Talk:Beergate

Ivo Delingpole

If Delingpole has agreed for his name to be published by a WP:RS (and there is no evidence that he has not), I see no reason why he should not be named in the article as the creator of the video. He seems to be quite keen for his motives to be understood. Here's the article from his University magazine Palatinate.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a platform for promoting video creators on. 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". Do we know of many scholarly journals mentioning him? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point us to some scholarly journals which mention the names of Starmer, Rayner and Foy? I thought this chap had performed "a commendable service to the public"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Wiki a platform do you think, for you to showcase people you personally think performed "a commendable service to the public"? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We should obviously mention the name of key players in events when those names are being discussed in RS, as Delingpole's is. Bondegezou (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What we need to agree is whether naming this otherwise unknown individual actually adds any worthwhile value to the article. I can't see that it adds any value at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Other editors and, more importantly, RS clearly feels it adds value. This article details the particular curry eaten: you think that adds value, but we can't name the person who took the video? You cite WP:BLPNAME above, which says, "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". Ivo Delingpole has not received merely a "brief appearance [...] in news stories": there is an entire Guardian article about his role. I am happy to give "scholarly journals [...] greater weight", but given there is no scholarly journal coverage of Beergate at all, there is nothing to give "greater weight" to. In other words, we use news media when all we have is news media. If there is extensive scholarly analysis in the future, great, we will use that when it appears, but that's not a reason to selectively omit details from the article now. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So, what value does his name add, and why is his parentage important? We don't need to add stuff because a biased or agenda-driven news report includes it, we need to add stuff because it is relevant and adds value to our article. And if it does add value (which we haven't yet seen quantified) there's no rush to jump the gun on scholarly articles, we can wait for them, and see how important they think it is. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What "scholarly articles" were used when this article was created? By you. Just asking. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't gratuitously reveal the name of an otherwise unknown individual, so didn't need to consider that particular provision from WP:BLP, did I? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No-one gratuitously reveal[ed] the name. They reported what RS said. That's what we do, follow RS. Your talk about waiting for scholarly articles is sophistry and not based in policy. There is no scholarly article coverage for anything in this article. So, we follow the reliable news sources we have. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What just one RS said, so possibly undue weight. And either way, we are not obliged to add it, and we should follow the BLP guidelines when deciding - and it is there that we find the advice about scholarly articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The identity of his father is not "agenda driven". It's a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So why do you think the Guardian name the student's father, yet do not mention ancestors of any of the other people involved? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Because they consider it pertinent information. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And as they are the only ones to give it, it presumably suits their agenda. If it didn't, they probably wouldn't give it either. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Their "agenda" for unambiguously reporting all the facts? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you say so. Are you party to their agenda, as I'm not persuaded that would be a fair summary of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've not read their manifesto lately. And I won't be admitting to any "parties". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

They even have a manifesto? How very party political. A party's party that you apparently weren't party to then. That clarifies that matter nicely. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, let me rephrase that... Didn't you say that this chap had performed "a commendable service to the public"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would have any relevance though, even if I did, but I did not. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it has been edited recently, but the Durham student magazine article currently does not name him. The Guardian article does (as do sources that clearly picked up their information from there), but other sources like the BBC etc. do not. On second thoughts I do think we need to exercise some caution about this, unless and until his name is more widely disseminated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you object to the creator of the video being identified as the son of a Breitbart journalist, or just the use of his name? It does put a different spin on the video having been "forwarded to friends and then to anti-lockdown activists", and initially ignored by mainstream press. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Previous edits seemed to suggest that he was named in the university student newspaper. In the current online version of that article, he isn't - which may suggest that he (or his family) have privacy concerns over his name being used. The points about the video being uploaded and disseminated are still valid, irrespective of whether he is named. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the student paper ever named him: archive.org has a copy of it from the day of publication, which includes no name. For family privacy concerns, The Guardian article states that it contacted James Delingpole and he confirmed it was his son. But either way, if there's an argument for omitting the name, does that argument also extend to omitting the fact that the student is the son of a journalist? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I take your point, Ghmyrtle. The situation is changing fast. I'm happy to see how much reliable source coverage this continues to garner rather than insisting on an edit now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In terms of the history of the reporting, Ivo was first named by Guido Fawkes back in January, I believe. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, "biased or agenda-driven news". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably, just like most news media sources are too. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's ban the lot of them! Maltese Journal of Electronic Dendrochronology is the way to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to review what WP:BLPNAME says in a more rounded manner. It says: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." So, the key question is whether the name here has or has not been "widely disseminated". BLPNAME is concerned about names that are not widely disseminated. We've seen a bunch of articles naming Ivo; let's see how that develops.

