Talk:Lockdown Files

Due balance
I'm sort of aware that the telegraph might be applying a little spin and selectively releasing material and also this article can act as a sort of WP:POVFORK of British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not sure what to do about this.

Some thoughts:


 * Doing quite a "tight read" on the telegraph sources, and mostly focusing on what the messages actually say
 * Maybe dropping WP:Wikivoice in preference for "The telegraph report that" at times

I've linked through to some more general sources on the pandemic response. We can also consider adding material there - where it is potentially more balanced by other sources and will get long term oversight and then maybe link directly to seactions where relevant. Talpedia (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The Telegraph have only got part of the story. They cannot know the context of the WhatsApps, or know what happens in-between them. We need to be very careful not to use Wiki's voice for stuff they've assumed or are speculating on, and we should always include any rebuttals or denials of their reporting in balance. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Any advice / Best practice for this sort of story
Hey, I'd be keen if anyone had advice for how to handle new stories like this. One thing I'm concerned about is the potentially structurelessness of all the new and how this starts to demand editorial decisions for structure. Also this news story potentially spans quite a broad area Talpedia (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The week
Anyone know how I can read this: https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/politics/959960/isabel-oakeshott-matt-hancock-and-the-ethics-of-the-lockdown-files Talpedia (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

BMJ source: Jacqui Wise
https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p522

Not sure about your conventions, if something can be quickly resolved with WP:BOLD commits and comments in the edit messages, that seems reasonable (WP:3RR excepted) and I'm not really going to say that much more than I did in edit message. But obviously if you want to block the additional of material and force people to the talk page WP:CONSENSUS let's you do so. Saves disagreement on more controversial issues, wastes time on simpler stuff.

I don't really care that much about this source, since we've got the BMJ editorial position - which should suffice as the "BMJ position". But I don't get the argument that the edits needs secondary source (as mentioned in my revert). I view it as an opinion not a factual or medical statement. Talpedia (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's the personal view of a non-notable (no Wiki article) writer. Unless it is covered by secondary sources it fails WP:DUE. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why secondary sources is relevant. Either it's a notable opinion or not. Talpedia (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding "non-notable" it's the analysis of someone working in one assumes a journalistic capacity for the BMJ. The notability would be that of the BMJ not her - and the BMJ very much is notable. Talpedia (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinions of notable comentators may implicitly have due weight, especially if they are experts in the subject, but the opinions of non-notable people surely need secondary sources to give them due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose someone else looking at the subject and noting that a viewpoint is relevant does give it extra weight. You get the weight of "an person thought that someone elses view was relevant". We probably aren't going to get that sort of source for a good six months so if we want any analysis it'll have to be us balancing different viewpoints form different groups (apart from in terms of journalists talking about what other journalists say - but I wouldn't call that "secondary"). So yeah - I guess I understand your point.
 * My only argument would be that this is the BMJ's analysis - I guess this is "shadowed" by the editorial position of the BMJ. Talpedia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Alpha variant
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/09/covid-variant-ruined-christmas-hidden-scientists-ministers-months/

I don't think this was is really worth adding. I feel like we need a better source for medical claims (including implicit ones) along the lines of "we knew about this earlier". The only thing that's really there is that hancock got annoyed when he found out that the new variant had been sequenced months ago and moaned about people. I guess deliberately avoiding FOI is interesting and WP:DUE. Talpedia (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)