Talk:Partygate/Archive 4

Is this 'article' little more than an extension of the ongoing bias by the left wing media?
This article has becoming a bit of a laughing stock. Looking back at the constant edits it is clearly starting to resemble a Twitter feed. A lot of unfounded and incorrect opinions and very few actual facts. There has been suspicious reporting by some journalists who have shared edited (and thus illegal) images of supposed parties only for these tweets to vanish. This is not being mentioned here. It seems that this article is more of a propaganda piece for the left wing media and should really be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam smith1987 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is about a scandal. Clearly there are a lot of negative opinions - it wouldn't be a scandal otherwise. If you have specific text or sourcing you have problems with, point it out, if you have reliably sourced material which you think should be included, mention it, but calling for the entire article to be deleted is ludicrous. (Hohum @ ) 12:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Only two edits to date, Sam? Looking back at the constant edits, to me it clearly looks nothing like a Twitter feed. As far as can see, there are no "unfounded and incorrect opinions" and the article is entirely factual. If you think there are factual errors, kindly list them here. There has been very little "suspicious reporting" by journalists and, even if there has been, I don't see it reflected here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of that about the article content. I wouldn't delete the whole article though as there is, I think, a notable affair to be documented with this article name. We might need to wait for the history books to be written though, to get to the facts, and for notable commentary and neutral analysis. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder had you considered history book writing as a pursuit? It might save you all the trouble of constantly trying to re-write history here. "lol" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Starmer 'durhampartygate' or 'pizza gate'
It seems like the news of potential illegal gathering with several key figures of the Labour Party being potentially reinvestigated I think that there is a whole new scandal going on. This scandal is not going to go away despite the media's best efforts to keep it quiet. Shall we extend this article to include Labour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:7F83:5100:48F6:8D04:CB6B:A8D1 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * See Beergate. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Opinion poll graph
Why does the opinion poll graph in this article only go up to the end of January? runs into May. The graph in this article should be updated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to encourage the editors of the opinion polling article to do something for us here, but I think no-one ever got around to it. One could try asking on that article's Talk page again? You can manually update the figure we do have here, but it's a faff. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added another note to that page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Believe/conclude
The opening paragraph read, "More than 50 fixed penalty notices have been issued to individuals who the police believe had committed an offence under COVID-19 regulations". I changed this to "concluded", and reverted, and then changed to "reasonably believe".

MOS:WEASEL says we should avoid weasel words like "believe", unless appropriately based on a reliable source. So I looked at how RS phrased this. In terms of similarly constructed sentences, I had found and, who both write "who police have concluded broke the Covid regulations". That's why I went with "concluded".

Other RS used equally conclusive language, e.g. The Spectator and BBC both used "found to have broken the law." The BBC also used "the police gave their verdict on whether he broke the law". ITV concludes "there is no longer any doubt this was a law-breaking party." Further RS go with phrases like "issued with a fixed-penalty notice by the Metropolitan Police last week for breaching COVID rules" and  "a fine for breaching lockdown rules". I didn't see any RS using "believe" or similar.

