Talk:Partygate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Partygate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 7 days

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes

Section size for Partygate (50 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,280	6,280
Background	15	5,541
COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom	4,371	4,371
Westminster	1,155	1,155
Timeline of reporting and reaction	39	88,872
2021	113	25,050
Up to 6 December	6,991	6,991
Stratton video (7–8 December)	7,130	7,130
9 December onwards	10,816	10,816
2022	11	49,068
Up to 19 January	25,404	25,404
From 24 January	16,766	16,766
After the conclusion of the police investigation	2,369	2,369
After the publication of Gray's report	4,518	4,518
2023	3,874	14,715
COVID-19 Inquiry evidence	4,306	4,306
June–October 2023	6,535	6,535
Events	2,874	29,644
During first national lockdown	7,114	7,114
Mid-2020	565	565
During second lockdown in England	6,243	6,243
With London in Tier 2	4,039	4,039
With London in Tier 3	5,437	5,437
During third lockdown in England	3,372	3,372
Investigations	20	75,720
Cabinet Office inquiry	31	33,457
Simon Case	1,663	1,663
Sue Gray	5,873	5,873
Investigation update	8,886	8,886
Alleged lobbying before the final report was published	4,785	4,785
Final report	12,219	12,219
Police investigation	10,734	33,542
Fixed penalty notices	17,818	17,818
Scrutiny of the investigation	4,990	4,990
Privileges Committee investigation	8,701	8,701
Reactions	13,990	81,188
Within the Conservative Party	36	38,520
Initial responses	12,043	12,043
Alleged intimidation of MPs opposed to Johnson	2,966	2,966
After the Sue Gray update	18,978	18,978
Confidence vote	1,623	1,623
Johnson resignation	2,874	2,874
Election results	1,296	1,296
Opinion polls	22,653	22,653
Independent adviser on ministers' interests	4,729	4,729
Labour Party event in Durham	4,655	4,655
See also	508	508
Notes	24	24
References	28	28
External links	1,269	1,269
Total	293,729	293,729

Tense[edit]

For a while, the article has begun "Partygate was a political scandal..." Today, 92.15.144.174 changed it to "is", and DeFacto reverted and suggested a Talk discussion. So, what do people think?

I was fine with the "was" wording, but now the issue has come up, I am less certain. Most of the impact of Partygate has passed, with Johnson out of office, but he does still face the Privileges Committee investigation, which will surely be a major topic of media interest. I thus lean in favour of "is". I'm not clear how best to apply MOS:TENSE, but it possibly favours "is" too. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, but I think the actual controversy/scandal surrounding the gatherings and associated allegations, etc, is now in the past tense. It could be that new controversies, even scandals, related to it may arise in the future, but let's wait and see. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major?[edit]

I edited the article from "a political scandal" to "a major political scandal", citing the new ITV News podcast. DeFacto reverted this, saying, "their subjective view should not be asserted as fact in Wiki's voice". ITV News are a reliable source. We use reliable sources. DeFacto has repeatedly tried to re-write Wikipedia's rules to cast reliable sources as being subjective.

There are many political scandals in the world. I think we should be clear that this one stands out. It was a major factor in bringing down a Prime Minister. I think an adjective to make that clear is appropriate. If we need more citations, the i called it the "biggest scandal" Johnson faced,[1] and The Guardian said "The “partygate” scandal is vying to be the biggest political mess of Johnson’s career."[2] The National called it "the biggest scandal of his tenure."[3] Politico said, "Johnson now faces the greatest challenge to his penchant for rule-breaking".[4] So, lots of reliable sources think it was a biggie too!

What do other editors think? Can we call it a major scandal? Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave souza, Proxima centauri, Martinevans123, M2Ys4U, and Smartse: As the last 5 editors other than me and DeFacto to contribute to this thread, might I ask if you would like to input? Bondegezou (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to make the article shorter?[edit]

Concern has been expressed at the length of this article, but it continues to grow with more details still coming out and the forthcoming Privileges Committee investigation generating a lot of column inches. What do we feel about splitting off some portion of it to a separate article?

My first thought is that the Privileges Committee investigation coverage stands somewhat apart from the other content, and is also liable to grow in size. I suggest making that a separate article.

My second thought, which I’m less certain about, is to split off the detailed timeline of events into a separate article, with just a table or something left here.

What do others think, or does anyone have other suggestions? Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps wait for the final outcome of the Privileges Committee investigation before making any significant changes. It may help us decide what is relevant, and what is not.

Having said that, the structure of the article could be improved. Currently it leads to the details of almost every event having to be duplicated or even triplicated - once under each of the "Timeline of reporting and reaction" and "Events" sections, and some under "Investigations" too. I'd like to see a structure that didn't require such repetition, and that would make the article easier to read as well as smaller. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Privileges Committee investigation section has grown considerably, and the hearings haven't even started, I've boldly split that off into a new article, Commons Privileges Committee investigation into Boris Johnson. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When the too-long tag was added, we were at nearly 20,000 words, with 10,000 being recommended. Today, we're on about 18,000 words, so an improvement. I think 18k is OK, but I've left the too-long tag in place as others may feel differently and I don't want to shut down further consideration of what to do. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian: Met urged to reopen Partygate inquiry as fresh allegations emerge[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/11/partygate-fresh-allegations-met-urged-to-reopen-inquiry

John Cummings (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not certain if that’s notable in and of itself, but I’ve added a sentence to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]