Talk:Partygate

Tense

For a while, the article has begun "Partygate was a political scandal..." Today, 92.15.144.174 changed it to "is", and DeFacto reverted and suggested a Talk discussion. So, what do people think?

I was fine with the "was" wording, but now the issue has come up, I am less certain. Most of the impact of Partygate has passed, with Johnson out of office, but he does still face the Privileges Committee investigation, which will surely be a major topic of media interest. I thus lean in favour of "is". I'm not clear how best to apply MOS:TENSE, but it possibly favours "is" too. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a good question, but I think the actual controversy/scandal surrounding the gatherings and associated allegations, etc, is now in the past tense. It could be that new controversies, even scandals, related to it may arise in the future, but let's wait and see. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Major?

I edited the article from "a political scandal" to "a major political scandal", citing the new ITV News podcast. DeFacto reverted this, saying, "their subjective view should not be asserted as fact in Wiki's voice". ITV News are a reliable source. We use reliable sources. DeFacto has repeatedly tried to re-write Wikipedia's rules to cast reliable sources as being subjective.

There are many political scandals in the world. I think we should be clear that this one stands out. It was a major factor in bringing down a Prime Minister. I think an adjective to make that clear is appropriate. If we need more citations, the i called it the "biggest scandal" Johnson faced,[1] and The Guardian said "The “partygate” scandal is vying to be the biggest political mess of Johnson’s career."[2] The National called it "the biggest scandal of his tenure."[3] Politico said, "Johnson now faces the greatest challenge to his penchant for rule-breaking".[4] So, lots of reliable sources think it was a biggie too!

What do other editors think? Can we call it a major scandal? Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dave souza, Proxima centauri, Martinevans123, M2Ys4U, and Smartse: As the last 5 editors other than me and DeFacto to contribute to this thread, might I ask if you would like to input? Bondegezou (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

How to make the article shorter?

Concern has been expressed at the length of this article, but it continues to grow with more details still coming out and the forthcoming Privileges Committee investigation generating a lot of column inches. What do we feel about splitting off some portion of it to a separate article?

My first thought is that the Privileges Committee investigation coverage stands somewhat apart from the other content, and is also liable to grow in size. I suggest making that a separate article.

My second thought, which I’m less certain about, is to split off the detailed timeline of events into a separate article, with just a table or something left here.

What do others think, or does anyone have other suggestions? Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps wait for the final outcome of the Privileges Committee investigation before making any significant changes. It may help us decide what is relevant, and what is not.

Having said that, the structure of the article could be improved. Currently it leads to the details of almost every event having to be duplicated or even triplicated - once under each of the "Timeline of reporting and reaction" and "Events" sections, and some under "Investigations" too. I'd like to see a structure that didn't require such repetition, and that would make the article easier to read as well as smaller. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the Privileges Committee investigation section has grown considerably, and the hearings haven't even started, I've boldly split that off into a new article, Commons Privileges Committee investigation into Boris Johnson. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. When the too-long tag was added, we were at nearly 20,000 words, with 10,000 being recommended. Today, we're on about 18,000 words, so an improvement. I think 18k is OK, but I've left the too-long tag in place as others may feel differently and I don't want to shut down further consideration of what to do. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Guardian: Met urged to reopen Partygate inquiry as fresh allegations emerge

• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/11/partygate-fresh-allegations-met-urged-to-reopen-inquiry

John Cummings (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not certain if that’s notable in and of itself, but I’ve added a sentence to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)