/favoured interpretations against the requirements of Wiki policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

So, you think they are "reliable", but "biased" (in that you claimed support for your argument from WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)? How does that work? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We have totally different accounts, each from a source declared as 'reliable' by Wikipedia consensus at WP:RSP. There is the one that gives basic facts that Downing Street declined to comment whilst the investigation is still in progress and two others that spin that as a refusal to admit or accept that laws were broken. If we are to include the latter two (which I don't favour), then we need to explain the discrepancies per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There is currently text in the article, inserted by you, that states, "On 30 March, Johnson in Parliament and his spokesperson to the press could not confirm that laws had been broken." As you neatly summarise, none of these citations support the phrasing "could not". Would you be so kind as to correct your earlier edit? Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

On 30 March no-one could confirm that laws had been broken, as there had been no convictions and no confessions, so it is still correct as it stands, and verifiable.

All that was known then was that twenty options to pay a civil penalty to prevent prosecution had been issued (fixed penalty notices), and as we know, they do not imply guilt, or even constitute an admission of guilt if payed. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source saying On 30 March no-one could confirm that laws had been broken. Numerous reliable sources have been presented and are currently cited in the article saying otherwise. Bondegezou (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Didn't we already discuss that in the section you started about that very edit it above? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In the prior Talk section you mentioned, you failed to give an RS. You have still failed to give an RS. What you presented before was some WP:SYNTH. Show me an RS using the phrase "could not" or something close to it about what Johnson and his spokesperson said. Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, Johnson has said nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

He said lots on 30 March in Parliament in PMQs and then in a committee hearing: see [19], [20], and [21]. I don't think what those articles say is represented very well in the current article text. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. He just won't say (sorry DeFacto, can't say) if anyone has broken the law. I see that first BBC source also says "The police have now concluded there was widespread criminality." Not sure if that passes the DeFacto fact-not-opinion test. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a verbatim quote of Keir Starmer's interpretation of the police effectively saying, that up to that time, they reasonably believe that 20 offences have been committed. Does it pass your "fact-not-opinion test"? It is certainly a fact that he is reported to have given that interpretation. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

So would you be prepared to include that verbatim quote, attributed to Starmer, in the article. Or would we also have to have the word "interpretation" somewhere there as well? I suspect we will never get a statement of any kind from the Met themselves. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Given his profession (politician) and role (leader of the official opposition), and his likelihood of giving any benefit of any doubt, and his likelihood of milking any opportunity to attack the government, and Johnson in particular, I'd say (IMHO) it's nothing more than a political soundbite and not worthy of inclusion at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Using that measure, I'm not sure we'd include any quotes from any politicians, on any side, ever. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree, and would support that, except in response to stuff about themselves, of course. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, like Johnson saying "I broke the law". 16:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We covered it up there, we don't need to go over it all again here. This is a different discussion, and continually raising off-topic challenges is not helpful. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We have covered all these issues, yes. No-one has agreed with you on any of it. It would be helpful if you acknowledged that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure there are differences of personal opinions, but according to WP:Closing discussions#Policy, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". My arguments are generally rooted in my understanding of policy and not just personal opinion. If you think we have different understandings of the policies, then please describe them, in a new section perhaps. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be clear by now that your interpretation is not shared by other editors on this page, and that does not seem likely to change. So, if you are dissatisfied, the way to go is somewhere like WP:3O. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen alternatives offered that challenge my understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in this discussion. I haven't seen other explanations for the contradictory statements between sources that challenge my conclusion that it is journalist/editorial opinion/bias. If we had those we might be able to make some progress. As it stands, I don't see a consensus to include the two additional views on Downing Street's position. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