"Believe" gives a misleading impression of uncertainty or that this was just an opinion. Reliable, secondary sources support "conclude" or "found" or something equally determinative. Can we have a show of hands from other editors what they prefer? Bondegezou (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * MOS:WEASEL only applies to "Unsupported attributions", and to "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated".
 * Neither is the case here as the 'guilt' threshold is legally defined as "reasonably believes", and it is therefore easily verifiable from the regulations that the police only need to 'reasonably believe' that someone has committed an offence to give them an FPN under the Covid-19 regulations. Or try these secondary sources: The Law Society Gazette, the CPS, Libery, the Legal Action Group'', House of Lords Constitution Committee, ITV News, and even the Daily Mirror, etc.
 * Hence to comply with WP:NPOV we need to say it as it is, and not copy press editorialisation to overstate, or obfuscate, the reality. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Drawing conclusions from primary legislation is WP:OR[]. All but one of your secondary sources are not about Partygate, so it's [[WP:SYNTH to seek to apply them here. Only the final Mirror article is about Partygate. So, you have 1 citation for "believe" vs. the 2 I have for "conclude" plus a bunch of others using less weaselly language. You've made these OR/SYNTH arguments before and they have been repeatedly rejected before. Bondegezou (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not 'drawing conclusions' here though, we're stating incontrovertible facts. News media editorialisation, based on their journalists' personal interpretations and opinions, does not trump hard fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that we use the regulations as a source? I think that's excluded as WP:PRIMARY? So we're left with the secondary sources and it seems most of those do not say "reasonably believe". I'm also not sure about your claim of "incontrovertible facts". Where words like "belief" are concerned I think there may be scope for legal interpretation e.g. by an appeal court, the Law Lords, etc. Not like the "incontrovertible fact" e.g. that a given isotope of uranium has a certain atomic weight, etc. In any case I suspect that, from the point of view of the reader's understanding, there's not a huge gulf of meaning between "reasonable believe" and "conclude". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, did I suggest I was? I also gave a list of expert sources, and a news tabloid, which all gave the same definition. Like the atomic weight of whatever, the legal threshold for issuing FPNs is an incontrovertible fact - confirmed by the regulations primary source. Would the opinion of a journalist trump the expert sources if they wrote that the atomic weight of uranium-235 was 238? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any misunderstanding. So which sources are you suggesting we use for this? You're going to disregard RS newspaper sources about Partygate in favour of "expert sources, and a news tabloid"? I still don't see an equivalence in "incontrovertibleness" between atomic weight and COVID regulations. Your final question is a muddle of my two separate points and is a straw man argument: no journalist could say that the atomic weight of uranium-235 was 238, as that would be a self-contradiction incontrovertible fact. But a journalist might well say that the police had concluded the law had been broken, because they had a reasonable belief that it had. In the case of breaches of the COVID regulations, the degree of stringency that is applied to a test of the police's beliefs, may vary widely. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As with the atomic weight of uranium-235, the threshold of 'proof' required to issue an FPN is incontrovertible. there is not a spectrum of opinions on it, it is set in stone - by mother nature in the first instance, and by the UK parliament in the second. Could The Guardian redefine the legal speed limit on the motorway if they published an RS report saying it's 79 mph? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again you are wholly misconstruing my argument. I maintain that the English natural language phrase "reasonably believe" is open to interpretation. "79 mph", just like "80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", are not. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "reasonably believe" is a legal term like "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probabilities". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Can you tell us what the legal term exactly means? If this is not just the normal use of the phrase, I guess you'd need to add a footnote to fully explain it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd go for "found". Simpler, less open to interpretation (legal or otherwise), and does not lead the reader into thinking that the story is "concluded".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That would fail WP:SAID as a 'loaded term' though, as it could imply it is true. The police didn't necessarily 'find' anything, as all they had to do was reasonably believe something. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection to "found" either. Yes, this is an encyclopaedia, but it's not the High Court, or even a Magistrate's Court. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can go with "found". Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, even though it's in the 'words to watch' list, which you (incorrectly) claimed was a reason to avoid using "believe" above? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's 3:1 in favour of "found", so I will change the text to that., you can start an RfC if you want to continue to dispute this. Bondegezou (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, Wiki consensuses aren't based on votes, they are based on policy-based reasoning - or they used to be. And, as you yourself pointed out for "believe" (though that obviously doesn't apply to the verbatim legalism of "reasonably believe"), "found" contravenes WP:WTA. So the result of your vote cannot be construed as a consensus, and I think it's close to being disruptive to even suggest that! So I suggest you change it back again and get this discussion formally closed by an uninvolved editor. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder could you provide us with a plain English explanation of that "verbatim legalism"? Or is one not party to that without a qualified legal advisor being present? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW I was the one who originally edited the text to say "believe", replacing DeFacto's insertion of "suspected". "Suspected" was definitely inappropriate as it requires more than mere suspicion in order to issue a FPN, and "reasonably believe" is the legal standard for taking action in the regulations. As it's the legal standard MOS:WEASEL does not apply to the word "believe" - to quote that part of the MOS: "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. [...] Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." (emphasis in the original).
 * In any event, if other folks here think WP:PRIMARY is the main stumbling block then that's fine. I'd prefer "concluded" to "found" as that at least implies there's a judgement call being made by the police rather than a definitive finding of fact by a court or tribunal. "Found" implies that definitiveness (even though I believe that threshold to have been met based on reporting, I don't think Wikipedia can imply that - otherwise I would have just straight-up reverted DeFacto's edit inserting "suspected").
 * In any event, perhaps we should update the background section to include something on how the lockdowns were enforced with FPNs, and we can use longer (but more precise) wording there to provide readers with the complete picture? -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:PRIMARY might apply. But I suspect DeFacto might take issue with you. I wonder could you provide us with a plain English explanation of the legal term "reasonably believe"? But I also have no issue with using "concluded". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no lawyer, but I'd reckon the words would be given their normal, plain English interpretation i.e. that a reasonable belief is a belief that is genuinely held and one that, given the circumstances, is a reasonable belief to hold. Not exactly Earth-shattering, but that's how things tend to be interpreted when there's no explicit meaning given in a piece of legislation. -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 22:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I thought it was a "legal term". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'm fine with "found" or "concluded". I think feels the same. Both are found in reliable secondary coverage.  raised the point that "concluded" might inappropriately imply a finality to events and so favoured "found". I don't think that misunderstanding would really occur when reading the sentence in its context. Ghmyrtle: has your mind been changed by further discussion? Could we go back to "concluded"? Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, thanks. I am also not opposed to a footnote that explains the "reasonably believe" phrase in the regulations, if we wanted to be meticulously pedantic and avoid suggesting that any of those who are given FPNs are disgusting crims 100% totally guilty of breaking the law. I'm assuming that fines may not be paid out of "party funds". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We can expand on details in the main article text, so I don’t think a footnote to the text in the lead is needed. I think any further description of the details in the article text needs to explain how the legislation empowers the police to make these decisions. They are the official deciding authority of such matters (although of course those receiving FPNs can contest them). Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although the COVID regulations are part of the statute, I believe individual police forces are free to investigate as they see fit. So for example, the questionnaire sent out by the Met Police may well be different to that used by Durham Constabulary. Thus what is a "reasonable belief" that the riles have been breached, across different forces, may be based on different evidence. But this is only my assumption; anyone with more knowledge of this would be a big help. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the word used is not sufficiently strong to make me think any further about it. But shouldn't any detailed explanation of the regulations be in the FPN article, rather than this one?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess that's true. I've tried to stop thinking about it. Lord knows, I have. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the 'Alleged intimidation of MPs opposed to Johnson' section?
I can't see what value it adds, so I deleted it, but was reverted. It is nothing more than a collection of long and politically motivated quotes which are only tangentially, if that, related to the subject of this article. I propose deleting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section describes serious allegations that got extensively reported, so I think due coverage of the issue is appropriate under WP:BALANCE. I think the second and third paragraphs, which have the most soundbites, could be combined and abbreviated. Wragg’s and Bryant’s comments are more substantive, so I would leave those largely as they are, but perhaps they could be usefully trimmed a bit. Bondegezou (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That assumes it is related to the subject of the article though. I don't think it is, it's about Conservative party shenanigans in relation to the actions of their whips isn't it? Perhaps move it to an article where it might be relevant? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It arose due to opposition to Johnson's leadership that arose due to Partygate. It's not 100% about Partygate, but it came out of Partygate. The reporting reflected that. So I think it warrants coverage here. If you think there's a better place for it, I wouldn't necessarily be against moving the text to another article and having something much shorter here. Did you have another article in mind? I think Premiership of Boris Johnson was suggested previously. Bondegezou (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's tangential, at best. It adds no value to this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more than just tangential. It adds value to this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be moved to Premiership of Boris Johnson. It's not really relevant to this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything that politicians say is "politically motivated". It is literally their job to make "politically motivated quotes".  It is not Wikipedia editors responsibility to decide that they are therefore not notable. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Escape Orbit, that might be fine if the quotes were related to the article content, but they aren't, they're related to perceptions of how the whips operate. How is that relevant in this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The alleged intimidation is a serious matter and certainly should be somewhere in Wikipedia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with that. The question is whether it belongs in this article, or in a different article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What about moving what we currently have to Premiership of Boris Johnson, but then leaving here a paragraph with an internal link thereto? Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggested text to remain here could be...
 * On 20 January 2022, Conservative MP William Wragg, chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, accused 10 Downing Street staff of threatening him and other colleagues over their opposition to Johnson's leadership. He said, "The reports of which I'm aware would seem to constitute blackmail". Wragg said damaging publicity had been threatened, as had removal of government investment in MPs' constituencies. Johnson said he had "seen no evidence [and] heard no evidence" of what Wragg said and that he would look into the matter. Chair of the Commons Select Committee on Standards, Chris Bryant, said roughly a dozen Conservative MPs had made similar allegations of whips threatening to withdraw funding for their constituencies in the previous few days. Bryant said, "I have even heard MPs alleging that the prime minister himself has been doing this. What I have said to all of those people is that that is misconduct in public office. The people who should be dealing with such allegations are the police." Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * But there is no reference in any of that to the "Partygate" issue. Apart from both controversies occurring in the same time frame, what is the connection, and why should any of it be mentioned in this article?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting they're just coincidentally occurring at the same time? Seriously?  One minute Google finds plenty of sources mentioning both.
 * https://news.sky.com/story/downing-street-parties-sue-grays-report-could-call-time-on-boris-johnsons-leadership-as-number-10-nervous-of-damaging-evidence-12521377
 * https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/senior-tory-mp-accuses-no10-6521131
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/23/uk/uk-politics-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends how widely you define "Partygate". Attending events during lockdown is, I'd suggest, only one of the reasons why Conservative MPs might question his leadership.  It is not the only one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not defining Partygate. Sources are. Partygate may not be the only reason, but it is one, and therefore  should be in this article.  Nothing stopping things being discussed in multiple articles in relation to how they relate to the article subject. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So offer an alternative wording for the section that relates it to the subject of this article then. We Can't just expect readers to find that list of sources themselves and make the link. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In my suggested text above, there are 4 citations. All 4 put the news in the context of Partygate. I think the placement of the text in this article makes clear the link, but we can easily add a sentence making that explicit (and as is supported by the citations given). We could begin the paragraph, “Several Conservative MPs came to oppose Johnson’s leadership after the Partygate revelations.” How about something like that? Bondegezou (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reader shouldn't have to study the sources to find the context for themselves, Wiki editors should put the text into the appropriate context, supported by the sources, for them. The sources are for verification of what's written, not for readers to use to try and find why the text would possibly have been included. Without that context it is meaningless to the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the out-of-date 'Opinion polls' section?
I see the out-of-date and unmaintained section about opinion polls has been re-inserted, but without the essential maintenance it needs. Should it stay or should it go? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is reliably sourced. We’re WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia covers historical information. That polling is part of the story.
 * It would be lovely if the graph had further data added, but that this hasn’t happened yet is not a reason to delete a section. Bondegezou (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it should stay. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Proxima Centauri, can you support your argument, with appropriate policy references, please. Otherwise it's just another personal "because I like it" case, which carries no weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As it was WP:RECENTISM when it was added, evidenced by the fact that it has not been kept up to date, and doesn't feature in more recent RSes covering the topic, it should, IMHO, be removed. Think of how relevant it will be to the subject of the article in ten years. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ideally the graph should cover the period up until the final Sue Gray report is published, which should be early next week. So hopefully it will be expanded in due course. We all understand that correlation does not only causation, but it seems pretty relevant and will be no less relevant in 10 years. I agree that, ideally we would use a RS that presented this information and commented on it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's only relevant though if we can reliably source that it is. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're saying it should never have been added? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that added content needs to be reliably sourced as connected to the subject of the article, and complies with WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT. We cannot just feed polls into the article without a sourced relationship to it, as to do so implies a connection, even a causal one - and that needs sourcing. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources given in the section connecting the polling to Partygate. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As recentism, maybe. Do more recent sources on the subject still refer to these old polls? Are they likely to be doing so in 10 years time? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So because, in 10 years time, or even now, sources do not refer to these polls, the material can't be included here? That seems an odd argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure future academic documents on the subject will discuss the effects of Partygate on Johnson's popularity, as indicated through polls. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's not much academic writing on Partygate yet unsurprisingly, but there is this: (full text available at ). This is the first regular academic journal paper I've seen on the topic. It talks about the impact of Partygate on Johnson's popularity, including with reference to polling. So,, you're right and , you're wrong. Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it ten years time that journal paper will be considered out of date? lol p.s. Richard Hayton seems to be a well respected academic and is Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already out of date. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why, because it doesn't cover polls taken yesterday? Or are you saying that all academic papers are necessarily out of date by the time they are published? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because it was based on the speculation from more than two months ago, about an event which is still ongoing. Would you use a report written at half-time to support an article about a football match? It might be useful if it covered an import detail of the first half, but this one doesn't do that, and doesn't even talk about opinion polls in the context of 'Partygate', so isn't of much, if any, use here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So you'd accept an academic paper with a title such as "An analysis of opinion poll movements over the course of the Partygate scandal", but only after the final Sue Gray report has been published, but nothing else? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Or any paper that was actually analysing correlations between 'Partygate' and opinion polls. I don't think we've seen one yet, covering any time span. And why would we assume that poll movements related to Partygate will stop after Gray's report has been published? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't assuming that. I was just guessing your possible criteria for fair inclusion, given that you said the Hayton paper was "out of date". I think an analysis of any part of the time period might be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems we agree on that last sentence then. But are there any? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, I'm not too sure what you think I was "wrong" about, or why.
 * That 'paper' is not about 'Partygate', it's seems to be mainly an anti-Johnson essay. It only discusses 'Partygate' in the first paragraph, and in the first half of the second, and then only mentions it twice, in passing, throughout the rest of the piece. The other seven paragraphs are whinges about Johnson's character, about his selection as party leader, about Brexit, about the "Conservative crisis", about his motives, about his partnership with Cummings, about the 'red wall' and the 'blue wall', about his "statecraft project" (which is the only part where polls are mentioned), about Covid (positively, I think), the state of the Union, about the challenges that his successor will face, etc., etc.
 * The small part of it that is about 'Partygate', remembering that it was published 21 March 2022, so written before Johnson got his FPN, before the police completed their investigation, before 'Beergate' and Starmer's apparent hypocrisy became a serious distraction, and obviously before Gray's report was published, is just personal speculation. It speculates about him losing a vote of no confidence and being replaced, and unfounded allegations about who might have been responsible for the gatherings, what might have happened at them, and what the final outcome might be. So hardly a reliable source for the history of 'Partygate' I'd say. And as it never mentions polls in the context of 'Partygate', I'm not sure why you brought it up in this discussion in the first place. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I don’t agree with most of that, but this is all getting a bit tangential, so it seems a bit pointless getting bogged down in the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, let's keep it simple then. What did you mean when you said "DeFacto, you're wrong"? A quote of what I wrote that you think is wrong would be useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The UK public has reacted to Partygate, support for the Tories has dropped dramatically. The article should reflect that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's already apparent that only one editor wants to remove this section and the rest of us disagree. Clearly, we're keeping this section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I only want to remove it as it gives undue weight to an historic snapshot in time. If it was brought up to date it could merit inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We all support bringing the section more up to date. As per WP:WIP, that’s not a good reason to remove well sourced material already there. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the resulting undueness that's the problem, not the actual out-of-datedness. It emphasises a moment that has passed, and without explanation. It's a bit like having a section about a football match and saying the score is 0-2, and not mentioning that was at half-time and that the final score was 4-2. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Proxima Centauri, why don't you update the section then, and make it worthy of keeping? Currently, as it gives undue weight to such an old and short period, it is very misleading. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Audio-visual timeline
. . . dave souza, talk 15:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