BLPNAME also talks about family relationships, as here with James Delingpole. To quote: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." So, again, if something is getting plenty of RS coverage, that's fine for us to report. It also matters that James is himself a public figure. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that "more rounded" (i.e. accurate) review of that policy. If James Delingpole himself has confirmed his own son's name to the press, and in so doing has clarified the family connection, I don't see how he could have any qualms about being named here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that only one RS gives the name, I would suggest something fairly bland like: "According to The Guardian, the student was Ivo Delingpole, the son of Breitbart writer James Delingpole." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I see multiple international RS giving Ivo's name: e.g. [1] and [2], for example. So, I don't think, "According to The Guardian" is needed, but I won't object if others want that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We'll have none of your obscure Czech or Indian agenda-driven news-scraper sources here, thankyou. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

More rounded? You selected your 'key question' as being whether the name was "widely diseminated", and you said "we've seen a bunch of articles" using it. Where? The only RS source I can find it in is one, from the Guardian. I'd say that the more important 'key question' in BLPNAME is though, whether the name "has been intentionally concealed". Judging by the results of a Google search, and especially the "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe" message at the bottom of the results screen, it's very clear that he, or his family, have been proactively trying to get it "intentionally concealed". As if those two weren't reason enough not to use it, another 'key question' is whether the removal of it "does not result in a significant loss of context", and as the name does not add any context at, it's a no-brainer, it should clearly not be given. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise to you, but newspapers sometimes get what they call "a scoop", which limits the number of places a news story is published. Without knowing why we see Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe at the bottom of a Google search it's WP:OR on your part to assume that it relates to this story. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought the claim was that it was in more than one. If not, then it's lacking in weight anyway. As for the removal - results for it seemed to have been removed from Google, suggesting they had received a request to remove them. That's not OR, as OR only applies to stuff added to the article, not opinions on the talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

All newpaper scoops lack weight? That's quite a bold claim. Yes, you're right, not OR, just a bizarre conspiracy theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we wait and see if other sources pick up on it, like we did with the whole 'Beergate' concept. This was a scoop, but as it is now widely covered, it has gained due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, that's a bizarre conspiracy theory even for you! No, you cannot presume a Google search message is indicative of an attempt to conceal an identity. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look into that. What about my other points? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As I thought, here's were the link in the message goes. So, given that there were apparently more hits before, and now there's only one amongst our usual RS sites, no, it's not a conspiracy theory, there has apparently been a request to conceal the name. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And what was the reason, given by the applicants, to request concealment of the name? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, that's speculative WP:OR and has no place on Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, I wasn't proposing we add that to the article though, so whether it's OR, or not, is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons if your speculation is appropriate as a means of filtering out RS sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

My 'speculation' is not relevant here, I was just trying to find a reason why it seems to have disappeared from the RSes. As it's not featured in the mainstream RSes, except that one from The Guardian, it doesn't have due weight to add it for any reason anyway. Add to that the BLP need for caution, I don't see why we would want to keep it. Do you see any policy-based reason to keep it that would trump the reasons for not keeping it? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So we can all disregard your comment about GoogleSearch cautions. From which RSs has the name disappeared? As I already suggested maybe The Guardian had a scoop on that. I think the reader might reasonably want to know whether or not the photograph and video was the work of some hack, from a right-wing newspaper, sent to stalk Starmer and dig up any dirt on him. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It was an observation about Google, that's all.