And there you have it. As long as everyone who gets sent a FPN pays "the payment", none of them will have broken the law. Or at least, no-one will ever know if they broke the law or not. Sue Grey will certainly not be able to say in her final report. And even when that report is finally published, even if Boris stands up at the despatch box and says they did break the law, Wikipedia will have to correct him. After all he's just a biased politician. In fact, according to DeFacto, if ANY source said somebody broke the law, Wikipedia would have a duty to correct them as well, as they couldn't possibly know. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my views on this. Fact is fact, but an alternative interpretation of the evidence of the fact is opinion, and Wiki policy describes how it expects that to be dealt with. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if you feel I have misrepresented your views. I thought that was a fair summary. Please correct any of the above if you think it's incorrect. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We could start with your last sentence in the post I was replying too: "In fact, according to DeFacto, if ANY source said somebody broke the law, Wikipedia would have a duty to correct them as well, as they couldn't possibly know". To "correct them? What I've argued is that for cited opinions we need to attribute them and describe them correctly as expected by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I was asking only about that last post of mine, to which you were replying. You have made it quite clear that you believe it's not possible to say if anyone has broken the law without a criminal trial? So if there are no sources that could be added to illustrate that belief, you would be quite happy to just add the opinion that someone had broken the law, provided any such statement was "attributed to them and they were described correctly"? I thought there was also the suggestion for a footnote to explain that receiving a FPN and paying it did not mean someone had broken the law. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by all that. Do you agree that we need to make it clear what is fact and what is opinion, and if we choose to include opinions that contradict known facts that we need to ensure we describe them accurately and give readers the information they might need to be able to assess them for themselves? This isn't about judging them or 'correcting' them, it's about making the article policy compliant and useful to readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

What you have said above, DeFacto, is I deduce that it is not supportable to say anyone who pays an FPN is guilty as accused and sources that assert as fact that laws were broken cannot be that reliable because that is simply unknown at the moment and As we do not yet know whether any laws were broken (all we have are unscrutinised police allegations in the form of FPNs), it is clearly political spin to say Johnson refused to admit that laws had been broken. and Sources that assert as fact that laws were broken cannot be that reliable because that is simply unknown at the moment. and no matter what the reported opinions of politicians or journalists might be [...] we cannot even begin assert as fact anything related to whether any regulations have been broken, or not. Perhaps you would like to clarify what you meant, because it came across as you correcting reliable sources...? You have often seemed to have issues with what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, with comments like that's just more sloppy journalism (or maybe deliberate spin and editorialsed commentary from political-agenda-driven journalism and All that those references do is confirm the level of understanding (or integrity?) of the various journalists. We do need to make it clear what is fact and what is opinion, but we have to be careful that the determination of what is fact follows standard Wikipedia policy (which trusts reliable sources) and is not just our own opinions or deductions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it' all there to see - I know what I wrote, I know what I meant, and I even summarised it succintly @11:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC). And I've never said we should't trust reliable sources, just that we need to be aware of, and correctly handle (i.e. per Wiki policy) bias within them. If you think you know better what I meant that's not my problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Which bit don't you understand? It's all in plain English. You seem to want to make it clear that it is a fact that receiving and paying a FPN does not mean they have broken the law. So if we ever use a source that implies that, we have to balance it with another source that corrects that misapprehension? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The point you are trying to make isn't clear to me and your last sentence is your conclusion, not mine. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how I can make that any clearer. But you explicitly disagree with "if we ever use a source that implies that, we have to balance it with another source that corrects that misapprehension"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. You can't 'correct' an opinion or interpretation. But you can, and indeed should, describe opinions or interpretations as such, and contrast them with other opinions and known facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, are you going to do us the courtesy of explaining your policy-based rationale (particularly in relation to biased statements as covered in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) for taking it upon yourself to, effectively, close this discussion down by edit-warring the change under scrutiny here back into the article while this discussion was still active?