New reports
Not certain where to put this, but see Bondegezou (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Was main item on BBC News at Six this evening. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Final report conclusion
The final report 'update' report of 31 January. concludes thus:
 * "24. The gatherings within the scope of this investigation are spread over a 20-month period – a period that has been unique in recent times in terms of the complexity and breadth of the demands on public servants and indeed the general public. The whole of the country rose to the challenge. Ministers, special advisers and the Civil Service, of which I am proud to be a part, were a key and dedicated part of that national effort. However, as I have noted, a number of these gatherings should not have been allowed to take place or to develop in the way that they did. There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded."

Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No, that was the conclusion of the 'update' report of 31 January. The 8 conclusions of yesterday's report are on page 36 of it, and they are all already quoted in full in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for clarifying. This first conclusion of the 8 is: "The general findings set out in my update of 31st January 2022 still stand." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Are we still waiting for your point about it? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (e/c) "The general findings set out in my update of 31st January 2022 still stand."
 * So, there is still "significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government", i.e. the "significant learning" drawn after the interim report is not necessarily enough. But if this point has not been made by a WP:RS, I guess it's just WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Overnight stays
As well as reports of parties continuing until the early hours, weren't there also reports that some staff stayed overnight? Does the final Sue Gray report mention this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems it's not mentioned by Sue Gray. But the BBC says this, with regard to Lee Cain's leaving do on 13 November 2020: "We all sat around the tables drinking. People stayed the night there." Does that mean people just "stayed all night drinking" or does it mean they "slept the night there"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they meant the period between afternoon and bedtime?. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't English fun, the way word meanings can be chosen to reflect one's prejudices.
 * How about "One individual was sick" on page 16? I've seen that interpreted as "vomiting" in various sources.
 * Or "a minor altercation"? Does that mean the plural "drunken fights"? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "One individual was sick"? No, I'd say more like hundreds of MPs, on both sides of the house, and the majority of the British people. Sick and disgusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. "Imagine being a Downing Street cleaner – dealing with vomit and drunken snobs" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - a textbook example! -- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no vom pics in the Gray report, was there... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Images of MPs
David Davis has an image, next to the comments he made. Should other MPs also be pictured? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You could add a table, with pictures of them all, and a column to say whether they were known to have asked him to resign. We'd need to have their names in alphabetical order to ensure due weight and neutrality.
 * OTOH, we could also ensure due weight and neutrality by simply removing Davis's image altogether. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A table with all 650, yes? Might be a bit big. Davis is a senior figure, perhaps the most senior to have spoken out? The lower sections of the article are currently an image desert. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So all the more senior figures have supported him then? Shouldn't we have their images in the article too, for balance? Or do we only emphasis one side of the argument with images? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BALANCE has never been achieved by such a simplistic approach. That would be ridiculous. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, images of all the "senior" cabinet members, with captions e.g. "Jacob Rees-Mogg, who did not call for Johnson to resign." Ideal. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Davis' intervention was headline news for a day or two, and so his image can just about be justified, but adding pics of more random backbenchers would be undue weight and merely serve to prettify (if that's the right word - probably not) the article - which is not what we are here for.  It wouldn't add any value - people can just click on their links if they want to see them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What? Not even Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Photos in report
I can't find any copyright info in the report, but does anyone know if it is released under the OGL? SmartSE (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe, yes, the report, and thus including the photos, is all under OGL. Ergo, we could use them here, which would be a great idea. We need more images in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I still haven't been able to confirm this myself, but on yesterday's HIGNFY they helpfully said that the image was licenced under the OGL, so I will go ahead and upload them. SmartSE (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The photos are already on Commons: c:Category:Sue_Gray_Report -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 15:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah balls just reuploaded them. Thanks for the link. SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Protest by cleaners
Lancashire Telegraph, ITV and Evening Standard, amongst others, are reporting a protest by cleaning and security staff outside Downing Street. I think this should be included. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should wait until it has happened, or include it now, as speculation? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You saw the pictures at ITV that were taken last night, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and our posts crossed, but only after I read the first two talking about it being planned in the future. I then commented (below). -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first two were Lancashire Telegraph and ITV lol. Yes, it was yesterday. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the first and the last, and assumed it was in the future and posted. The I read the middle one, and wrote my addendum. Check the time stamps and you'll see my addendum landed before your second post. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point to everyone that DeFacto made a genuine and understandable mistake here and that he was under no obligation to read those sources in any particular order. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was yesterday. We probably need a few more mainstream sources reporting it in the past tense then, to give it due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the lofty Wandsworth Guardian (although it has got "Guardian" in the title, so may be suspect). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should include this, but we should be clear that it wasn’t purely about Partygate. Bondegezou (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reinterpretation of Gray's report
The report says: "One individual was sick ". The Guardian BBC says of the report: "Details emerged of wine spilled down walls, vomiting and partying until 4am". (My emphasis).

Neither the word "vomit", nor any of its derivatives, appear in the report, and, although some other sources also relay the word "sick" as "vomit" there are plenty that do not, and there are other possible and plausible meanings of the word "sick".

