Talk:2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations

Partisan

This scandal is a cross party issue. I don't think it is appropriate/ NPOV to sub-categorise this article via party alignment. Yes, state which political party they belong to; but please, lets try and maintain neutrality by not making this a party vs party issue through Wikipedia. IJA (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree actually. This is set out in exactly the way I hoped it wouldn't be, as a kind of rogue's gallery. But at least we've made a start. What may probably be better is to try and arrange things in some kind of chronological order, explaining how these allegations began to come to light, and briefly mentioning those involved. Remember that at least one of the allegations is the subject of a criminal investigation. What we need to do as well is focus on the responses of the party leaders, the process each party is using to deal with the allegations, and the response of the Westminster authorities. This is Paul (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree in not liking the current layout. I think a chronological, as reported in the media, order might be better - at the moment a reader might think the Bailey rape allegation started the crisis when in fact it came out when it did because of the earlier reports. Rwendland (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm liking the chronology idea. However, how are we arranging it chronologically? Are we arranging it in order of when the allegation took place? Or when the allegation was made public? IJA (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused how categorising it by party affiliation could possibly be seen as an infringement upon NPOV. I'd be eager to hear your justification for such an assertion. Brough87 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the argument about NPOV, it makes more sense to organise this article in chronological order rather than by party. I think individuals should be mentioned in the order of when the allegations about them were first made public. If an individual has multiple allegations about them published on different occasions, we should decide on a case-by-case basis as to whether these should be listed alongside the original allegation(s) or delayed to a later paragraph. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure why it "makes more sense". Brough87 (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the article should order its coverage of the allegations by explaining how the news stories about them unfolded. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you believe it should change, but I'm asking for the justification for the change. Does it improve the look of the page? Does it allow for users to more easily engage with the information and those involved with the topic? As well as this, have we now come to the conclusion that organising it by party affiliation is not an infringement on the NPOV? Brough87 (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually think there is some argument that there could be NPOV issue. I was merely trying to sidestep that discussion. My main point is that the article should foremost give the story of how the allegations developed and the consequences. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

And I'm asking why it should change, what is the benefit of doing so? This is quite a unique situation; editors are recommending a change, yet seem unable/unwilling to offer a justification as to why this change is necessary. Brough87 (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have already offered up a reason in my previous comment. I do not need to repeat myself. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for the justification for the change, rather than the simple assertion that you believe it should change. What benefit does it offer? Brough87 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Damian Green

What about the allegation of groping by the daughter of a family friend against Damian Green, the First Secretary of State and one of Theresa May's closest allies? It's also alleged he had hardcore pornography on his House of Commons computer during the police raid in 2008. It has been referred to the Cabinet Office for investigation. If we include whispers against Dominic Rabb, we should include these against Green. He admits as much about the alleged groping. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added him, now that he's resigned. It's strange that no one had done so already. Robofish (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Name change?

Although this began with accusations specifically at the Palace of Westminster, it has now expanded to include accusations within party structures but away from Westminster (as with Bex Bailey) and at the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. Could the name change to "2017 sexual scandals in UK politics" or something? Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agree - Seems to be a more sensible title to me. IJA (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - The press is referring to the this as the "Westminster sex scandal" so that's the WP:Common Name even if it has branched out. "Westminster" could be seen as a synonym for UK politics in this case. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)::

Comment - As someone active and with an interest in UK politics, I'm unfamiliar with "Westminster" being used to describe UK politics as a whole. I've always viewed it as being in relation to the Houses of Commons and Lords. I've never come across "Westminster" being used to encompass devolved and local government. If I see evidence which suggests otherwise, I'll happily reconsider. IJA (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I specifically said "could be". The Hollywood sexual assault scandal is being covered under Me Too (hashtag) even though many of those accusations have not come from Twitter but else where. Its being used a a catch term. If you google "british political sex scandals" (for me at least) the Profumo affair is prominent and the other stories reference "Westminster sexual harassment", "MPs sex scandal", and "Westminster reeled during a week of sex scandals". Even foreign press such the LA Times [1]: "British Prime Minister Theresa May vowed Monday to stamp out the troubling abuse of power within the corridors of Westminster as a growing sexual harassment scandal engulfed some of the country's top politicians."; or the The Sydney Morning Herald [2]: "Westminster sleaze scandal". Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agree - With the accusations becoming increasingly outside of Westminster, I believe that a name change would provide the most accurate information. Brough87 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. While I'm currently unsure about whether or not the article content should be widened beyond Westminster, I'm also unsure about whether these allegations, and the response to them, merit the term "sexual scandal" (or "sex scandal"). As has been repeatedly said, the scandal is about the inappropriate behaviour of people (men, so far as we know) in powerful positions, and the culture that allows such behaviour. It's not really about a "sex scandal" as the term is commonly used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agree but suggest 2017 United Kingdom politics sex scandals. This is Paul (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

