Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of Partygate/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Timeline of Partygate

edit

Timeline of Partygate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Timeline of Brexit, which was promoted to FL earlier this year, here's another timeline about recent British history. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from N Oneemuss

edit
Lede
edit
  • "eighteen days later, the death toll reached 335" – should be "18 days later" per MOS:NUMERAL
  • Prime Minister Boris Johnson is discouraged per MOS:SEAOFBLUE; in the timeline there's the same problem with "Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak", "Education Secretary Gavin Williamson", "Home Secretary Priti Patel", "Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer", "Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab", "leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg"...
  • I would maybe add in the lede that the rule of six introduced by the government was only in England (the other nations did have similar rules)
  • I would spell out the acronym "BYOB" somewhere (either in the lede or the body)
  • I would maybe add Johnson's resignation as Prime Minister and/or as an MP to the lede
  • You could link "civil servant" somewhere?
Lockdown parties
edit
  • 7 December 2020: "on Thursday" is a bit unhelpful as the days of the week aren't included in this list; could you give the date?
  • 11 December 2020: Is the price of the wine fridge relevant?
  • 16 December 2020: You spell out what tier 1 and tier 2 restrictions are called ("medium" and "high"), but not tier 3 ("very high")
The story breaks
edit
  • Maybe mention some Conservatives publicly calling for Johnson to resign over Partygate? e.g. [1] or [2]
  • 15 June 2023: I think the context that's missing here is that a 90-day suspension would be enough to trigger a recall petition and hence a by-election in Johnson's constituency
  • 19 June 2023: "354 to seven" should be "354 to 7" again per MOS:NUMERAL. I think there might be a couple more examples of this as well.
  • I think you could add the changes of Prime Minister as well? I don't think it would add too much space to say that Johnson was replaced by Truss, and then that Truss was replaced by Sunak (Johnson tried to run for the leadership again, but maybe that's too much detail). Otherwise it's maybe a bit surprising that it says the Conservatives were led at the election by Sunak (in the "Aftermath" section)?
Aftermath
edit
  • "the publication of the Gray report" – this is confusing because it's only the initial document that was published at this point, not the full report
  • "70% of respondents regarded Johnson as performing badly as prime minister, compared with 25% who felt that he was doing well"; I think this could do with some context on how he was regarded before the scandal broke (he was already unpopular, but not to this extent)
  • To be honest, I only mentioned that specific poll because Richard Hayton also made reference to it in his article on Johnson for Political Insight. Citing different YouGov polls and then using them to draw a conclusion about how Partygate affected Johnson's popularity feels like it might be skating a little too close to improper synthesis, but I'll see if I can find any third-party sources that come to those conclusions and then cite them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I've added in a sentence about how Partygate specifically affected his popularity. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link (and maybe spell out) NHS

Nice list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review, N Oneemuss! I've done most of these, I'll complete the final two soon. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review, N Oneemuss! I think I've covered all your points, but please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy to Support. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire

edit

Not an expert on British politics, but I'll give this a go. Disclaimer: Am an American, so feel free to ignore anything that is justified by AmE / BrE style differences if I accidentally perceive an oddity that's really fine.

Lede:

  • The first COVID-19 death in the UK occurred on 5 March 2020; 18 days later, the death toll reached 335. As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the UK would go into a full lockdown,

I'm not a fan of "as a result". Presumably some parts of the world went into lockdown without a single death, while other areas never really locked down seriously despite deaths? If we're being pedantic, it would be "As a result of the advice of medical experts consulted by the government" or the like, not necessarily the deaths. Perhaps "In response" instead? Or even just cutting the introductory clause entirely.

  • London being placed in the "medium" tier 1 restrictions

This one isn't your fault, but this reads a bit weirdly to people not in the loop since "medium" was actually the mildest tier. I don't have any suggestions here as this seems relevant, but if you know of any friendlier ways to express this that still hit the main points, that'd be neat - but totally optional.

SnowFire from the future: One overarching issue with all the historical stuff is making clear that this activity was a problem / scandalous. I guess the implication was that merely by appearing here at all, we're only talking about the "bad" parts, but I think we should be a little more blunt. Holding a party or playing loud music isn't a problem; it's holding a party indoors over size regulations that's a problem, but that's being hidden implicitly. It can weaken the "case" if anything, since someone might reasonably wonder what the big deal was, so I'd suggest making it clearer exactly how these parties were "bad".

Timeline:

  • 15 May: In the garden of Downing Street, an early evening cheese and wine party is held. Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock both attend the gathering, which lasts for forty minutes to an hour.[12]

So what? This sounds like it complies with the rules at the time: the garden was outdoors and we've only listed two people attending. I presume the implication is that more people attended, but we should say so if that's the case. Unfortunately the reference doesn't seem to indicate that.

  • 17 June: Emails are exchanged between Downing Street officials to prepare "drinks which aren't drinks"

The source doesn't explain either, but WTF was this email talking about? The polite reading would be "beverages which aren't alcoholic beverages" which seems too boring to bring up as a quote (they had mocktails, quelle horreur). So I presume this is really some British slang that I'm not familiar with that means something else that is scandalous, but what, then? Drugs?

  • 19 June: The event lasts for 20 minutes, and is attended by Case, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, and others.

How many others? Sorry if I'm being repetitive here, but this seems like key information that the sources are inexplicably dropping. We're told that meetings of up to six people are allowed (although given the photo, this clearly wasn't outside, but we can presume that there might be an exception if the PM was on the job), so it's at least possible based on the description this was only a small party that complied with the rules. (I know that counting blurred heads from the lede photo suggests >6, but how much more, then?)