With reference to WP:NPOV, how should we handle this? We could stick with "sick" per the report, or we could discuss how some sources (name & shame?) reinterpret that? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(Sorry, it was BBC News, not the Guardian that was cited - I stuck Guardian and inserted BBC. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC) )
 * Sue Gray's words are: "The event lasted for a number of hours. There was excessive alcohol consumption by some individuals. One individual was sick. There was a minor altercation between two other individuals." I think most people would interpret that as vomiting. What is your alternative interpretation? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You might think "most people would interpret that as vomiting", so why not leave it as reported by Gray then, and let readers interpret it however they like, rather than subjecting them to just the Guardian's BBC's, inevitably biased, interpretation?
 * You ask for my alternative interpretation: take your pick. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Too late for a straw poll amongst editors here, I guess, now that we've all been contaminated by the vomit headlines. But still surprised that, when asked for your interpretation, you reach for a dictionary. I would suggest context is everything here. p.s. it's not just the loony left pinko Grauniad, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that we shouldn't be cherry-picking sources that give our personally preferred interpretation, we should keep it neutral and allow readers the courtesy of making their own minds up. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We don’t know what the Guardian is basing their word choice on. We can’t presume that they’re only basing what they say on the text of the Gray report. We’ve seen lots of No. 10 staff come forwards recently. All we can do is presume that the Guardian knows what it is doing in choosing that word given we recognise them as a reliable source. ’s approach of questioning the Guardian’s reporting based on interpretation of a primary source constitutes WP:OR.
 * If we’re uncertain about the wording here, the right course of action is to look at what other RS say. If the Guardian says “vomit”, but all other RS go with “was sick”, then there’s an argument we should follow what most RS say. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * e.g. Sky vomit. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And how many sources did you find that resisted the temptation to editorialise to suit their agenda, and faithfully stuck with the reports wording? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , it was BBC News, sorry, but, of course, your point still stands. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited source was specifically covering Gray's report, so would have no reason to confuse its content with anything else. And comparing the wording used in different sources is not WP:OR, it's expected per WP:NPOV, so I totally agree with your last sentence. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think professional journalists working for reliable sources like the BBC, The Guardian and Sky know how to interpret Gray's report and many say, 'vomit'. Also the Gray report referred to someone being sick in the context of party goers leaving mess for cleaners and lacking respect for cleaners.  That indictes that the report refers to being sick as vomiting and making a mess. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, professional journalists are skilled in the art of spin, and being paid to follow the agenda of their publisher, they use that skill to bias their reports to that end. That is why WP:NPOV says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".
 * As for your opinion on whether it is vomit, or not, that is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia id concerned. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gray report is a primary source, so secondary sources trump it. CNN also go with vomiting. SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Smartse, so are we going on a count of secondary sources then, those using the biased interpretation of 'vomiting' versus those faithfully adhering to the original wording of being 'sick'? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gray report shows from the context that they mean vomiting because the report refers to lack of respect for cleaners and gives other instances of civil servants making a mess. If we use the term 'being sick' we should cite these other messes to give the right context. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We already do. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. The Independent says it was red wine that was spilled on the wall? How do they know if Sue Gray hasn't said? Is that just their "biased interpretation" again? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Gray's report supports that, as they say. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, now I see, among the 20 separate instances of "wine", on page 32: "A cleaner who attended the room the next morning noted that there had been red wine spilled on one wall and on a number of boxes of photocopier paper." "WTF" (Wine Time Friday) is quite a theme isn't it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And we need to remember, neither the drinking, or spilling, of wine, the eating of cheese, the being rude to other staff, being sick, or even vomiting were actually banned under Covid regulations. And they all probably happened at work quite legally from time immemorial before the pandemic, and will continue to happen long after it is all history. All we should be concerned with really is how badly the social distancing regulations were breached. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, of course. All those hospital workers, and emergency service providers and other essential workers... they were all regularly pissing it up, on a Friday night, with the connivance or sheer ignorance of their bosses, weren't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would we care, as none of that was illegal for those people either, was it? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking joking?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Was it? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clear in its epistemological stance: we trust reliable secondary sources; we as editors avoid interpreting primary sources. We have multiple secondary sources saying "vomit". We don't know precisely why they've come to that word, but we don't have to. That's not our job. Claims that sources (that are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia) are "biased" or writing something to "suit their agenda" appear to be purely based on one editor's opinion. (The notion that CNN has some axe to grind here seems particularly misplaced.) So, I'm fine with "vomit", but I'm also happy with alternate wording used by reliable secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. The more vomit the better. Sounds like most of the party-goers had an episstemological stance. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Except this is blatant and obvious editorialising by the media and should be treated as such per WP:NPOV, and called out. It's funny how they just happen to drop the "one individual was sick" statement and instead imply there was "vomiting". We can be generous to them though, by not calling their reliability into question, and put it down to biased or opinionated reporting, and treat it as such. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's so generous. The Indy has "threw up", if you'd prefer. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , you can believe what you want, but there are clear policy-based arguments against you and no-one supports your position. But if you want to escalate to an RfC, go for it. Bondegezou (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is the use of biased sources, as covered in the NPOV policy, and we need to balance that - I tried to, and you reverted. The tag might attract more comments, so let's give it time, and see if we can resolve it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The text "including wine spilt on a wall, and that an attendee of one of the events didn't leave until after 4 am the next morning" is not in dispute, is it? That POV tag does not make that clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think these sources are biased, then raise an issue on WP:RSN, rather than trying to push your own (and the government's) POV on to the article -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 21:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s 4:1 against you, . There’s giving something time, and there’s being tendentious. Bondegezou (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, why do you think consensus for this should be determined by a straight vote then, rather than by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy?
 * Either way, surely we can agree a form of wording that either uses a neutral term, or which gives both versions, given that there are also multiple sources that do not use the word 'vomit', or derivatives of it, and instead use 'was sick' per the report. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "quality of the argument", given on your side of this issue, is in any way convincing. To get a (possibly more impartial) alternative view, you need to open an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Sue Grey report is a primary source but it's not an independent source; it's done by a civil servant, therefore an employee of the government. If anything secondary sources are more reliable than anything internally the government does. Given that we have a wide range of sources from BBC (state media) to Guardian (left-leaning) to CNN (not even British) all stating this and its not at all unlikely the government interfered with the report as it has been reliably alleged now, especially as the report is essentially the defendants reporting on themselves. The media have a wider range of sources and investigative journalists, with extensive networks of informants; the civil service certainly does not in this instance. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Risking a COVID outbreak in 10 Downing Street
I put the following into the article: "One senior figure said “No 10 staff were ‘essential workers’ because the office is the UK’s strategic headquarters. It is extraordinary that the government risked the strategic HQ’s capability by risking a single [Covid] outbreak closing the building completely, leaving the UK unguided.” " It was here. DeFacto took it out claiming it was irrelevant, here. I put it back maintaining it's relevant, here and DeFacto took it out again, here. If 10 Downing Street had been forced to close during aa major pandemic this would have seriously damaged the UK government's ability to fight the pandemic. The 'Partygate' article shows how many risks were taken in 10 Downing Street and how easily a COVID outbrek could have forced the offices to close. The Gurdian is a reliable source and I think this should be in the article.Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting argument - "OMG.. 10 DS is closed. How will the nation survive?" - but the problem for me is it's attributed anonymously to "one senior figure".  That could be almost anyone, depending on context.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like a useful addition to me. It’s not just random commentary saying this is good or bad: it’s actually making a specific point not otherwise covered in the article. Do we have any further reporting along these lines? Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoever it was that person was making a valid point. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is due weight. In what way is the commenter qualified to make this judgement? Has he weighed up the evidence - didn't the events involve people who, due to the history of the buildings, etc. involve civil servants who have been necessarily working long hours and in unavoidably close proximity to each other for months? Perhaps if you could put it into context and find a few RSes adding weight to this subjective opinion, and from experts in this field, it might have a place here. Otherwise I think it fails the inclusion criteria. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * People who have been drinking much more than they should are less likely to be careful about issues like social distancing and avoiding unecessary COVID risk than sober people working together. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The word "stringent"
removed the word "stringent" from the phrase "stringent publish health measures" as being "editorializing". I've undone their removal of the word. "Stringent", meaning "strict, precise, and exacting" is factual and descriptive here; these were some of the most severe and minutely detailed restrictions on public freedom in a century - and I say that as a supporter of those measures. Like the Air Raid Precautions of World War II, they remained stringent even if you completely ignored them. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * These are no more so than any other laws and regulations, so why apply that adjective to them, if not to editorialise them? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, let's hash it out here. I've got three questions for you: &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Were the UK COVID restrictions strict: that is to say "Governed or governing by exact rules; observing exact rules; severe; rigorous"?
 * Were the UK COVID restrictions precise: that is to say "Precisely or definitely conceived or stated"?
 * Were the UK COVID restrictions exacting: that is to say "Making great demands; difficult to satisfy."?


 * No more so than any other regulations, were they? And possibly much less than many; those applying to road traffic, for example? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Really? Is everyone compelled to drive a motor vehicle at all times? You might want to choose a better comparison. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No more than they are compelled to socialise at all times or do anything else that the Covid regs applied to. But the regulations, enforcement, and penalties for road traffic regulations are far more stringent. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not whether other regulations are stringent, it's whether these ones are stringent. Fortunately, WP:NPOV can help us here. To wit: So there we have three WP:RS describing the regulations as "stringent", versus your personal opinion that they weren't. WP:V and WP:OR apply here, I think, and I propose that the word be restored. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortune explicitly describes the regulations as stringent.
 * This paper -- a WP:MEDRS no less -- describes one of the lockdowns as "most stringent".
 * This FT article also describes one of the lockdowns as "stringent"


 * In the absence of any policy-based argument for removing the word, I'm going to restore it now, with a cite. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The policies in question are WP:NPOV, and WP:RS - particularly WP:BIASED. We do not editorialise, even when RSes do, otherwise we just need to cherry-pick the sources that use our own preferred bias, as you seem to have done with this. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * OK. We now have three WP:RS making the claim that they were "stringent" -- a claim I note you do not dispute -- and on the other hand, we have your personal opinion. Proof by assertion does not trump reliable sources. We have Fortune, the Financial Times, and a bunch of medical researchers published in a reputable medical journal, and somehow they are all biased? To quote The Dude: "that's just like uh, your opinion, man". &mdash; The Anome (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, look, I've got a lovely one: the pro-Tory Daily Telegraph saying "The UK has faced a more stringent coronavirus lockdown than France, Germany and the US, according to analysis by the University of Oxford" Are these academics biased, too?
 * But wait, it gets better. The authoriative Oxford research group don't just think the precautions applied by numerous countries worldwide could be characterized as stringent, they have a numerical "stringency index" to compare different countries responses: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-stringency-index