You ask: "From which RSs has the name disappeared?" We were told above: We should obviously mention the name of key players in events when those names are being discussed in RS, as Delingpole's is. Yet now - it's hard to find him mentioned at all. And RS clearly feels it adds value. Yet they no longer even mention him. And Ivo Delingpole has not received merely a "brief appearance [...] in news stories": there is an entire Guardian article about his role. Where is it now? That's what we do, follow RS. Well they all, bar one, seem to have ignored him. So, we follow the reliable news sources we have.. Yes, and ignore him too. The situation is changing fast. I'm happy to see how much reliable source coverage this continues to garner rather than insisting on an edit now. Well it's not increasing, and sounds as if it has decreased? We've seen a bunch of articles naming Ivo; let's see how that develops. If there ever were any, where are they now? So, again, if something is getting plenty of RS coverage, that's fine for us to report. And if it isn't, as now? You see, it sounds like there were loads up until a few days ago - where's it all gone? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it "sounds like there were". I was asking for actual sources, i.e. the other news sources that named him. I didn't see any. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know which ones they were, because when I looked (following those assertions by one of our editors) I couldn't find any of them either, hence my curiosity as to where they've all gone. I suppose it could be that they never existed in the first place, but I was assuming good faith. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask them, all those quotes were from posts by Bondegezou. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So your argument for not naming Delingpole is... "lots of sources named him, but now they've changed their minds and removed his name, except you don't know how many or which they were"? Hmmmm. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it's that naming him fails WP:BLPNAME, as as I said in my first post to this thread. You started the thread, I gave the first reply - saying just that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So what's all this continued fuss about disappearing sources, if it's totally irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, there seems a reluctance to accept that there are none. To the point that we now see the desperate assertion: but there's one Czech news, and a trade press piece "that name Ivo", and a Political Fiber piece that reports that the Guardian "said something". Oh, and there's an Indian piece of doutbfull quality, and low quality news site repeating the news.

So if "we've seen a bunch of articles naming Ivo", where are they all now? Or shall we just take it out of the article and be done with it. I'd favour that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe there are sources which found the connection with James Delingpole too embarrassing. His son's identity still seems like a relevant fact to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

An actual conspiracy theory - wow! Find a handful of RSes to support that and I'll support it's addition. But without adequate RS coverage to add his name and father's name, we have to remove those. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Who suggested adding that? It's not a theory, it's a Talk page suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you might have been tipped-off about something. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll be sure to let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

How much RS

Ghmyrtle raised the question of how widely disseminated is this news. In terms of RS, I see the Guardian article, the Czech news source [3] and a trade press piece [4] that name Ivo and specify his relationship with James. There's a Political Fiber piece [5] that directly reports that the Guardian said something. There's an Indian piece [6], but I don't know how reliable it is. There's lots of low quality news site repeating the news (e.g. [7]), but I think we can ignore those. Guido Fawkes first reported the news, but that site is not reliable.

That seems enough to me. There's plenty on Wikipedia based on less! But happy to see what other editors think and to give this another few days to see what else emerges (or is retracted). Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So as it's almost totally absent from the mainstream RSes then. And we don't seem to have come up with a single suggestion of what value it adds to the article. You can be sure that if it was in any way relevant to the story, that it would be in all the mainstream British press. For those reasons then, and per WP:BLPNAME, I think we should remove it from the (in fact it should never have been added in the first place). -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Do newspapers still have scoops or not? Or has this been banned post-Brexit? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a good source and useful for other detail, I'm ambivalent about naming the student so can leave that out of the article text for now, even though the Beergate, son of Climategate, angle may come up in future. . dave souza, talk 13:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Including the information with the name

Personally I think that the name is ok to include, but if not, surely it is ok to state that it was recorded by the son of James Delingpole? rather than just "a student". SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would we want to say who his father is? We don't say who anyone else's father is. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove this as a subsection? It's a different point of discussion. As to why? Because RS reported on it didn't they? SmartSE (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear enough, I didn't see the need for a new section as this is all covered in the original thread.