What is a "politics sex scandal"??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I meant 2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals. This is Paul (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If it has to be moved, this is the best wording. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agree Anywikiuser (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agree It is wider than Westminster User talk:Gaia Octavia Agrippa says that Westminister is a synonym for UK Politics, it's not it's lazy London based journalists. Westminster has become a synonym for the Palace of Westminster/UK Parliament. I live in Cardiff and have never heard the phrase Westminster used in an all encompassing phrase for 'British Politics' or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulharding150 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agree The fact that the article has a paragraph with the title 'Political scandals beyond Westminster' says it all.

2A00:23C4:D891:1100:D1:F53A:9C38:1E2A (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Westminster sexual scandals → 2017 United Kingdom sexual scandals involving politicians – This Request Move is based upon the discussion in the above feed on this talk page. The main argument being that this article covers a wider scope than just Westminster politics, as it involves politicians from devolved and local government too. IJA (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC) IJA (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: This wording is dodgy as is reads as if its about the "politics of sex scandals" rather than "sex scandals involving politicians". 2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals as suggested by This is Paul is much clearer and matches the category wording (Category:Political sex scandals in the United Kingdom). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - The proposed title of the RM has since been changed due to User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa's comment. The main reason for changing the article title was due to it seeming too Westminster focused. I have since changed this RM, as Gaia Octavia Agrippa has suggested an even more appropriate article title which add more clarity to the article topic. Please can any closing Admin take this into consideration. IJA (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As the others have picked up, you've misread what I wrote. I was supporting This is Paul's suggestion of "2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals". Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I would support 2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals, as suggested by others, as an improvement on the current title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but the title should have something to do with 'Westminster' as that is how the phenomena is referred, or an otherwise better title than what is currently proposed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that the non-Westminster scandals (such as Carl Sargeant) should be included here, or in separate articles? The idea that all UK politics is known as "Westminster" is clearly incorrect and inappropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I think that would be better placed in a list of British political sexual scandals rather than this article, which is a non-list article documenting one large scandal encompassing several politicians in separate events, but does not include politicians of the devolved assemblies or local authorities. Most content regarding personal scandals belongs on the person's respective article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

But it is surely the case that the scandals involving Carl Sargeant, Mark McDonald, etc., are part of the same general topic as those involving Michael Fallon, Kelvin Hopkins, etc. - and should therefore be covered in the same article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - While I support a title change, I believe the terminology of 2017 United Kingdom sexual scandals involving politicians is rather clumsy. Like Gaia Octavia Agrippa before me, I support the change to: 2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals. Brough87 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I support a change to my suggestion of 2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals. This is Paul (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Yes, This is Paul's title best reflects the situation. The article's contents will make it clear that the allegations began with UK MPs before they spread to the local assemblies.70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Onetwothreeip. I could also be persuaded otherwise with the right evidence, but as of now it seems like the current title, including Westminster, is the WP:COMMONNAME for this.[3][4][5] There may be a question about scope (i.e. does it include devolved assemblies and/or local councils), but at present the large bulk of the article does indeed focus on the Westminster scandals, and that's how the reliable sources are referring to it.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Those articles refer specifically to accusations surrounding the British Parliament in Westminster and not UK politics in general. The question that should be asked is whether the mentioning of other scandals are relevant, and as I and others have indicated we believe them to be relevant. Brough87 (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, if you show me the sources that show that these events are being lumped together, and that the common name for the topic does not include the word "Westminster", then I'd be happy to change my vote. I have yet to see those sources though, and there is plenty of evidence that the common name is actually "Westminster sex scandal". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This situation indicates that there is a pervasive problem throughout all levels of British political culture. Westminster implies only the representatives sent to London are morally dubious, whereas even representatives in the devolved assemblies have misbehaved. That most of the article's contents focus on London is due in part to historical factors: 1) the longevity of Westminster compared to the devolved assemblies; 2) the longevity of MPs' careers; 3) how much more "powerful" MPs are compared to representatives sitting in devolved assemblies (the more powerful, the more likely to abuse power). Also, I was listening to the BBC this morning, and news reporters are referring to "political sexual misconduct", which I think is a more-complete phrase. "Sexual scandals" is too broad and vague and could imply that the participants were all willing, when in fact there were perpetrators and unwilling victims.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not an article about structural problems in British politics, this is an article about a specific sexual omni-scandal that has been revealed in late 2017. Details about the sexual misconduct of devolved assembly members are rightly considered by this article as merely supplementary to the article, and not an integral element of the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you tell that to the Scottish and Welsh victims, that they were "supplementary" to the London victims?70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: It certainly needs changing. It's untenable to say this is just a "Westminster" affair now, especially as one of the most notable consequences involved a politician in the Welsh Assembly. I would suggest either 2017 United Kingdom sexual scandals involving politicians or 2017 United Kingdom political sexual scandals. My only issue with "2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals" is that using the term "sex scandals" seems rather informal. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Sex scandal" is the commonly-used term - not "sexual scandal". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. That is a good argument then for adopting "2017 United Kingdom political sex scandals". The only other issue I have is that "sex scandals" can also imply consensual affairs, whereas these are "sexual harassment/abuse/misconduct allegations/scandals". Anywikiuser (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote, BBC uses the term "sexual misconduct".70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So, what is your suggestion for an article title? "2017 United Kingdom political sexual misconduct scandals"? I don't think so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it sounds great. As has been noted earlier, "sex scandals" implies willing participants. Misconduct clearly indicates that people were victimized.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Well, this has turned into a complicated mess. My apologies for starting it all off! I remain if the view that we should move away from "Westminster..." I agree that "sexual scandals" has problems, but the various alternatives are all a bit clumsy. My favoured option of the above is "2017 United Kingdom political sexual misconduct scandals". Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - even though the scope has widened, the common name for this still includes "Westminster". This article, for example, is talking about the Carl Sargeant issue (i.e. from the Welsh assembly), but the headline still calls it the "Westminster sex abuse scandals". [6] is another recent article still using the Westminster moniker.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that a name change seems wise but the current proposed title seems too long and clumsy. I think that some of the other titles proposed above are more suitable. AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead image