 * Do you have any argument at all, other than your personal opinion that all these WP:RS are "biased"? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The more you put that term in the search engine, the more sources using that term you will find. That's what cherry-picking means. That doesn't render those finds as neutral though, nor does categorising them as "pro-Tory", that's our job as editors - to keep the wording neutral, per WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I have four WP:RS now, presumably reasonably balanced across the ideological spectrum, ranging from newspapers of record to academic researchers. And you have your personal opinion. Do you have any principle-based argument to advance whatsover? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet all using the same biased word - what a coincidence! Yes, WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's like, just your opinion, man. You seem unable to deny that the word "stringent" literally (as in, literally literally) applies here, only arguing that other things are more stringent, which isn't really an argument at all, and you feel that your personal opinion outweighs WP:RS by defining anything you don't like as "biased". Really, is it your opinion that the FT, Telegraph and two different groups of academics, one backed by the imprimatur of Oxford University, and the second published in a WP:MEDRS are all biased? And you're not, and somehow solely capable of seeing WP:THETRUTH here? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All serious regulations are strict, precise, and exacting - we don't need to explicitly say it though - unless we are editorialising for some reason to try to imply that the UK Covid regulations were somehow exceptional in this respect. You seem to assume, contrary to WP:BIASED, that RSes are necessarily neutral - they are not, and that's nothing to do with my personal opinion, it's enshrined in Wiki policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we're making progress. I'm glad you agree that the word "stringent" applies here (that's more than half the work done), but I can now see that you're bothered by the idea that calling them stringent somehow advances some sort of sinister agenda. Which I don't understand. We had daily briefings from the Prime Minister about the seriousness of the regulations. Their life-and-death importance. Public advertising that to breach the rules was worthy of shame. These weren't just serious regulations. They were super-serious regulations. And they were precise regulations, set out in legislation. And they were exacting regulations that in effect put the entire nation under virtual house arrest, separating them from their loved ones, even if they were dying. So, they were super-serious, precise and exacting. Life-or-death regulations. Not like the other regulations, the ones about riding your bike on the pavement, photocopying pages from books or which colour you can paint your house in Chelsea. If only the English language had some word to mean "strict, precise, and exacting" that we could use in the article to acknowledge this. Which leaves me wondering. What is the nature of the bias you are talking about? Is it left-handedness? Antidisestablishmentarianism? Crimethink? Unmutuality? Inquiring minds want to know. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They were no more of any of those things than other regulations enshrined in law, and far less than many, including the road traffic ones. Now please get off that hobby horse and refrain from trying to force your personal POV in here - why do you think they are? If the regulations were more stringent than others, then why were the penalties so light, and so similar to those for parking regulation infringements? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's an opinion-againt-opinion argument. Look. There's you, me and Proxima Centauri here. That's two against one. Isn't that how it works when you just trade-off opinions? But wait, I hear you say, this is not a vote. Rules apply! Stringent ones! At the moment, you are invoking just WP:BIASED. So; what's the bias? Is it, as WP:BIASED says, political, financial, religious, philosophical, or even the dreaded "other belief"? Please be specific; there will be a test on this later. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's try this one: The voice of Her Magestryes Government itself, stating that "As originally set out in the COVID-19 Response - Spring 2021 (‘the roadmap’), with a sufficiently high proportion of the population vaccinated, the country can learn to live with COVID-19 without the need for the stringent economic and social restrictions which have been in place since March 2020." [Emphasis mine] Presumably HMG are biased too? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Clearly they are biased, they have to spin their position - don't they? Or do you accept everything they say, as read, without question? A WP:consensus is needed to include that word, and currently I don't see one. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * So what's the nature of the bias? I really, really, really wanna know now. Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. -- &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So we have a primary source calling them stringent, and several independent, reliable secondary sources calling them stringent. I see no policy-based reason to not include the word. M2Ys4U ( talk ) 21:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - would you like to contribute that opinion to the RfC below? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

When I was alone in my home, unable to go out and meet people I felt that the rules were stringent. I agreed with the rules but they were stringent. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Would you like to contribute to the RfC below? -- &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds like WP:CANVASSING. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Informing someone who has taken part in a discussion of a continuation of the discussion is obviously not WP:CANVASSING. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Vote of confidence or vote of no confidence
I updated the article with news of today's vote of (no) confidence in Johnson. changed my wording of "vote of no confidence" to "vote of confidence", with an edit summary saying I waited to see who'd be the first to use that biased representation - even the BBC didn't put it that way! I had a quick look at sources. The Guardian has "Tory MPs to hold no-confidence vote", The Telegraph has "No confidence vote in Prime Minister", the BBC had "no-confidence vote" but now has "Vote of confidence" for its main article, Sky has "Johnson to face confidence vote" (but earlier had "set to trigger no confidence vote"), FT has "Johnson faces vote of no confidence", The Independent has "No-confidence vote", ITV has "No confidence vote", The Mirror has "vote of no confidence".

May I suggest DeFacto withdraws his implication of bad faith? As I see it, both vote of confidence and vote of no confidence are used. The latter seems to be somewhat more common. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to withdraw. The Conservatives announced that they were to hold a vote of confidence, and that is how the BBC reported it. You used that BBC report as a source for your addition, yet you chose to insert the word "no" into it. That is a biased interpretation of the source. That other media outlets are doing that too is no excuse as we know they re mainly anti-Johnson, and hence probably biased too. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I summarised the BBC article in my own words, as we are meant to (see WP:PARAPHRASE). Claims of bias are less convincing when you are claiming that the entire world is biased against your view. Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not my view, it's a fact that the Conservatives announced a "confidence vote", not a "no confidence vote". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Important to take our wording directly from Conservative Party Central Office, I guess, before it gets tainted by the dangerously biased filter of national newspapers and broadcasters? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Secondary sources are taken over primary sources. Secondary sources use a mix of both "confidence vote" and "no confidence vote", but more the latter. I am, to be honest, more bothered by the tendentious claims of bias than over what wording we end up with. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a rather tendentious claim. But editors at this page have got rather too used to that, I'm afraid. Curiously (?) the relevant article is called Motion of no confidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are there so frequently problems involvin DeFacto? Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head, Pretending he just doesn’t see?" etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123, that is not the relev\nt article though. This is an internal Tory Party process called a vote of confidence, which is not related to the parliamentary motion of no confidence in a prime minister or government that that linked article is about. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe that article ought to make the distinction clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing tendentious in calling out a biased/editorialised rewording of what was a literal report of a fact in a secondary source. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, But that's hardly how your comment comes across: I waited to see who'd be the first to use that biased representation - even the BBC didn't put it that way." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And there was nothing tendentious in that honesty either. This article has been subject to a litany of similarly biased language, and I knew it was inevitable that it would happen again in response to today's news. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems inevitable that other editors disagree with you here. Increasingly frequently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you agree with me that it was wrong to translate what was reported as a "confidence vote" in the cited source, into a "no confidence vote"? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies if any of my flippant or facetious sarcasm appeared to be agreement. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming all those things. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Too Long Template
I agree with the template that this article is long and hard to easily navigate. Any suggestions on what can be done to improve clarity? Write a new page for reactions to partygate. Encyloedit (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The reactions are often part of the story, so I’m undecided on that. Maybe one could create a Sue Gray report or an Operation Hillman article and just have a summary here? Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm (sporadically) going through the article and just trimming/sub-editing as I go along. We've long had a problem with material being repeated in different places, so I'm trying to cut down on that. There's a lot of earlier speculation that is now redundant or confirmed, so that can go. Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your trimmings. I also like the suggestion of a seperate article for the investigation and in my opinion an article on the Sue Gray report is the one I would want as on a brief glance it looks to be the longer one of the two. Does anyone else agree?

Encyloedit (talk)

Proposal 1: keep the word "stringent"
Support per WP:RS and WP:NPOV: &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) the regulations were stringent, in the plain English literal sense of the word, a fact that is not disputed
 * 2) they are described as stringent by the British government itself
 * 3) four independent reliable sources, one a WP:MEDRS in a peer-reviewed article, describe the regulations as stringent.,,,[

Oppose per WP:NPOV and WP:BIASED: -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) the regulations are only similarly stringent to those used to control car parking
 * 2) they are described as stringent by the government spin machine
 * 3) they are less stringent than the regulations enforced in other major economies and nowhere near those used in far-eastern countries
 * 4) we should refrain from editorialising to imply something is more important than the facts actually show, for whatever ulterior motive, even if reliable sources choose to do so
 * What is the nature of the bias, the ulterior motive of which you speak? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The bias is the attempt to imply that these regulations are any more stringent (when they clearly aren't) than other regulations. The ulterior motive isn't clear (other than that of the government in its use of it), but why would the word be so important if there wasn't one? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Note we are actually discussing whether to insert the word 'stringent', not whether to 'keep' it, as it is not currently there. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. It was there until you removed it. By the way, what is the nature of the bias, the ulterior motive? Hard to invoke WP:BIASED if you can't say what it is. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per your edit summary, you added it, at 10:54:48 on 5 June 2022, I then removed it, (and that sequence was repeated a couple more times) and now you are now arguing to add it back. Is it there now? I don't see it, so this is a discussion about whether to insert it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support. As I mentioned above, we have a primary source calling them stringent, and several independent, reliable secondary sources calling them stringent. I see no policy-based reason to not include the word. Though I must say I don't think an RfC is really necessary - if we had one for every time this editor whips out WP:BRD in their revert edit summaries only for almost every other editor to come in and disagree with the ensuing wikilawyering we'll be doing nothing else... -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 22:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The policy-based reason not to is WP:NPOV and WP:BIASED. This is a non-neutral word used to imply these regs have more weight than others, when, if anything, and based on the penalties recommended, they have less than most. And being RS does not imply a source is neutral, and very few, if any, ever are. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, not aligning with your POV and Neutral POV are different things. But if we're talking WP:NPOV then allow me to quote this secion: "[B]iased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view" Okay, so, we've seen that there are many reliable, independent, verifiable sources that use the word "stringent" to refer to the restrictions. Are there other sources you can point to to provide an indication of the weight of opinion on whether or not the restrictions were stringent?
 * I'd also like to point out that your objection based on penalties for breaching the regulations does not imply the restrictions imposed by those regulations weren't stringent. It's perfectly possible to have stringent requirements to do (or not do) something and lax enforcement (or enforcement mechanisms) of those restrictions. Do bear in mind that the phrase the word "stringent" was prepended to was "public health restrictions", not "public health regulations, so we're talking about what people were or were not allowed to do and not what sanctions there were for non-compliance. M2Ys4U ( talk ) 00:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Support, as per M2Ys4U. Yes, this puts a capital T in Tedious. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * So my reply to M2Ys4U applies equally here then. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows sources. Not your personal opinion. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:NPOV and WP:BIASED? They may coincide with my opinion, but they are not (correct me if I'm wrong) based on my opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there are no Wikipedia policies that are based on your opinion (correct me if I'm wrong). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: remove the word "stringent"

