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.

Section sizes

Section size for Partygate (50 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,731	6,731
Background	15	7,093
COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom	5,694	5,694
Westminster	1,384	1,384
Timeline of reporting and reaction	71	115,118
2021	113	30,861
Up to 6 December	8,484	8,484
Stratton video (7–8 December)	8,983	8,983
9 December onwards	13,281	13,281
2022	11	64,728
Up to 19 January	33,033	33,033
From 24 January	22,824	22,824
After the conclusion of the police investigation	2,738	2,738
After the publication of Gray's report	6,122	6,122
2023	4,793	19,458
COVID-19 Inquiry evidence	5,846	5,846
June–October 2023	8,819	8,819
Events	3,538	37,525
During first national lockdown	9,179	9,179
Mid-2020	773	773
During second lockdown in England	8,755	8,755
With London in Tier 2	4,571	4,571
With London in Tier 3	6,507	6,507
During third lockdown in England	4,202	4,202
Investigations	20	94,970
Cabinet Office inquiry	31	42,004
Simon Case	2,031	2,031
Sue Gray	8,546	8,546
Investigation update	10,883	10,883
Alleged lobbying before the final report was published	6,467	6,467
Final report	14,046	14,046
Police investigation	15,372	44,241
Fixed penalty notices	23,970	23,970
Scrutiny of the investigation	4,899	4,899
Privileges Committee investigation	8,705	8,705
Reactions	14,526	81,733
Within the Conservative Party	36	38,529
Initial responses	12,046	12,046
Alleged intimidation of MPs opposed to Johnson	2,966	2,966
After the Sue Gray update	18,984	18,984
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	4,504	4,504
See also	508	508
Notes	24	24
References	28	28
External links	1,352	1,352
Total	349,586	349,586

Tense

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?

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?

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

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]