Talk:Downing Street refurbishment controversy

The summary needs to be longer

A one line summary is not a summary. The previous version describing the £58000 shortfall was suitable, but was undone by Defacto. Possibly Defacto doesn't like the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.12.252.167 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-02T08:24:33 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the main body of the article. If there is something missing from the article then feel free to add it, and then, if appropriate, add a summary of the new and fully sourced content to the lead too. But do not add new content to the lead alone. It's quite simple really. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course I agree it should be a summary of the article. 1 sentence for overview. 1 sentence for background. 1 sentence for allegations. 1 sentence for investigation. 1 sentence explaining why the name "cash for for curtains scandal". All cited.

@167.98.181.52: I don't see any support for that last sentence anywhere in the main body of the article, which is where it should be. Neither do I see any support for it in any of those sources you added in the lead - and referenes shouldn't be needed in the lead because they should be in the part of the article that is being summarised.

Either way, none of those sources you added support it anyway. A couple of them use that phrase, but to draw your own conclusion from that fails WP:OR. What you need to support it is a consensus amongst mainstream sources that more-or-less say that this story is 'known in the press as the "Cash-for-Curtains scandal"'. Anything less will not be adequate.

You could say something like 'characterised by Sky News as the "cash for curtains" scandal' - which is supported by the Independent source, but you cannot extrapolate that into "the press" in general. Read WP:VER and WP:DUE for more advice. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename Article to: "Cash for Curtains" Inquiry

This would seem to be clearer, simpler and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.12.252.167 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-03T10:30:09 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2021

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

The result of the move request was: There is universal agreement that the current title is inappropriate on so many levels. Several reasonable alternatives have been proposed, but with no clearcut consensus; variations of " 2021 Downing Street refurbishment something" have the most support. So I'm moving this to 2021 Downing Street refurbishment controversy as "controversy" seems a neutral enough descriptor. No such user (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Cash for curtains disputed allegations → ? – The article was moved from 'Cash-for-Curtains Scandal' to 'Cash for curtains disputed allegations' because there is "no evidence or RS support for that name".

It seems to me that Cash for curtains disputed allegations is the worst of both worlds.

I propose it either moves to 'Cash-for-Curtains Scandal' or some variation thereof, or moves to '11 Downing Street refurbishment dispute'. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is stacks of evidence of almost every major news organisation using the term. Here are just a few

Agreed. There's no precendent for using 'disputed allegations' in a wikipedia title.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.181.52 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-04T10:09:41 (UTC)

• Note - there is another open move request directly above at #Rename Article to: "Cash for Curtains" Inquiry and an ongoing merge request regarding this article at Talk:11 Downing Street#Merger proposal. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been no activity here since 13 May 2021 and in the spirit of moving this discussion along, and getting to work on improving the article, I propose to move the article to 2020 Downing Street refurbishment (Refurbishment took place in 2020, despite the controversy arising in 2021). @DeFacto @Andrew Gray @Buidhe I would appreciate your input on this to try and reach WP:CONSENSUS. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

RoanokeVirginia, yes, I support that proposed title, especially with the latest news that the watchdog found that no rules had been broken. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@RoanokeVirginia: Sounds fine to me. We can always reconsider if the story blows up again (always possible) and a new name gets widely adopted, but this seems clear to an outsider. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

'Cash-for-Curtains Scandal' is used extensively by UK and internationl news agencies, however, at the moment, it's not yet a scandal, it's possible Boris Johnson might not have lied to the house, and indeed used personal funds or taken out an ordinary personal loan to fund the refurbishment. Therefore, 'Inquiry' rather than 'Scandal' is an accurate title, as the inquiry is ongoing. 167.98.181.52 (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Cash for curtains" feels very forced to me - it's something the media are intermittently using, certainly, but it hasn't really stuck in the way that cash for questions did, and it has the added disadvantage of implying it is, literally, just about buying a pair of curtains - if you're not familiar with the context of the 1990s scandal, you're going to be a bit confused by the title. (Note that we have Renewable Heat Incentive scandal not cash for ash, as a similar case). Perhaps something blander like "2021 Downing Street refurbishment scandal/affair"? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  2021 Downing Street refurbishment scandal seems like a definite improvement. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  Totally agree as this a neutral title, but you could always say; The 2021 Downing Street refurbishment scandal, also know informally as "cash for cushions" or "wallpapergate"... 159753 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  @DeFacto You initially moved the article to Cash for curtains disputed allegations. What do you think to 2021 Downing Street refurbishment scandal? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  RoanokeVirginia, I moved it because it hasn't been established that anything morally or legally wrong, or otherwise improper, has been done, hence it is not a 'scandal', merely gossip and title-tattle at the moment. Newspapers specialise in sensationalism and editorialising, especially in the run up to elections, and we should cut through that to find the facts. I would support just 2021 Downing Street refurbishment though. We could always add whatever suffix may become appropriate if things change in the future. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I support 2021 Downing Street refurbishment, but if a neutral suffix can be found to note that this article is about the political controversy/investigations rather than the details of the refurbishment I think this would be better. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Cash for curtains or if need be Cash for curtains affair. No need to characterize as "allegation" or "scandal" when neither word is necessary. WP:CONCISE and WP:NPOV (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would also support 2021 Downing Street refurbishment (though my preference would be for "controversy" to be affixed to the end there, to make sure this doesn't seem like some run-of-the-mill article about flat refurbs). --Bangalamania (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support any of the above. 2021 Downing Street refurbishment scandal, or alternatively 2021 Downing Street refurbishment inquiry, would be my choice, but pretty much anything would be better than the current NPOV-violating title. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thumbs-up from me, @No such user. Simple and neutral. 159753 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No such user, it wasn't a controversy though. There were unfounded allegations which were shown to be false. I think you should have called it just "2021 Downing Street refurbishment" (which had 3 supporters). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't know, DeFacto, but in my book "controversy" does not necessarily involve wrongdoing; there certainly was a brouhaha that was transmitted even by newspapers in my neck of the woods. And, as far as I remember (without reading the article), the committee did issue a slap on Johnson's wrist. Bangalamania and RoanokeVirginia expressed sentiment that bare "refurbishment" leaves sense of incompleteness (how a refurbishment can be notable?). "Controversy", proposed by Bangalamania, was really the mildest and most neutral descriptor I can come up with – if there wasn't a controversy we wouldn't have an article, would we? No such user (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

No such user, no, it was only a story because of mischief-making by the opposition and the press. I think we should remain neutral and not support that agenda. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto If you have a reliable source that says as such then this should be added to the article, if not this would seem to be WP:ORIGINAL. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Opposition

I have attempted to add the opposition positions, but these have been reverted by @DeFacto as either giving WP:UNDUE weight or not meeting WP:NOTABILITY. These are of course legitimate concerns to have, even if I personally disagree. In the interest of avoiding an WP:EDITWAR, is it possible to reach a consensus on whether there have been any opposition statements/interventions/actions that are notable, relevant, and not undue in weight. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect "facts" in article

The article says the PM paid for it himself, but the Telegraph says it was Government and donors: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/15/boris-johnsons-flat-government-tory-party-initially-paid-refurbishment/ Can it please be corrected? 2.28.151.138 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The PM said to the house of commons on 28th April that he paid for it personally. Luke2642 (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Read the report of the inquiry by the Electoral Commission here, they make it very clear. They say "9 March 2021: a senior Cabinet Office official stated in an internal email that the Prime Minister has confirmed he has now paid all bills with the supplier personally". -- DeFacto (talk). 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)