 * TBC

Remove "stringent" 's claims that the word violates WP:NPOV etc. are preposterous. However, in terms of writing clear and easy to read prose, I generally favour removing adjectives if they're not adding much. Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove “stringent" With no comment on the discussion about the matter regarding bias, but agreeing with the point of removing adjectives that are not adding much and noting the template added on June 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyloedit (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
The above is not a properly formatted RfC. Do you want it to be? Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * yes please. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you would need to start again following the instructions at Requests_for_comment. However, WP:RFCBEFORE would apply. There's no need to jump to an RfC before we've exhausted discussing the matter here on the Talk page. I suggest re-naming this section so people don't think it's a proper RfC, but letting the discussion continue. If there's a clear position after a few days, then we can just go with that. We can see if anyone else will chip in. If not, then it's 3:2 in favour of "stringent". Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's currently 3 versus 3. I don't see a consensus for "stringent" emerging. Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Vallance quote
I added a quote on Partygate from Patrick Vallance. greatly expanded the text. I tried a shorter compromise position, DeFacto tried a longer compromise, I tried a different shorter compromise, DeFacto reverted and is insisting on their prior version. So, can I get a quick show of hands? Looking at, which do you prefer? (Or go back in the edit history for some other alternatives.) I don't think the longer version really adds anything; the context of what Vallance said is little changed by the exact question he was answering and readers can go read the citation if they want the details. But I know what me and DeFacto think; what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One version is too short, and the other is unnecessarily long, using a multiplicity of words when fewer, that is to say, a much smaller, number of words, would suffice (!). I suggest: "When asked about Partygate on 7 June 2022, Patrick Vallance, the Government’s chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, said:...".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need to provide more of the context of the question. It was not a question about Partygate per se, it was about his view on his time in government. He was asked whether that was tarnished by Partygate. So rather than just "When asked about Partygate on 7 June 2022,...", which omits the main point of the question, I think we need at least "When, on 7 June 2022, he was asked if Partygate had changed how he felt about his time in government..." The readers might assume the short version was an accurate summary of the question, which it is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That version is OK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ghmyrtle, sorry, which version do you think is OK? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your version (insert smiley face here..).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer your version (insert grumpy face here...) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Either version is OK, and I'm not going to war intervene over it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I might be prepared to hold back. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to ask what DeFacto does not want people to think in regards to the shortened version.
 * My preference is short sentences in this article as it is already wordy however I do want to understand what the concern is before deciding which I prefer
 * On a slightly different note is the date important in this scenario?or can we remove the 7 June 2022 part? Encyloedit  (talk)
 * , I want readers to know what question he was answering, so that they aren't misled into thinking he was asked what he thought about Partygate. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal, Ghmyrtle. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with 's version. I don't see how "had changed how he felt about his time in government" in 's version adds anything -- it just makes no difference to what Vallance said! But I appreciate the movement towards a shorter version, so that would be my second choice. Does anyone else want to weigh in? Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference is that it supplies the correct context, otherwise readers will probably (incorrectly) imagine he was commenting specifically about Partygate, rather than about how it affected his experience in government. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how this makes any difference. Bondegezou (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to mislead the readers by suggesting he was specifically asked about Partygate? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That BBC source opens with: "It is "disappointing" Covid rules were not followed in Downing Street, the government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, has said." Are you suggesting that there were other activities in Downing Street, not uncovered in Partygate that involved Covid rules not being followed, that had "tarnished his feelings"? His comment was all about Partygate, wasn't it? How exactly is this "misleading the readers"?  Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an editorialised interpretation by the BBC though, not a statement of fact. Vallance never mentioned Downing Street. ITV News interpretted what he said differently: "Sir Patrick Vallance: 'It was very disappointing that not everyone stuck to the rules'". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That ITV source says: "Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, was questioned about the Partygate scandal at Buckingham Palace where he was receiving the honour of Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath." That seems pretty plain to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an editorialised interpretation too. In this report, ITV News say he was asked, "Has the so-called Partygate scandal tarnished how you reflect on your time at the heart of government during the pandemic", so not about Partygate, but about how he reflects on his time at the heart of government. And he answered "It was really important at all stages that everyone stuck to the rules, there’s no question about that, it only works when people stick to them and it’s very disappointing that that wasn’t the case". So it was very disappointing that not everyone stuck to the rules, so not specifically Partygate. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, right, "not about Partygate." Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not specifically, as we can see in the detail. That's why it's important to give all the context, and not just one editorialised interpretation. Allow readers to draw their own conclusions, don't force-feed them just one a cherry-picked and obviously conclusion. That's what NPOV expects. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, we've had some move to compromise and some discussion of editors' reasoning. We now have two options: The former is supported by myself and, the latter by DeFacto, with Ghmyrtle fine with either. Martinevans123 has argued the former follows WP:RS, while DeFacto argues RS are giving an editorialised interpretation and interprets the exchange between Vallance and journalist differently. Do any other editors want to weigh in? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "When asked about Partygate on 7 June 2022, ..." by
 * "When, on 7 June 2022, he was asked if Partygate had changed how he felt about his time in government, ..." by


 * @Bondegezou, do you have a rationale for still supporting your original wording, even though we have now seen that that interpretation, and its POV stance and divergence from the original question and answer, is not necessarily shared by other journalists, who have given a more faithful and comprehensive cover? And no, the length of the article is not a good enough reason to compromise on NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Bondegezou said "other editors", but never mind. Alas, I'm still trying to fully understand your "POV" objection. You're saying that the original question (and who was that questioner?) was not about Partygate but was about "his time in government"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the question and read the answer, they're both there in some of the better the sources, alongside their own editorialisations/sensationalisations, so that their readers can compare them and draw their own conclusions. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you answer my question? I thought it was quite a straightforward one. I certainly can't agree with you if I don't know what you mean. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The question asked was: "Has the so-called Partygate scandal tarnished how you reflect on your time at the heart of government during the pandemic"?
 * The main subject of that question was how he reflects on his time at the heart of government, not Partygate, so to present the question in the article as just "when asked about Partygate" is clearly not a neutral representation of it, and thus the proposed rewording presents a POV issue. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I disagree. I think most people would reasonably see that as a "question about Partygate". Vallance's "time at the heart of government" (in itself debatable) coincided largely with the pandemic. And the events of Partygate also largely coincided with the pandemic, didn't they? Sorry I've no more time for the ritual splitting of "editorialisation/ sensationalisation" hairs. By the way, the questioner seems to be given as just "ITV News". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about Vallence, or the pandemic itself, so how their timelines overlap isn't relevant here. So why not include the whole context of the question then, just to make sure that everyone understands what it was precisely, and not just those who you think are included in your 'most'? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's wholly relevant. But, as I said above, no more effort/ patience to expend here, sorry. Guided by the maxim "unless you can say something nice, don't say anything", I'll remain silent on this from now on. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We've been round this circle many times before in editing this article. RS say one thing. has a different interpretation. DeFacto argues that RS disagreeing with him/her is proof of editorialised interpretation and shouts about NPOV. This is a nonsense: DeFacto, you're just putting your personal interpretation above what RS says, which is WP:OR. You have repeatedly stated your belief that Partygate is all a media confection and appear to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than to follow the community's rules and guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with my POV, it's about neutral inclusion of content. See WP:NPOV, we need to balance what the sources say, and not just cherry-pick our favourite biased interpretation. I resent your implications. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to balance what the sources say. All the sources say the quote is about Partygate. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of them mention it, yes, as the question lead with that word, but they don't all imply that the answer is Partygate specific, rather than a reply to the actual subject of the question. The reply needs the whole question context to be NPOV compliant, and I cannot imagine why anyone would object to giving the full context anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Revert of new addition to polls graph
@Smartse, we know the graph is very out of date, so when I came across a new and very recent poll this morning, I went to the trouble of figuring out how to add it, and then did so. You chose to revert my best efforts though, giving "This screws up the graph - either update with all of them or don't" as the reason.

