Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election betting scandal

Comment

It would be better TBH if the media named it Gamblegate. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Scandal not controversy

Controversy implies that there is some debate about this, which there does not seem to be. Multiple RS are calling it a scandal: FT: "Rishi Sunak has defended his handling of the escalating Tory election-betting scandal", Independent: "Craig Williams, the PM’s parliamentary private secretary, was the first person caught up in the scandal", Guardian "Ellwood also said he thought the scandal would cost the Conservative party seats.", BBC "The Conservative Party is considering withdrawing support from the candidates involved in the election date gambling scandal, the BBC understands.", Telegraph: "All four Tories who have been named in relation to the scandal deny any wrongdoing." SmartSE (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. I don't see a solid case for using the term scandal in wikivoice like that. It's certainly not wrong to call it a controversy, whereas "scandal" would require almost unanimous labelling as such, which isn't present in all sources about this. At least needs a discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Where is the controversy? And which RS are calling it a controversy? I've presented sources from across the spectrum calling it a scandal. SmartSE (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I did a search for "controversy" and almost everything that came back said "scandal", so it seems you're right. I've made the bold move again. If someone else objects they could, but I'll withdraw my objection. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As all we currently have are allegations, political posturing, and ongoing inquiries, we need to be careful (per NPOV and BLP) not to assert or imply any wrongdoing in Wiki's voice. If we get convictions then that might be the time to reconsider this. We know from WP:BIASED that reliable sources can be politically biased, so we should not mimic their subjective and sensationalist language but simply present the facts in an impartial tone. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: the reason I backed down and moved it again is that pretty much every source is labelling it a scandal, it its own voice. For us to not do so, under the guide of being neutral, is actually a WP:FALSEBALANCE and an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait until we know if there was any wrongdoing - currently we only have allegations - WP:NOHURRY. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps move it to "2024 United Kingdom general election date betting allegations" or "2024 United Kingdom general election date betting inquiries" in the meantime? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Essentially what Amakuru said. DeFacto is yet again adding their interpretation of events, rather than following what the sources say. It is odd however, that they had no problem with labelling beergate a scandal from the very beginning. How come you didn't want to wait then?! SmartSE (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like you want it named as a scandal for dogmatic, rather than for Wiki policy reasons. What are the characteristics of this subject which would lead us to conclude, before the results of the inquiries are even known, that it is a scandal? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You're happy to bandy about accusations that editors are being "dogmatic", yet the only person suggesting we ignore reliable sources and try to determine the correct name for this article based on our own supposed principles is you. I too thought along the same lines as you earlier, but Smartse challenged me to back up my theories with evidence and I was unable to do so. A substantial majority of sources, both left and right leaning, are labelling this a scandal, and WP:AT policy says we are to do likewise.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Five cherry-picked quotes, some of which are from headlines which are never considered to be reliable, do not show that "a substantial majority of sources, both left and right leaning, are labelling this a scandal".

WP:AT only allows non-neutral titles if they are deemed to be the common name for the subject. A web search for "2024 United Kingdom general election date betting scandal" only returned one hit - the Wikipedia redirect. So it is clearly not the common name. WP:AT says that resolving title NPOV debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. Given that ours is clearly the latter, per WP:AT it should reflect a neutral point of view. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Support moving 2024 United Kingdom general election date betting scandal, as that is the name that sources use. Cortador (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador, thanks for answering the call and parachuting in here to confirm that for us and for performing the move too in your first interaction with the article. You are amazing. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'm always happy to help. Cortador (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Scope

Now that even the The Guardian has confirmed that the Labour Party has been drawn into the controversy surrounding betting and the general election,[1] should we increase the article title scope to allow details of that to be added to it?

