Talk:Premiership of Boris Johnson

Merge of let the bodies pile high
I've merged the content of the let the bodies pile high article into this article, per the conclusion of that article's AfD discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Cronyism
You haven't provided any policy-based reason why this shouldn't be included. Your justifications of "mischief making by opposition parties" and "editorialised hyperbole" are entirely your own opinion whereas there are endless RS discussing cronyism in Johnson's government:      etc. BRD is all well and good, but it's not a reason to remove sourced content just because you don't like it. As for invoking WP:BLP, that's simply ridiculous. Maybe the content needs editing further, or incorporating into other sections, but it should not be removed entirely. SmartSE (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you say that I "haven't provided any policy-based reason why this shouldn't be included". A quick look at the edit summary on my original revert of the newly IP added content contradicts that. I see at least two policies invoked or implied there: WP:BLP (which you susequently acknowledge anyway) and WP:UNDUE.
 * You then re-added the content without addressing the main problem, that of BLP. My subsequent revert was to trigger a discussion on what I see as poor content which seriously contreavenes the WP:BLP policy.
 * The content, which was included in a brand new top-level section, consisted of seven bulleted points, each making, or repeating, unattributed and mainly contested allegations, some related to the article subject, and at least one not. Taking them in turn:
 * "Prime Minister Boris Johnson was accused of cronyism..." The only accusation of cronyism supported by the sources on this one is from a Labour shadow cabinet member.
 * "Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick was accused of Cronyism..." Despite the 8-cite overkill (usually a red flag), none of them support that there were any such allegations, and most allegations that are in them (largely from the Labour party) are denied.
 * "A number of contracts related to the COVID-19 pandemic were criticised for alleged cronyism..." Cronyism not mention in the source.
 * "Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick was accused of political corruption..." No mention of corruption in either source, just more Labour allegations of other things, which are denied.
 * "Health Secretary Matt Hancock engaged in apparent cronyism..." The Labour allegation of cronyism in just one of the sources was denied.
 * "The Greensill scandal, where former Prime Minister David Cameron" He's not in the government, and Labour-fanned accusations were rebutted.
 * "... Michael Gove was found to have acted unlawfully..." The technical breach wasn't characterised as corruption or cronyism in either of the sources.
 * With respect to BLP, which is very clear: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. There are many allegations made or implied in the section in question which are simply not supported, or are very poorly supported.
 * Also BLP says: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported," I see none of those in the section in question.
 * Also all allegations need to be clearly attributed as to who made them (MOS:WEASEL) to help the reader evaluate their worth.
 * The other thing that worries me is the reliance on potentially politically motivated ("mischief-making") attacks by opposition parties. I'd say that although all allegations should be attributed, that those traceable to opposition parties or their members should be ignored [as being WP:UNDUE, because being de rigueur they are not notable. Although opposition support probably would qualify as due, being so rare.], or if very prominent in the sources then very carefully attributed and neutrally worded. And clearly, WP:NPOV also applies, and allegations should not be exaggerated, embellished or otherwise editorialised to push a WP:POV, as seems to be the case here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also BLP says: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported," I see none of those in the section in question.
 * Also all allegations need to be clearly attributed as to who made them (MOS:WEASEL) to help the reader evaluate their worth.
 * The other thing that worries me is the reliance on potentially politically motivated ("mischief-making") attacks by opposition parties. I'd say that although all allegations should be attributed, that those traceable to opposition parties or their members should be ignored [as being WP:UNDUE, because being de rigueur they are not notable. Although opposition support probably would qualify as due, being so rare.], or if very prominent in the sources then very carefully attributed and neutrally worded. And clearly, WP:NPOV also applies, and allegations should not be exaggerated, embellished or otherwise editorialised to push a WP:POV, as seems to be the case here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also all allegations need to be clearly attributed as to who made them (MOS:WEASEL) to help the reader evaluate their worth.
 * The other thing that worries me is the reliance on potentially politically motivated ("mischief-making") attacks by opposition parties. I'd say that although all allegations should be attributed, that those traceable to opposition parties or their members should be ignored [as being WP:UNDUE, because being de rigueur they are not notable. Although opposition support probably would qualify as due, being so rare.], or if very prominent in the sources then very carefully attributed and neutrally worded. And clearly, WP:NPOV also applies, and allegations should not be exaggerated, embellished or otherwise editorialised to push a WP:POV, as seems to be the case here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The other thing that worries me is the reliance on potentially politically motivated ("mischief-making") attacks by opposition parties. I'd say that although all allegations should be attributed, that those traceable to opposition parties or their members should be ignored [as being WP:UNDUE, because being de rigueur they are not notable. Although opposition support probably would qualify as due, being so rare.], or if very prominent in the sources then very carefully attributed and neutrally worded. And clearly, WP:NPOV also applies, and allegations should not be exaggerated, embellished or otherwise editorialised to push a WP:POV, as seems to be the case here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Savile in some way "protected" by Starmer
[copied from Talk:Partygate] The displeasure and anger of back-benchers and grass-roots Tory members now seems to be focused on the "outrageous slur" of Starmer from Johnson over the decision to not prosecute Jimmy Savile. Although more outrage ensues this morning after Michael Gove's comment "apologise for what?" on TV:  Should this be mentioned? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With Munira Mirza having resigned over it, I would say it definitely deserves mention here. Potential to include plenty of quotes from members of the cabinet too. SmartSE (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)