Please explain: Wikipedia is an ever evolving collection of knowledge, and editors should be encouraged to add relevant data as they come across it, and not wait until they've found "all of" it before they start, surely. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How it "screws up the graph" - sure there's a gap in the timeline, but anyone can fill it if they come across data to use, as I did.
 * What you mean by "all of them" and why do you think the onus is on me to "update with all".
 * While it's great to have more polls added, it does look very odd to have one recent poll and nothing in between. It raises questions of WP:BALANCE. I think is right here, but that doesn't solve the broader problem of how we get the graph properly updated. I will try another request at the main polling article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It screws up the graph because the lines and the points are no longer in sync - the squiggles in the lines continue after the penultimate points. This is presumably a bug in Graph:Chart. Even without that though, if you want to update it, why use this particular poll? There are tens of others you can include since January - wouldn't if make sense to start in February rather than June? It would of course be a lot easier to update this if you hadn't insisted that we include a reference for every data point rather than linking to them at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the squiggles, and it's a weak reason to revert anyway. I used that poll because it was featured at the weekend. I don't remember seeing another recently. So if you're so confident about the multitude of them about, why don't you fill the gap? That's how it generally works in Wikipedia, recent 'news' gets added first, and it is then backfilled as and when backfilling is found. And you can't blame me for Wiki policy either, all I do is try and comply with it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I found that the Opinium poll for 8 June was the latest in their periodic "Opinium Voting Intention" series, so I've solved your problem by getting numbers for there for each missing month. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Smartse, "This still screws up the graph and is ridiculous cherrypicking of the polls"? It didn't screw it up before and didn't this time. And the "cherry-picking" was from the same series used for other points, and involved getting one for February, one for March, one for April, and one for May, to fulfil your demand for "all of them" in between. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have checked on multiple devices and browsers, and yes, it must definitely does misrepresent the data: https://imgur.com/a/cRSnbWk. You have cherrypicked the Opinium polls, which oh-so-incidentally have only a two-point difference and omitted all of the others which have an average difference of c. 7 points. That's a gross violation of NPOV. SmartSE (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I selected one poll, the one for June from Opinium, because it was featured on the Guardian's website. You insisted we needed data for between January and June too, so I used ones for each of the months in between from the same primary Opinium source as the original, and Opinium have been used before for other points in the graph. Now rather that making an unnecessary drama out of this, why not, if you think you can find other secondary-sourced polls to 'balance' those used by the Guardian, why don't you add points from them too? And no, I still don't see any squiggles or misrepresentations on my screen. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Using only a single polling company is placing undue weight on that one source. M2Ys4U ( talk ) 20:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @M2Ys4U, what would you recommend as the minimum number of companies to use for each date in the graph then? And should we use only secondary sources, to give the particular polls due weight? Or are you suggesting that we do our own pic'n'mix from primary sources of several polling companies? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Relationship of Beergate to Partygate
On the point that the lead of Beergate should note that it developed from "Partygate", and Starmer's opponents have kept insinuating their equivalence, we've come to a reasonable consensus with as wide an agreement as can be reached so far, input from more editors at Talk:Beergate will be welcome. Both myself and evidently u|Martinevans123 agree. The odd one out is u|DeFacto, who's done a lot of reverting to remove such mention. After some to and fro, we got to this wording; The Beergate political controversy developed in 2022 following allegations that an event in Durham in April 2021, attended by Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, had been a social rather than a work event, implying that it could have been in breach of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, in the same way as alleged Partygate breaches. DeFacto removed the Partygate connection, claiming it is "totally irrelevant", and reverted it out again, commenting "only if we accept your OR interpretation, take to talk per WP:BRD)". Clearly, this removal is contrary to reasonable consensus after a lot of discussion. If I've made any typing errors, please point them out helpfully so I can correct them. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree, for the reasons I give on Talk:Beergate. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sajid Javid resignation
I just listened to Sajid Javid's resignation speech in the Commons and I'm pretty sure he mentioned the events of Partygate? I guess Hansard will have a transcript. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If he gave it as a reason there, and if that reason receives due weight in RS reports about his resignation then I see no reason not to add it. That would need to be contrasted with the other reports though, that said he "told the Commons he gave the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt on partygate" - like in The Scotsman. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Hansard regarded as WP:PRIMARY? There's a fully transcript here. So yes, he did mention them. But not directly as reason for resigning? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's what Javid said:
 * When the first stories of parties in Downing Street emerge late last year, I was personally assured at the most senior level by my Right Honourable friend’s then-team, that, and I quote, there have been no parties in Downing Street and no rules were broken.
 * So I gave the benefit of doubt. And I went on those media rounds to say that I had those assurances from the most senior level of the Prime Minister’s team. Then we had more stories. We had the Sue Grey report, a new Downing Street team. I continued to give the benefit of the doubt.
 * And now this week again, we have reason to question the truth and integrity of what we’ve all been told. And at some point, we have to conclude that enough is enough. I believe that point is now.
 * So Partygate is a (large) part of a pattern that has led to his resignation. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If we see a consensus amongst reliable sources saying partygate was a factor, fine, but for now all I see are Wiki editors' OR interpretations, apparently based on 'reading between the lines' of what he said. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If we looked at reliable sources, we could see a consensus. . .dave souza, talk 16:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of source it was factor. It gave Javid doubts. He just gave Johnson the benefit of those doubts. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * . . dave souza, talk 16:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . . dave souza, talk 16:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

How the law worked
discusses how the law worked: "The wording of the laws in place during both Beergate and Partygate, read: “A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse … [they] contravene a restriction.” It means that police had discretion to decide whether someone had broken the law, or had a legal defence for doing something that appeared to be a Covid breach on the face of it. Investigators accepted that the gathering Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner attended in Durham was covered by a legal exemption for work, while the impromptu birthday party that resulted in fines for Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak was not."

For Partygate: "Because different gatherings happened at different stages of restrictions, the Metropolitan Police fined people for breaching six different offences. For the 20 May 2020 “bring your own booze” garden party, which the prime minister said he attended for 25 minutes thinking it was a “work event”, attendees were fined for “being outside of the place they were living without reasonable excuse”. Because Downing Street is the prime minister’s official residence, he was not in scope of the offence but staff and any other non-residents were. Events held on the remaining seven dates that saw fines handed out contravened different Covid laws, which restricted gatherings of different types. The flexible “reasonable excuse” defence in force, meaning police had to consider individual reasons for apparent breaches on a case-by-case basis."

Read the rest for context, will leave it with regulars to fit this into the article structure,. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Was Bailey cleared of breaking the regs, or not?
As I read the sources - he was cleared of any wrongdoing - in plain English. But there is another way of putting it - the police would be taking no action over the matter. And the latter edit left the original WP:BLP-contravening and non-NPOV content in the lead, as well as obfuscating the reality in the body, potentially leading readers to think there is some doubt, rather than making it clear that he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Note how a very similar police finding wrt to Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner in the Beergate story, where the police said "no further action will be taken", is described in that article as "cleared of any wrongdoing" in that article's lead and as "were cleared by Durham Police" in the body.