I think you must know that the fact that some RSes choose to add certain information is not a good enough reason to include it in the article (see WP:VNOT if you don't). What value do you think that would it add. And how would you square it with WP:BLPNAME which says the addition of family members should be: "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject"? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it creates an NPOV issue. The way the article is written now, it implies that Ivo Delingpole was walking to the Nisa local for some milk when he turned his head and saw Starmer getting a bit too tipsy for what should be a work event. Now, that might very well be what happened, but RSes also talk about the suspicion that this may be another dead cat scenario (and really, the RSPCA must be complaining by now about the rotting feline pile of Johnson and Crosby have thrown onto the table throughout this entire affair), even before Delingpole was identified (which is probably why the Guardian, for example, described the elder Delingpole as a former Breitbart writer instead of an old friend of Johnson; Breitbart are an infamous fake news outlet which helped pioneer the art of the fake sting). Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Having difficulty placing Redhills any sensible route from Delingpole's home to that local Nisa. Not least because of the private grounds that surround the Miners Hall. BUt I see that this has now recently appeared in the local press. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to Delingpole, there is a block of student flats near enough to Redhills that someone with a decent enough camera could take a photo of inside the back rooms, although personally I find that particular story which is being implied by Johnson's fellow travellers one of the hardest to believe in the whole party saga (which is saying something). Regardless of my own view on the entire affair, I think context may be best served at the moment by naming Ivo in the lead, but perhaps leaving specifics such as his parentage and prior contact with Johnson to later in the article. Sceptre (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Really? That window is on the street where Ivo's block of flats is located? No telephoto lens required? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Google Street View doesn't give enough detail for me to make a determination one way or another, but whether Ivo was hiding in the bushes with a tan trenchcoat, sunglasses, and 300mm lens or saw it clearly out of his bedroom window is, without RSes talking about that point, irrelevant. All we have in RSes at the moment is a) that it was Ivo Delingpole who took and released the photos and b) some people are a little uneasy with it. Of course, if the idea this is a/another dirty tricks campaign gains traction, we can revisit talking about that, but atm, all we have is those two facts. Sceptre (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll have you know that Good Captain Facto runs a very tight ship here. We'd never get away with adding any dirty tricks. Even if it was all true. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

GoogleMaps Satellite view shows that the area between the CityBlock Student flats on Ainsley Street and the Miners Hall is heavily wooded. It's not possible to tell if there is any pedestrian access through the trees. But caution suggests that we can't name him because, as per WP:BLPNAME, he might have been trespassing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, if people get the impression that Delingpole was trespassing just from reading the Wikipedia article (which I doubt would be the case; any speculation of Delingpole's physical position and whether he had a legal right to be there would, without reliable sources, constitute original research), then that's his own fault. If he was trespassing, nobody forced him to do so, and nobody forced him to go public with the video either. Sceptre (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the volume of reporting. We've discussed some reporting above. (I feel there's enough, but I didn't feel there was a consensus on that.) If there are further articles that say James Delingpole's son (without naming him), then that adds weight to the argument that this article should too. Bondegezou (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Ivo Delingpole is notable, if he hadn't taken the video Beergate would not have become public. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

So, where are we? We have The Guardian, The Northern Echo and again, Stern and the Czech site naming Ivo. That's more than when I last looked (see comment above), with the addition I believe of Stern, a major German national, and The Northern Echo, a significant local paper covering the area. That's plenty to satisfy WP:BLPNAME concerns, I would have thought. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What is this article about?

Given that one of the biggest sections in this article about "Beergate" is the "Partygate" one, does anyone else agree that we can drop the further two (lengthy) sentences about Partygate at the beginning of the first paragraph of the "Police investigation" section? I cannot see what value they add to the that section, so I propose deleting them again, as well as the first (very long) sentence of the second paragraph. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't. Why don't you read the reliable sources on this topic? Checking them over, both make the point that on 31 January, Starmer tweeted "Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the prime minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign." . . . . dave souza, talk 15:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

But there is no commentary in the article explaining why it's all there. We cannot expect readers to examine all possible sources first, and then they might understand some of the (non existent) very tenuous threads that link it all together.

So why, for example, do you think that that Tweet of Starmer's is relevant - I cannot see it explained or expanded upon in the article text?

I'm not saying it's all unrelated, but currently we have got a random collection of unrelated sentences and paragraphs with nothing in the prose linking or relating them to each other. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that this article was all about continuing the lie that Starmer and Rayner having what now transpires to be entirely legal food and drinks are as bad, or worse than the Government setting rules then ignoring them on the very same day. But obviously I won't say that because Wiki needs to remain objective ;) Mongoletsi (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The lie has been disproved, by means of an evidential full code test. So it's now been clearly demonstrated what were the ridiculous lengths, which parts of the press and some opposition politicians, went to, to try and discredit them. But of course, in British justice we don't have lies, just "guilty" or "not guilty". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Context around introducing Partygate allegations