Your answer is important because policy at WP:DETCON requires that "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", and the talkpage guidelines suggest that "if the discussion is particularly contentious or the results are especially unclear, then a request specifically for a closing statement from an uninvolved administrator may be preferable". -- DeFacto (talk). 06:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think I was "edit-warring", you need to make your case in another place. However, I certainly think this discussion should be closed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

And your rationale for restoring the disputed text before closure is what? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you raised this at WP:CR yet? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would I? As far as I was concerned, the discussion was still ongoing. You seem to have decided to ignore that fact though, and proceeded to restore your contentious edit assuming the consensus was in your favour. That's why I'm asking you to provide the rationale behind that assumption. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"As far as I was concerned, the discussion was still ongoing." But, no-one else agrees with you. You are the only person wishing to continue the discussion, and in those circumstances if you are dissatisfied you should continue it elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is over. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So you ditched the normal etiquette, skipped the 'close' step, and re-imposed the contentious change - based on your own view that you were right all along. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this right?

Recent edit: [22] Is this right, i.e. that the Telegraph alleged MacNamara's presence, or is this confusing two things, that the Telegraph alleged Reynolds was present and we now separately know that MacNamara was presented? Bondegezou (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, not quite structured correctly. The BBC alleges MacNamara was there, not The Daily Telegraph. More than just an allegation of course, as MacNamara has admitted it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not supported by the cited sources and I have reverted it again for that reason. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The BBC sources says "Helen MacNamara was reported to have gone to a leaving do for a fellow civil servant on 18 June 2020." That looks quite clear? There are many other sources for her attendance e.g. here, here, here and here. She actually "brought the karaoke machine", according to The Daily Telegraph. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The article was changed to say "The Daily Telegraph also alleged that 20 people were present, including Reynolds and Helen MacNamara, with alcohol consumed.", and that wasn't supported, as far as I could see, by either of the cited sources. If you've done the research and can add a valid and supported statement, then why don't you do that? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion was to re-structure the text. Why couldn't you do that, or at least agree to that? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Do what? Add your suggested text? I haven't see that suggestion, sorry. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Eh? Please show your suggested re-structure that you think I should have done for you. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

When did I suggest you should do anything for me? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

At 08:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC) you wrote: "My suggestion was to re-structure the text. Why couldn't you do that, or at least agree to that?"

I couldn't see where your suggested text was. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It was a general suggestion. You are free to construct your own text, you know. But I see that IP 208 has saved you the bother. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a person to fish and you feed them for a lifetime? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." ... and there is no firm evidence that fish were involved in any of the Partygate gatherings. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnson pouring drinks

The Guardian and The Times report this: "The Sunday Times revealed that as well as giving a speech Johnson poured drinks for people, including himself. A photographer is said to have been present throughout and taken pictures of the prime minister. Downing Street did not dispute the description of the event but said it was untrue that Johnson had organised it." Should this be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnson and Sunak to be fined

