Talk:Greensill scandal

"these initial revelations..."
Hi and congrats on your first article! It looks pretty good 👍. The only thing I would add is a reference (ideally, multiple references) to the sentence these initial revelations saw Cameron's relationship with the financier Lex Greensill came under scrutiny, revealing potential conflicts of interest dating back to the first Cameron ministry. Wikipedia is very strict about the way it presents information about living people (see WP:BLP), and allegations of "coming under scrutiny" and "potential conflicts of interest" would have to be sourced very specifically by high-quality sources. If you cannot find sources that say these words (or close enough), it would be better to reword the sentence and remove this specific part. If you have any question, don't hesitate to leave it here or on my talk page. Cheers. --JBchrch (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have now removed the sentence, because WP:BLP states that Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The previous versions of the page are archived in the "View history" tab of the article. --JBchrch (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBchrch, thanks for the kind words, the review, and the policy reminder. I'll make sure to keep it closely at mind during future edits. 81.100.108.192 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Watergate"-type series
, from what I could figure out on my own (you didn't leave any edit summary), the article series that you want to add to the article is inspired from Watergate scandal. However, the articles and subjects mentioned in the Watergate-scandal-series-table are notable for the most part for their involvement in the Watergate scandal. This is not the case for the articles and subjects that you are trying to group together in this table (regarding the Greensill scandal), and I think that "grouping them" together in this fashion would not conform to WP:BLP. JBchrch (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Scandal?
No rules were broken, so how is this a "scandal"? The only reliably sourced use of the word seems to be when opposition MPs used it - so unlikely to be an objective appraisal. An August 2021 BBC article covering it calls it a lobbying row and asks why is it controversial. I propose, per WP:NPOV, replacing the word 'scandal' with 'controversy' or 'lobbying controversy' throughout the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The only reliably sourced use of the word seems to be when opposition MPs used it a) why would this matter if reliably sourced? b) it's patently false as evidenced by Bloomberg, City AM and Sky News referring to it as a scandal in the last month. SmartSE (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those new sources conform it was a scandal either though. As far as I can see all they confirm are the views of a few vociferous, likely canvassed, opinion-holders, and possibly of the journalists behind the polemics too. Nothing I've seen supports the assertion, as fact, in Wiki's voice, of what is clearly only, at best, very subjective opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet they are all sources reviewing the year and they all refer to it as a scandal. Please stop trying to push your personal opinions. SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather than getting personal, please concentrate on the issue of portraying subjective and politicised views as if they are assertions of incontrovertible fact. And remember headlines are not reliable sources and personal opinions need to be notable and fully attributed and not asserted as fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)