What's the right lead image for this article? A portrait of one individual does not seem right. Whizz40 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of a portrait does seem a little bit odd and could be considered an infringement of the WP:NPOV principle. Brough87 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Map

Map of the UK?70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Why here? A map can be easily found on many other linked pages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Because politicians across the entire nation have been implicated?70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

David Prescott

The mention of David Prescott, a Labour Party advisor, being suspended from his post has now been was removed from the article. There are certainly questions about his notability, but not about sources for the suspension - here, here, here, here, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• As he did not hold elected office, I'd suggest it should be no more than a sentence. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• He held an official office within the Labour party, is the son of quite an important former politician and has repeatedly attempted to become an elected official. We dedicate a whole paragraph to Bex Bailey's accusations, I fail to see why the allegations regarding David Prescott warrant "no more than a sentence". Brough87 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Allegations and concerns have gone beyond elected representatives to cover people with significant positions in political parties. These warrant coverage too, and that includes David Prescott. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, he's been reinstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Title change urgently needed

"Sexual scandals" is about as terrible as could be. The word "sexual" is rarely, if ever, used in this way. It's either "sex scandals" or "sexual _____ scandals", with "sexual" modifying another word before "scandals". And yes, I still think "2017 United Kingdom political sexual misconduct scandals" is the best title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations. Consensus is difficult to gauge because certain statements of preference for a post-move title could be interpreted as not weighing in on whether that proposal is better than the current title, but common sense suggests that these comments import such a context. Therefore, there is consensus for a move, and within that, consensus for the alternative proposed. bd2412 T 02:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

2017 Westminster sexual scandals → 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct scandals – "Sexual scandal" really doesn't sound right. "Sex scandal", yes, but that would imply it was consensual. Unreal7 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would have thought 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations would be more appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations. The article concerns itself with the allegations specifically. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations sounds much better. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all per WP:COMMONNAME e.g. [7][8] They were scandals, so no need to say they were allegations. And also no need to add an extra word "misconduct" when it's perfectly clear that the current title refers to,it's WP:CONCISE while also describing the content.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comparing “scandal” sources to others, there is a very strong, though not absolute, correlation with tabloid sensationalist non-RS tabloid media. “Misconduct allegations” has a better match to quality sources. “Scandal” is poorly defined. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support title proposed in nom, but I would also take 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations over the current title. As others have pointed out, "sexual scandals" is an awkward, unnatural turn of phrase. I would prefer to keep "scandals" (or "scandal") in the title, as that term seems to be used fairly consistently in RS (and no, not just in trashy tabloids - cf. The Atlantic, The Guardian (opinion piece), BBC, CNN). I would also support 2017 Westminster sex scandals over the current title (as the phrase "sex scandal" is fairly frequently used in RS to describe this, probably moreso than "sexual misconduct scandal"). Also, RS tend to refer to a "scandal" singular - don't feel strongly about this point, but thought I'd mention it. Colin M (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adding "misconduct" does nothing but weaken WP:CONCISE Red Slash 04:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.