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61083402 Bondegezou (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have broken the law and repeatedly lied to the British public. They must both resign." I think we have all agreed that a quote such as this can be added, as long as it's attributed to Starmer. And regardless of the fact that nobody will know if they really broke the law if they just pay their fines. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Should it be qualified as an opportunist statement though, as an FPN is not an indicator of having broken the law, even if paid without question, and we don't know that they didn't believe that in good faith? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As long as we don't have to cherry-pick an RS source which describes it like that. I don't see any similar framing in that BBC source. Adding such an interpretation, just in Wikivoice, would be editorialising, wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it would be addressing a biased statement per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Asking Johnson to resign is also a "biased statement"? Would you want to add a qualification to that, in Wikivoice? The whole issue of "paying FPN fines doesn't imply breaking the law" needs to be somehow dealt with once, before we get this far into the article, not at every instance of a statement by a politician? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not quite sure why this needs to be discussed. The statement is completely acceptable if attributed to Starmer and sourced to BBC News or a similarly reputable source. It would be completely unacceptable as POV/OR if written without attribution. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 15:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Very well. I have added it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see we now have Category:Crime in London. But this is valid only if someone disputes their FPN, takes the matter to court and is subsequently convicted? Sorry to raise this. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that the Boris Johnson article has no qualms about stating that he became ".. the first Prime Minister in British history to have been found to have broken the law while in office" even in the lead section. Perhaps a similar statement is needed in the lead section here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue with this, and I'm sure other sources to support it are available. It seems to me that the distinction being drawn between "being fined", "committing an illegal act" and "breaking the law" on this article is based on the original research of contributors, and not found in reliable sources discussing the case. The article should reflect what reliable sources say, not editors' interpretation of the law as it might apply. Are there any sources, quoting legal specialists, discussing this case and splitting hairs in this manner? If not, this article has no business doing it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Last night's Newsnight BBC programme was very clear that Johnson, Sunak and everyone else issued with a FPN had broken the law. Legal expert Adam Wagner of Doughty Street Chambers described the FPN as a "criminal sanction short of being convicted of a crime". He suggested they would not appear on a person's "criminal record". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The BBC have the formulation "the first sitting PM to be sanctioned for breaking the law", for example. Regardless of the severity of offence and/or penalty, it's not really a disputable fact that by being issued a FPN, Johnson, Sunak, et al committed a criminal offence; on the other hand, unless they refuse to pay the fine and were successfully prosecuted, it'd be untrue to say they were convicted of a criminal offence. Sceptre (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But someone probably thinks that relying on the judgement of the police to decide if a crime has been committed is a slippery slope towards a police state? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, people have been complaining about the GATSO Gestapo since the speed camera was invented, it doesn't change the fact that if someone gets flashed for doing 37 in a 30, they still broke the Road Traffic Acts! Sceptre (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

An FPN is, effectively, an accusation of wrongdoing by the police, and not proof of it. The threshold for issuing one is low; only that the police have a reasonable reason to believe an offence was committed. Being issued an FPN is not evidence of guilt, even if it is paid without question. And if the FPN is ignored, the police then need to up their game, consult the CPS, etc. and see if they can get together enough evidence for a charge - if they can't, it will be dropped. And an FPN is a civil penalty, not a criminal one. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You'd better let Adam Wagner of Doughty Street Chambers know that he doesn't know what he's taking about. Here's his profile page. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

What does he say that contradicts that? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

He calls it a "criminal sanction". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You previously said he said "criminal sanction short of being convicted of a crime": i.e. a penalty for an alleged crime. And that equates to my "effectively, an accusation of wrongdoing by the police, and not proof of it". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This is playing with words. Does 'sanction' really equate to 'accusation'? Doesn't matter. Your interpretation of the law is of no interest to the article. You may be right, you may be wrong. Doesn't matter a jot. The purpose of any discussion should focus on; does the article accurately and fairly reflect reliable sources? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No, 'sanction' does not equate to 'accusation', it equates to 'penalty'. The penalty is raised based on an 'accusation' and not, as is normal for crimes, on a conviction. The 'accusation' is based on what the police believe to be the case. This isn't my interpretation of the law, this what we see in the sources. Is that clearer? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A "penalty" assumes there has been an infringement? In this case a law having been broken. That's the normal understanding in the UK, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No. All it assumes is that the police have a reasonable belief that there has been an infringement. It's a lower threshold than is required to make a criminal charge, and we know that many of those end with 'not guilty' verdicts. Why would we assume a criminal infringement for a civil penalty when we cannot assume a criminal infringement until after a guilty verdict has been delivered in court for a full criminal charge? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

"we know many of those end with 'not guilty' verdicts"?? We're talking abut COVID-19 FPNs here. Where on earth is there a shred of evidence for that claim? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr Wagner's profile says: "He is a trusted commentator on TV and radio explaining COVID-19 law to the public. He has acted in a number of path-breaking cases relating to the pandemic, including the Good Law Project’s challenge to the Metropolitan Police’s refusal to investigate the Downing Street parties..." So I'd suggest he is a reliable source to quote on these matters, if needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with his self-appraisal. But what has he said in particular that we don't already know? And if his opinion contradicts that of other similarly qualified commentators, we should, of course, note that too. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a self-appraisal commissioned and vetted by his chambers. Whether that makes it more or less reliable, I don't know. Do you have a contradictory statement by another, equally well-qualified, expert saying that "an FPN does not mean one has broken the law"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Where has he said that? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