Re this revert by DeFacto, [8]... The text introduces Partygate and "allegations that multiple staff gatherings in 2020 and early 2021 at Downing Street as well as other government offices had breached COVID-19 lockdown restrictions." At the time, these were allegations, but we now know it was all true: there were multiple staff gatherings at Downing St and other government offices that breached restrictions. I suggest it is valuable context to let the reader know that these allegations would later be proved true. I introduced text to this effect, then revised this in response to an objection from DeFacto, so the later version read: "The scandal would later lead to fines being issued and multiple government apologies." DeFacto contests that this is irrelevant. What do other editors think? I'm not bothered about the exact wording, but I think we should explain that they're not just allegations any more. Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, the adding of that stuff, with hindsight, destroys the true context. The whole point is that Starmer was calling for Johnson to resign before he knew any of that. If we add it, then we need to emphasise in more detail why it is relevant that he didn't know whether there had been any wrongdoing, and that of all the gatherings investigated, Johnson was only believed by the police to have breached the regulations himself on one, brief, occasion, and that he maintains that was during a work event anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about adding this, it might be useful for newcomers to Partygate, but it has to be clear these were just media investigations and allegations initially. As the BBC points out, Starmer was calling for Johnson to resign, for misleading Parliament, on 12 January after Johnson conceded he'd been at one of the parties. Think this was before Johnson knew any of that, because memory problems, and he now "believed implicitly that this was a work event". Johnson isn't believed much these days, he got the FPN for a "serious and flagrant breach" of regulations, with "little ambiguity around the absence of any reasonable defence", but I digress, the abandonment of ministerial responsibility is a wider topic. At the start of the section we need to be clear about what was known then. . . dave souza, talk 16:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, wording has to be clear what was known when, but that is doable. We should assume readers of the article are new to the topic, as per WP:AUDIENCE.

@Proxima Centauri: you've edited on this matter. Would you like to weigh in? Bondegezou (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Just thought, putting the later context in brackets may help. . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Number of people

Were there 15 or 17 people at the event? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The source from The Times being used to support the "Foy joined them, with about four members of her team, bringing the number present to..." sentence says, "... and the group of 15 ate biryanis, bhunas, tikka masalas, rice and naan breads",[9] so I changed it there from 17 to 15. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The police number of 17 was wrong? Or is just we have no source for the police number? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Which source is that from? Is it cited against the number in the article? Is The Times article wrong then? Perhaps we need to rewrite that sentence to accommodate both, if they are both reliably sourced. Or should we just ignore one, or the other? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example source, from ITV, which says: "A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it cited in the article? If not, should it be? If so, does it cast doubt on the integrity of the source from The Times, or on this ITV one? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not just ITV. Here's The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and Washington Examiner (also many more). So yes, I think there is considerable doubt about The Times claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Those three plus the ITV one are consistent in that they attribute the 17 to the police. The the current ref from The Times was written before that police info was released. The Times, and the others, reported it was 15 before the police report was issued - where did they get that number from, and is other stuff in the article that relies on that/those source/sources in doubt too? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Good questions. What do other editors think? I think we should go with 17 whatever. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The police say "A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering." From that, we can say "In total there were 17 participants". The Times says "the group of 15 ate biryanis, bhunas, tikka masalas, rice and naan breads", so from that source Fifteen ate the food, Starmer says takeaways were "brought in and at various points people went through to the kitchen, got a plate and had something to eat", then "got on with their work". We don't know if two others didn't eat, or if the Times, heaven forfend, got something wrong. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, the Times says "the group of 15 ate...", implying it was everyone there. If 17 were there, they would have said ">u>a group of 15 ate...". The sources aren't emphatic enough to say there were 17 there but only 15 ate. I think there's a discrepancy between what the police said and what Labour said the numbers were, and we need to make that clear and not try to whitewash it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeFacto, where do you get "what Labour said"? The Times describes its sources as a "source who was present", a "witness prepared to tell police the Labour leader’s lockdown curry had broken pandemic rules", and a leaked document "obtained by The Mail on Sunday". The discrepancy shows "15" is questionable, so I'll trim "Fifteen ate the food" as giving undue weight to a trivial detail. Innuendo about "whitewash" looks like original research. . . dave souza, talk 09:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources don't say anyone but Labour activists were at the gathering, hence sources who were present, and any witnesses, must have been Labour. And didn't Starmer later confirm the number as "about 15"? The whitewashing was by you, covering the discrepency between what Labour said and what the police said by SYNTHing an explanation that was not given in the sources. The best we can do is to keep the discrepancy, saying something like witnesses said 15, and the police later said there were 17. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

i doubt if anyone counted thr people while they were there as no one expected trouble. All figures are likely estimates. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Implicit_naming_of_a_non-notable_witness_via_a_notable_father about this article, should editors wish to input there. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)