  • Johnson's wife Carrie holds a second birthday gathering for her husband in their Downing Street flat that evening, with a number of friends

Same question here - if that number of friends was 4, then this could potentially be permissible. (If it's not known, can we at least assert it was "more than 6" or "in defiance of regulations"?)

  • 14 September: To restrict a potential second wave of COVID-19 in the UK, the government restricts social gatherings again by implementing a new "rule of six" in England – groups of more than six people are banned from meeting in England, either indoors or outdoors.

A little confused here - weren't we still at 6 from the 1 June regulations? Are we missing a bullet point that eased things further after 1 June but before 14 Sept? Also, as a nit, I'd say "hinder a potential second wave" to avoid the close repetition.

  • 11 December: Johnson's staff smuggle a wine fridge through the back door of Downing Street.

I'm not saying to remove this, but this is weird. Johnson was PM. Couldn't he just ask a wine fridge be installed normally, through the front door? (And isn't it possible he was just using it to get blasted personally, not holding parties with it? I know that later on it says the fridge was indeed used for parties, and we should be chronological as a timeline, but maybe some sort of hint as to the problem here.) I see the source uses the term "smuggle", but also that the Mirror is a Labour tabloid. Do other sources agree that "smuggling" is the term to use here?

  • 14 December: A Christmas party—formally called a "Jingle and Mingle"...

Same problem here. The police issued fines so clearly this was in violation of the regulations, but we don't actually say the party was in violation of the regs. Should add that it was indoors and had (NUMBER) attendees or the like.

  • 15 December: Ellwood attends a Christmas party of 27 people

Does BrE have a way to quickly denote party affiliation? He's only been introduced as an MP from Bournemouth East before - at first I assumed this was a Labour / LibDem / SNP guy and thus was wondering if this was a broader scandal than just the Tories. (In US politics, people are sometimes introduced like "Jim Inhofe (R-OK)" as shorthand.)

  • 15 December: A Christmas quiz is held at Downing Street. Most staff dial-in online from their homes, though some attend in person.

Same issue. I checked the source and I guess that the mere fact it appears there suggests something shady happened, but no numbers. I dunno, maybe I'm off-base here, but there's a huge difference between "4 people attend in person" and "40 people attend in person". The first isn't a scandal, the second is, so we should make clear it's the second case.

  • 16 December: (...) Johnson announces at a press conference that, from today, the city will move into tier 3 restrictions.

Nit: I would use "immediately" rather than ", from today,", but just a suggestion, up to you if "From today" sounds more natural in BrE.

  • 16 December: A Christmas gathering is held for staff at the Department for Transport, with food and alcohol being served.[40]

The citation is messed up - both it and the archive go to Covid: London to move into in tier 2 lockdown, a story from November 2021. Can you replace with the proper URL?

  • A Christmas party is held for Case's staff at the Cabinet Office. Twelve staff attend online, but five join in the office.

Optional: This might be blazingly obvious from context, but precisely because it's so relevant here, maybe "the office, indoors." here? Since five was technically allowed within even the Tier 3 restrictions, it just had to be outdoors in a park or the like.

  • 17 December: ...and background music played

Was the background music particularly loud? For the "ABBA" party, the music was relevant because it was loud and suggested a big party rather than a small one when the numbers were unknown. But as written, this could be a tasteful recording of a string quartet playing Mozart or something.

  • 18 December: A Christmas party—formally named the "End of Year Meeting with Wine & Cheese"

The source notes that the party was "crowded" - I think we should too.

  • 9 April: At Windsor Castle, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and husband of Queen Elizabeth II,

Optional nit from an American: I see that Prince Philip's article is actually at "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", but he's just called "Prince Philip" (especially in the context of 2021). As is, it reads like a parenthetical clause explaining Prince Philip, except his role as "Duke of Edinburgh" was completely irrelevant and ceremonial and distracting here. So I'd personally recommend either just "Prince Philip" or "Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizbeth II, (...)". But up to you.

  • 12 January: Speaking at PMQs, Johnson admits that he attended the BYOB party on 20 May 2020, and apologises. Starmer calls on him to resign.

Was this a "notable" call for resignation? I may be jaded by post-2017 US politics but the "other" party here tends to throw these kind of requests out rather casually (see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/republicans-call-biden-resign-ending-2024-campaign-rcna162923 for the opinion of our Speaker of the House, which I'm sure was taken under deep consideration and then circular-filed by Biden - not really an important or serious political thrust). If Starmer saying this was indeed a Big Deal, it's fine, just double-checking.

  • 14 January: (...) describes its being used by Downing Street staff for gatherings—called "Wine Time Fridays"—every Friday afternoon during the pandemic

Can we add the word "large" or "non-compliant" or the like before gatherings, or some other modifier to make clear that these weren't <6 people matters?

The 2023 & Aftermath sections look good to me. Overall, it's an impressive work - the main nits above are to add a few more attendee numbers in when possible on how big these parties were and verifying that they weren't compliant (e.g. indoors), and will be happy to support.

Also, no obligation, but there is another timeline FLC nomination that could use some reviews open at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Second Temple period/archive1, if interested. SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors, just pinging you in case this has been been missed on your watchlist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-59969690
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/26/boris-johnson-partygate-tory-call-to-quit-sue-gray-report
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Timeline_of_Partygate/archive1&oldid=1245000415"