He has said no much thing. I'm asking you to provide a refutation, of what he has said, by another legal expert. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are asking for refutation of something he has said, can you say what, and show where he has said it. For now I can't see anything he has said that contradicts what I've been saying about FPNs all along. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, so you agree that FPNs are a "criminal sanction", which is what he said on Newsnight on Tuesday night? I don't recall you saying that all along. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You said he said a "criminal sanction short of being convicted of a crime". So a penalty relating to crime, but without proof that a crime had been committed. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

He never mentioned anything about "without proof that a crime had been committed". That would be putting words into his mouth. It rather seemed to me that he assumed a crime had been committed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you seriously think a legal expert would simply assume a crime had been committed just because a police officer 'believed' that one had? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I expect he would suspend judgement until the circumstances had been fully explained to him. Wagner was quite clear that it's ".. when the police offer reasonably believes that an offence has been committed.." In general terms, I would agree that paying a FPN fine is not necessarily an admission of guilt. But in the specific case of Boris Johnson, the explanation he offered that it "did not occur to me" at the time that he had broken the rules, is an admission of guilt. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the regs say they must reasonably believe that to issue an FPN, and I've said the same all along, that that's the only threshold required. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I generally don't see the purpose in including opposition statements. Their literal job is to complain about the government and get the PM to resign. It doesn't really matter how good or bad of a thing he's done. You'd struggle to find a positive comment from the opposition unless the issue is entirely uncontentious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You may be right. Boris is now too busy being Winston Churchill for them to make any difference. And the Commons just happens to be on Easter recess, so no PMQs to worry about. And the threat from within the Tory Party now seems to have evaporated. The climate may change if and when he gets any more FPNs. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case, why do you think the opposition doing their literal job is not notable? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It's like saying they attend the house, participate in debates, answer constituent queries, and everything else they are expected to do and routinely do, whether they believe in it or not. Do you consider they are all notable things too? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

To the subject of this article? No. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It probably depends on what those statements are? We might well expect Starmer, and Davey, and Blackford to all say "I disagree with the Prime Minister over x, y and z". But when they say "he must resign", that's slightly more notable. If we did not report these things the average reader might well assume that the opposition had no real problem with what Johnson has dome and said. 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ProcrastinatingReader. Their comments are generally predictable, expected, unremarkable, and thus adding them is giving them undue weight. On the other hand, if they supported the government, or sympathised with their situation and the plight of their staff struggling and working long and thankless hours to manage the pandemic under the relentless criticism and attack of the press, then that might be worth adding. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that any comment on Partygate, by any member of any opposition party, should be removed from this article? Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No, just those being given undue weight, the totally mundane, predictable and stereotypical ones that add zero value to the article and the addition of which is an insult to the intelligence of readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So we'd have to agree which are "the totally mundane, predictable and stereotypical ones". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

My position is basically the same as DeFacto's. Some parts are probably worth mentioning, like the saga with Starmer's comments followed by the beer pic. But a generic "This is bad, the PM should resign" (by itself) is totally mundane. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The demands for a resignation have become slightly "mundane" because there have been so many. Many previous governments have lasted without a single such demand? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not true, at least for recent governments. Let's look at some recent PMs. Theresa May had lots of calls to resign, heck she was nearly sacked by her party. David Cameron got such calls over Syria.[23] Tony Blair got the same from the opposition.[24][25] I imagine there are many more examples. If you dig through House of Commons Hansard records you'll probably find tons more, but they don't tend to persist in history or be memorable because they're cookie-cutter. Again, it would be more newsworthy if the opposition didn't want the PM to resign; the entire job of the opposition is to unseat the current government. Which is also why half the things the opposition tends to want heads for are disingeneous. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just some kind of record. Back on 12 January it was seven times in one go. Thanks to David Davies, of course we have all been reminded of Leo Amery in 1940. Perhaps there is a Hansard scholar who could answer the question. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how predictable certain editors find about the statements of notable people. They are relevant and notable. Removing them would give the ridiculous impression that they had nothing to say on the matter. Otherwise, can we remove the statements by the PM where he says it wasn't him, didn't happen, move on? 'Cos they're all very predictable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