I see that the Labour side of the story has already been added once, but was swiftly removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like it's somewhat relevant, and reliable sources are covering it so I'd think yes it should be included. We'll have to rename the article again, to remove date from the name as the Labour case(s) aren't related to the date of the election.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru, to remove "date", certainly. But we'll probably also have to replace "scandal" with "controversy" again because "scandal" isn't supported in this The Guardian report relating to the Labour candidate, they call it the controversy surrounding betting and the general election. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Several sources seem happy to lump it under the same umbrella as the ongoing "deepening scandal" - [2][3][4]  — Amakuru (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru Just added the Labour case in. SuperGuy212 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The scope creep is getting even greater now with the inclusion of bets made by people not even involved with the general election. How about moving the article name to something like "2024 news media histrionics over political betting in the United Kingdom"? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with wording

In the Inquiry section, I'm kinda struggling to find the right phrasing for everything that went on on the 25th June. If someone could help me try and find something that would fit better than what is currently in the article, that'd be great. SuperGuy212 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Reactions from other parties/politicians

@DeFacto You have repeatedly removed sourced information on the reaction of notable politicians to the scandal. This is widely reported on by reliable sources. Stop removing this information unless you have a valid reason to do so. Cortador (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador, I remove blatant political posturing, yes. Per WP:VNOT, even if the posturing is sourced, an encyclopaedia is not the place for it, except, perhaps, in an appropriate section in an article about the posturer themselves.

I accept though, even though you didn't comply with WP:FIES by providing an explanatory summary of your edit, that this wasn't as blatant as some previous examples of posturing that I have removed, so I graciously accept your revert. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. "We don't include reactions of notable politicians that RS report in" is just something you made up. Cortador (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

For context, can you remind us of who said that, and where, by providing a diff to support your quote there please? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You did above, in case you forgot already. Cortador (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope, still can't see where you're quoting me from. I agree that we should certainly include notable reactions, but never blatant political posturing. If we stoop to including the latter, where would we stop? The news media is laden with the inevitable opportunist electioneering responses that politicians throw in response to virtually ever action and comment made by members, especially senior members, of opposing parties. Would you expect to see us include all of that insincere and bombastic spouting that has no real meaning or value to the topic here? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If you can't remember what you removed from the article, I can't help you.

You are doing original research. What goes into the article is based on what RS report on, not what you personally approve of. If you don't like what source report on, feel free to discuss that on the reliable sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You could help by showing us where that quote came from. Or did you invent it to misrepresent what I am saying?

Have you ever read WP:OR? Your statement above suggests you either have not or that you totally misunderstand it. It also seems that you do not understand WP:V. WP:VNOT says: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. No polices say that if an RS contains something it automatically belongs in this article. I think you need to pay more attention to understanding policies rather than arrogantly riding roughshod over them. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That is what you removed from the article. Either you removed content you didn't read, or you did read and then misrepresented as "blatant political posturing" - which is your original research. Cortador (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did I remove "We don't include reactions of notable politicians that RS report in" from the article? Provide the diff. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did I add "blatant political posturing" to the article? Provide the diff. Cortador (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide 2 diffs now:

• The outstanding one for your assertion about "We don't include reactions of notable politicians that RS report in"
• One for your new allegation that I said you added '"blatant political posturing" to the article"

-- DeFacto (talk). 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Since you want the content I re-added removed on the basis of you considering it "blatant political posturing" (your words above in this conversation in case you forgot that already), the onus is on you to prove that is actually the case, otherwise this is a case of I Just Don't Like It. Cortador (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In my first post in this thread I said I accepted your revert, so it's not clear where you are coming from. If you did the courteous thing and supplied diffs to substantiate the allegations you made we might be able to follow you, or, at least, looking for them you might realise how mistaken you are.

We can discuss your misinterpretation of WP:VNOT later. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You are free to leave this discussion at any time if you want to. Cortador (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

As you haven't substantiated your allegations and haven't withdrawn them the ball is in your court on this. And bear in mind that, per WP:WIAPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "considered to be a personal attack". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should think about that considering that your comment is an accusation. Cortador (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep on topic please. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What about you previous comment is about "Reactions from other parties/politicians"? Cortador (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's deal with your outstanding allegations first, then, if there's anything left unresolved after that, we can move onto that. You need to furnish the diffs so I can try to understand what you are complaining about. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I've explained that above. If you can't even remember what you yourself wrote, I can't help you. Cortador (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I know exactly what I wrote, but need you to show how what you are alleging relates to it. Currently what you are alleging appears baseless to me. See WP:AVOIDYOU which gives good reasons for supplying diffs.

If you have a case you should easily be able to supply the diffs, then I will have a better chance of understanding it. I think this apparent unwillingness to add diffs suggests a lack of sincerity. If I have no idea what you are alluding too how can I address it? If you will not do that, I'll have to leave it at that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)