Can we reasonably accept that when it's one political party involved we interpret something as a positive outcome, and when it's another party we interpret the same thing in a negative way? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's a recipe for original research, we're not interested the the interpretation by WP editors. It also looks like a failure to assume good faith. . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ping, as it is your edit I refer to above. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources are needed for any such interpretation, links have been given to edits but not to the required source[s]. Looks to me like a rather stretched "interpretation" of the Beeb which says the "photo by itself is not sufficient evidence on which to assess that an offence had been committed". Officers issued attendees with questionnaires to decide whether breaches of the rules were committed and fines should be issued. "The investigation reviewed all the material thoroughly and after careful consideration, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to disprove the version of events provided by attendees to a standard that would meet the threshold required," the Met said. "As a result, a decision was made that no further action should be taken." If a comparison is to be made to the Beergate story, there's a good source for Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and deputy Angela Rayner have been cleared by Durham police of breaking lockdown rules. ... In a statement, the police said there was "no case to answer" citing an exemption to lockdown rules for "reasonably necessary work". Equal quality of sourcing would be needed to say that of Bailey. . .dave souza, talk 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. With Beergate and Starmer, it is easy to find multiple citations saying he was "cleared", using that word. If you,, find a reliable source citation saying Bailey was "cleared", then we can re-visit the wording. (I've looked and the Daily Mail are saying "CLEARED", but they're not RS.) You have repeatedly edited this article on the grounds that wording didn't closely follow sources, yet you are being so lax now.
 * You have also been very careful in the past to make sure other editors don't over-interpret decisions by the police, yet again that care is absent now. Someone can do something wrong without it being a crime. Bailey resigned and apologised. That hasn't changed. The article you cite says, "Mr Bailey, a former candidate to be London's mayor, apologised "unreservedly" for the event organised by his campaign team and said it was a "serious error of judgment"." He hasn't un-resigned or retracted that apology. So, the article should say all those things: that he apologised, that he resigned, that the police are taking no action. Bondegezou (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So @Bondegezou, @Dave souza, were Bailey & co cleared, or not? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ DeFacto, I've quoted relevant parts of the cited source, which does not say Bailey & co were cleared. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , you know what Wikipedia's evidential standards are. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No clear answer yet then. Let's add the third option. @Dave souza, @Bondegezou, were they cleared, or not, or don't we know yet? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * DeFacto, have you stopped beating your wife? See WP:NOR for starters. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dave souza, I'm quite familiar with OR, thanks. Is there another possibility other than cleared, not cleared, don't know? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ DeFacto, see the relevant sources, and read them carefully. . . dave souza, talk 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dave souza, I've done that, boldly applied my reading, and was reverted. I want to know the 'correct' answer in your opinion wrt whether they'd been cleared. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @DeFacto It doesn't matter what you, me or Dave think. it matters what's in reliable sources. You know this. Bondegezou (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, my reading of the reliable sources was that the police were unable to challenge the reasonable excuse they had for doing what they were doing, hence they were cleared. Do you have a reason to believe that the police investigation is till ongoing, and hence they haven't yet been cleared? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@ DeFacto, the Beeb reports "The investigation reviewed all the material thoroughly and after careful consideration, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to disprove the version of events provided by attendees to a standard that would meet the threshold required," the Met said. "As a result, a decision was made that no further action should be taken." The "threshold criteria" in the article, ref [219] looks relevant. Your wording "unable to challenge", "reasonable excuse" and "hence they were cleared" is synthesis and spin which differs from the source. Got another source to discuss? . . . 06:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dave souza, exactly! Bearing in mind WP:SOURCESDIFFER, which says Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say, and given that, and the other mainstream media sources, are you disputing that a reasonable summary of them would be "... the police cleared Shaun Bailey, and all others attending the gathering, of any wrongdoing"? Are you saying that the consensus amongst reliable sources does not support that they were all cleared? Were they not all let off with no further action to follow? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Shaun Bailey and his cronies weren't cleared. The case against them wasn't proved to criminal standards. They might or might not be guilty. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's consistent with the source from January; "Dame Cressida said some other Downing Street parties had been assessed as not meeting the threshold for criminal investigation ....  investigations were carried out for the most serious types of breach where there was evidence and three criteria were met. They are that: • There was evidence that those involved knew, or ought to have known that what they were doing was an offence. • Where not investigating would significantly undermine the legitimacy of the law. • Where there was little ambiguity around the absence of any reasonable defence." . . dave souza, talk 10:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dave souza, yes, there was no evidence that they had broken the regulations, indeed the only evidence seems to confirm that they fully complied with them, hence they were cleared. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ DeFacto, you're making unsourced claims which don't follow from that police statement. Logic fail. . dave souza, talk 20:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Proxima Centauri, you clearly misunderstand the situation. The police did not undertake a criminal investigation, instead they chose the easier fixed penalty notice route. The police may issue a fixed penalty notice to any person that they reasonably believe has committed an offence under the regulations, and is aged 18 or over. So clearly they did not reasonably believe that any of this group had committed such an offence. And don't forget, in the UK you are innocent unless it is proven otherwise. So as the police said no further action will be taken against them, they have, in plain English, been totally cleared of any wrongdoing. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * People are innocent (of breaking the law) unless proven otherwise. The article text isn't saying Bailey broke any laws, so there's no problem. The text says what reliable source say. He attended a gathering with drinks and a buffet, he resigned, staff members were disciplined, the police decided to take no action. Bondegezou (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Or in plain English, he was cleared by the police of any wrongdoing wrt Covid regulations. Or wasn't he? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ DeFacto, you're still pushing original research. In another case police decided to take no further action on what "might" have amounted to a minor breach of the regulations: The word "might" is used because the police investigate potential breaches but they do not determine criminal liability. If an offence is disputed, only a court can determine whether it has been committed. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

, no-one has agreed with you on this matter so far. I am unclear why you felt this was sufficient support for you to make an additional 8 edits to the article along similar lines. I've reverted some of your latest edits, and left others. Might I suggest you get consensus on Talk before repeating similar changes? Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, today's changes are unrelated to this discussion. This discussion is simply about how to describe the fact that the police cleared the team of any wrongdoing. Today's changes were to bring the description of the Bailety event into line with the cited sources so as to comply with WP:BRD. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On 11 November, you edited the lead, . I reverted you. You immediately reverted back. I reverted you again and suggested you come to Talk. Here, no-one has supported your suggested edits. You then, earlier today, repeated your edit to the lead. I reverted it again. You then removed the entire section from the lead and started arguing it was in violation of WP:BLP. I reverted that. You immediately repeated your edit. You have repeatedly ignored WP:BRD and are insisting on pushing edits to drive your interpretation of events around Bailey, despite receiving no support on Talk for that. Stop edit-warring. Get consensus on Talk. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, I did not repeat my edit to the lead, I reworded the lead to reflect new corrections I'd made to the article content because as it was it was it misrepresented the article body, and thus contravened WP:BLP. As you reverted back to the contravening version, I compromised by removing the bit about Bailey altogether, given its bad BLP state, pending a discussion here.
 * BLP is very clear that contravening content should be removed on sight, so that's what I did. I note you've warred it back in again, which is now verging on the disruptive, particularly with the BLP concerns. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop wikilawyering. Everything in the lead is clearly supported by multiple citations in the article. There is no BLP violation. This is a normal editing dispute. You are free to propose an edit and seek consensus for it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, do you really think this part of your version, ... resigned from a number of his positions, including chair of the London Assembly's Police and Crime Committee..., is a neutral and reasonable summary of what the sources support, and better than the wording I changed it to: resigned as chair of two committees of the London Assembly.., when the sources only support that he made resignations from two positions, both being chairs of committees of the London Assembly?
 * Don't you think that from a number of is a deceptive misrepresentation of from two of? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording to focus on the Police and Crime Cttee resignation. That’s what got the attention at the time. Bondegezou (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Bailey event
Currently the content relating to this is very vague and difficult to verify. To give a more complete description of the event, I think we need to establish a few basic facts, and the sources supporting them. Currently, the content relating to this cites the following sources: -- DeFacto (talk). 17:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) What each of the posts he resigned from were, and on what date he resigned from each
 * 2) The reason(s) given for his resignation(s)
 * 3) The number of photos of the event that were published in the media, and when
 * 4) The reason for the event being held
 * 5) What his aides were disciplined for
 * 6) What the police were investigating

What each of the posts he resigned from were, and on what date he resigned from each
As far as I can tell, there are two: -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Chair of the London Assembly police and crime committee - reported 15 December 2021 (See cite above BBC News 15 Dec 2021)
 * 2) Chair of the London Assembly economy committee - reported 11 January 2022 (See cite above BBC News 11 Jan 2022)
 * I believe Bailey quit as Chair of the London Assembly police and crime committee on 14 Dec, as per, with most reporting them following on 15 Dec. The economic committee, yes, appears all to be reported on 11 Jan. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, yes, 14 December, and MyLondon were reporting it before 18:00, which was before the photo was published, saying it was because he attended the gathering that led to aides being disciplined.. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe there was a report saying he resigned after having been shown the photo by the newspaper before it was published. I will look for that citation. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian reported:
 * "It [the London Assembly Conservative Group] said that Bailey “does not want an unauthorised social gathering involving some former members of the London mayoral campaign team last December to distract from the committee’s important work holding the mayor of London to account”.
 * "However, it later emerged that Bailey had stepped down after the Mirror approached him about a photograph it had obtained from the night, showing him amid a tightly packed group of people at the party, posing for the picture." Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason(s) given for his resignation(s)
Independent said on 15 Dec 2021 that a spokesperson for the Greater London Authority Conservatives said Mr Bailey stepped down to prevent the "unauthorised social gathering" distracting from the committee’s work of holding Labour Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to account. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The number of photos of the event that were published in the media, and when

 * Independent said on 15 Dec 2021 that His resignation came shortly before The Mirror published a photograph of him and about 23 staff at a party in CCHQ with drinks and a buffet. So a singular one after his first resignation. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first appearance of the photo in The Mirror, who are generally credited with the initial publication of the photo, was at 20:29 on 14 Dec 2021. This corroborates what the Independent say in the above report, that he resigned before the photo was published, given that we have a report in MyLondon from 17:54 that day reporting his resignation. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason for the event being held

 * BBC News said on 15 Dec 2021 (see cites above) that Shaun Bailey's team organised the gathering at the Conservative Campaign Headquarters on 14 December 2020, but didn't say for what purpose. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sky News reported on 15 Dec 2021 that A Bailey campaign spokesperson told the newspaper: "On the evening of 14 December 2020, at the end of the working day, the campaign hosted a post-work event to thank campaign staff for their efforts over the course of the year. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In another report on 15 Dec 2021, BBC News also reported a spokesperson saying the campaign hosted a post-work event to thank campaign staff for their efforts over the course of the year. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What his aides were disciplined for

 * According to Independent on 15 December 20221 (see cites above), Four of Mr Bailey's campaign staffers were disciplined last week by CCHQ for holding the “raucous” event. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The disciplining took place prior to 9 Dec 2021, as on that date several news outlets reported it. For example, BBC News say A Conservative Party spokesperson revealed on Wednesday [8 Dec 2021 ] that four members of Mr Bailey's campaign team were disciplined following the 'unauthorised social gathering' in the basement last December, which was described as 'raucous'. It seems that was the catalyst for calls for Bailey to the resign too, as that seems to be when the allegations, even assertions, that the gathering broke Covid regulations started being made (in including in that  BBC News piece). -- DeFacto (talk). 10:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What the police were investigating
The Telegraph said on 16 Dec 2012, In a statement, the force said: 'Officers will be making contact with two people who attended in relation to alleged breaches of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations.'.. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)