More soapboxing

Today another example of the article being used as a WP:SOAPBOX for opposition party political posturing was added with summary to attempt to justify it. I removed it for what it is, but was very quickly reverted, with the summary: "The leader of the opposition's opinion is notable, relevant and part of his job".

Isn't it as discussed above, that it is precisely because it is "part of [their] job", that this sort of mundane, predictable and totally transparent political opportunism is not appropriate content? Wikipedia is not a communication channel to help opposition party members perform their job of opposing and trying to undermine anything and everything that the government does. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should reflect how reliable sources are discussing events. They find the leader of the opposition's opinion notable. I'm sorry you find their job of holding the PM to account for his actions mundane and predicable. I guess, as in life and many jobs, not everything in a encyclopaedia can be novel and exciting. But it is kind of an important part of events, discussed as such in sources, and should be in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

From WP:NOTOPINION: 'Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view'. Do you think the addition of attack soundbite after attack soundbite from opposition party members satisfies that mandate? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well that policy is chiefly aimed at Wikipedia editors. I don't know if Keir Starmer has an account or is using it as a soapbox. As a politician, I'd say that "climbing soapboxes" is precisely what he is supposed to do and whether he's performing the job of opposition or providing what you describe as soundbites is very much a matter of opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to accurately and neutrally reflect what is in reliable sources. It is not supposed to neutralise the subject. Partygate is a political scandal (the lead says so), so it shouldn't pretend that everyone is neutral about it. If these are overwhelmingly negative towards the PM, then so be it. If you think the article isn't a balanced reflection of the sources, please add or suggest additions where the PM's position is supported (whether by soundbites or not). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We are the editors, and the policy says of political propaganda: "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". I didn't see any attempt to follow that direction with the content in question. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda channel, to help the Prime Minister keep his job, by sweeping all criticism under the carpet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not that either. I'm not sure that the contrived, unfounded, robotic, and predictable attacks and slurs are genuine criticism though, even though they sell newspapers. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Your description of the criticism seems to betray a certain political bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see good faith in that interpretation of an apolitical characterisation, one that would apply equally to an opposition of any colour. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a rather limited sample of political oppositions on which to make judgement. Do you think that all comments by an opposition party are necessarily "contrived, unfounded, robotic, and predictable"? And are never fair criticism, but always "attacks and slurs"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That depends on the precise context, but it does not depend on the colour of the government or on the colour of the opposition. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see why all opposition comments in this debate should be characterised as worthless. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that might seem (to some) to betray a certain political bias. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 19:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not soapboxing or undue to reflect the main reactions in reliable newspaper sources. It's what wikipedia does. (Hohum ^@) 19:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BIASEDSOURCES is quite so unequivocal about that, and we also have WP:NPOV and even WP:ATTACK to consider. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

How does WP:BIASEDSOURCES inform our reading of this BBC source, the one you removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It reminds us that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". I didn't remove the addition because of that source though, see my edit summary for the reason. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact is large numbers of reliable sources are criticising the way people in Downing street behaved during Partygate and the article reflects that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It lacks proper balance though. It seems like derogatory and inflammatory remarks from opposition parties are being deliberately cherry-picked for inclusion, and the need for balance is not being given enough attention. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We just need to cherry-pick the dull ones instead? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that balance is more likely to be added for dull ones? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should be doing any cherry picking, but should simply reflect what the press reports in a balanced way. If the comments seem to be "derogatory and inflammatory", that's just too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think we should include full verbatim quotes for everything reported in news media to have been said by opposition party members? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think including "full verbatim quotes for everything reported" would be "a balanced way." But that's not happening anyway - if it was, the article would be quite enormous by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIG suggests that a page size greater than 50 kB may need to be divided and that one greater than 100 kB almost certainly should be divided. Guess how big this article page currently is (click here to see the answer). -- DeFacto (talk). 10:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, we can't blame all that on "full verbatim quotes for everything reported", can we? Not sure how a split would work. And there seems to be plenty more to come yet. Perhaps Boris would consider resigning for the good of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Readable prose size is 64k. The size argument is also beside the point. (Hohum ^@) 15:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"May need to be divided then". How did you measure it? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Still beside the point. The methods to measure readable prose size is at WP:TOOBIG, which you already linked:

"Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize."

(Hohum ^@) 17:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

So, as already pointed out, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:BIASEDSOURCES, WP:ATTACK, WP:NPOV and WP:TOOBIG are not reasons to prevent inclusion of representative reactions in reliable sources. In my opinion, editors should be free to add/keep them. (Hohum ^@) 17:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

..and nor is WP:BLPNAME, which has just been used in an edit comment while reverting. Clearly a spokesperson for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice isn't having their privacy invaded by including their name when quoting what they have publicly said. (Hohum ^@) 17:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It needs serious consideration. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about WP:TOOBIG, but then that was never proposed anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice

Why shouldn't this notable group be mentioned? Their spokesperson is not just a "private citizen" but is an appointed spokesperson for the group? She need not be directly named anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree a spokesperson for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice merits a mention. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Justifying removing this per WP:BLPNAME is ludicrous. I'm going to replace it. SmartSE (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse, per WP:BLPNAME: "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories". Can you perhaps cite a few non news media sources then, to at least attempt to legitimise your arrogant assertion and revert. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Are they a notable group? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

They have been widely reported, so yes. Are you going to try and block every inclusion of critical opinion in this article? (Hohum ^@) 17:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice have a Wikipedia article of reasonable length, which makes them notable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, perhaps you should add that to WP:GNG or WP:ORG then, to add clarity. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hohum, block? I don't have that power, even if I wanted it. All I'm doing is trying to ensure we're sticking to the Wiki policies. Articles are required to respect the privacy of private individuals as well as present a neutral point of view, and must not take sides - but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. We should not just repeat sensationalist and biased journalism. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems more like reverting, then repeatedly shotgunning policies that don't apply. (Hohum ^@) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

They have a Wikipedia article = they are notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about that. I think that depends on whether the notability of the subject has ever been challenged in its article. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

In this case I see you've edited the article in question. So I'm assuming you have not challenged the general notability claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur, that was not a reason to assume that. However, I have not challenged their notability. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean I looked at the history of that article, and saw your edits, and did not see that you had ever added a template to challenge the notability (and neither had anyone else?) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for filling the logic gap. Do you think, from the evidence in the article, that it is a notable organisation (in the Wiki sense)? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Compared with the thousands of stub articles that still exist across Wikipedia, I'd say it was 100% notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I asked though. Do you think it passes the WP:GNG & WP:ORG tests as required to determine if the level of notability is sufficient to have an article? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, 100%. If you have doubts and would like to test them, you should raise that at Talk:Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice and add the appropriate template on the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't done the research yet, and I'm not sure life is long enough, even if there is a strong case. This is Wikipedia remember. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We all wish you well in you new life. Enjoy the research and return only if you feel you must! :) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability here actually means; "Are they of any significance to the article subject?" Having a WP article doesn't mean they become notable on every other article. In this case I'd say they are of secondary significance, but a reasonable opinion to add amongst all the usual politicians. At least it can't be said they are simply "soapboxing". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we're talking due weight rather than notability now. The two are independent of each other - you can have any permutation of the two, but stuff should only be added with due weight, whether from a notable contributor, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We are tired of these discussions where all the other editors disagree with DeFacto. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, is that the royal 'we', or have you been elected as spokesperson? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be getting elected any time soon, DeFacto. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)