Talk:Beergate

Khan quote

Sadiq Khan said:

"If there was one occasion where an incident happened in Downing Street, I think it's a fair point to say there is equivalence. We now know though there were many occasions and a culture versus one occasion having a beer and a curry at the end of a campaigning day."

Summarising that as Sadiq Khan 'accepted there was an "equivalence" between the event and Boris Johnson's birthday party' (sourced to and quoting the Daily Telegraph) is questionable. I've watched the interview and it's not entirely clear to me whether Khan is accepting the host's invitation that curry and birthday cake were equivalent, or rejecting the comparison because we aren't in a world where Partygate was limited to a single birthday gathering. Have any less partisan sources interpreted the interview? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury, The Times interprets it as "Last night Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, told Talk TV there would be equivalence between Starmer’s curry in Durham and Johnson’s birthday cake in Downing Street if they were both one-off events". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems a clearer interpretation. I'll update the article, which has been rewritten more neutrally since but is still using the Telegraph source. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Scandal"?

"Scandal" is the fifth word, but doesn't appear in the main body and also seems to be unsourced? The size of Partygate makes it scandal. But this is one single event that has received comparatively little media coverage. Without Partygate, there would have been no Beergate - the whole trivial story was dredged up purely as a piece of political tit-for-tat distraction. That in itself might be a good reason to WP:AfD this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I used it as an English noun in the first sentence of the lead, trying to concisely summarise of the nature of the event per MOS:FIRST (which says: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English"). I see it's now been changed by Proxima Centauri to 'issue' with the edit summary: "Scandal is not neutral"! If it is literally factual it cannot be "not neutral", if it is simply a subjective opinion, then I agree. Is it a fact or is it an opinion? How would you suggest we phrase the first sentence? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And now it's been changed back. I think the lead is meant to summarize the whole article and I don't see any source(s) for that description. (Partygate describes it as "a gathering".) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And I see you added a 'citation needed' tag. Would a cite to the OED suffice? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, unless it mentions the single evening in April 2021 that Sir Keir Starmer had beer and curry in Durham. Not sure there have been many calls for Starmer to resign over this. No videos of Rayner crossing and uncrossing her legs? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't normally need to support the definitions of English nouns though, if the application is per the definition. Can you suggest an alternative phrasing? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. What I really wanted was a "this-description-is-not-given, with-any-supporting-source(s), in-the-main-body" tag. But I couldn't find one. I'll try and think of a more accurate phrasing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is a previous discussion around use of the word "scandal": Talk:List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom#Revert. DeFacto took a somewhat different position there. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we fit in a dead cat somewhere in this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In the paragraph about this afternoon's announcement, perhaps? If we can find an RS, of course. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to add this?

it has been all over the press that Starmer has cancelled a key note appearance today, suggesting it's because he's afraid to face press questioning over 'Beergate'. I added a short paragraph to cover that, which was duly revereted with the edit summary: "sorry I think this is somewhat trivial and of no real consequence". I consider it a relevant and significant political consequence (with due weight in spades), does anyone else agree? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(I also didn't see what the Queen's Speech had to do with anything. Thanks.) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

See: The Guardian, Sky News, ITV News, and Independent. They're from this morning, and they all discuss it in the context of the Queen's Speech. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Politcio mentions the Queen's Speech, but not in relation to the Starmer appearance cancellation. So it looked like WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph was supportred by a Sky News source which says of the cancelled event: "which was timed to precede Tuesday's Queen's Speech", so 'not OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The deleted paragraph didn't state any connection, only that a cancellation was "in the wake" of Beergate. We shouldn't write paragraphs of pure WP:SYNTHetic implication. From the sources, does this come down to the Daily Mail accusing Starmer of "running scared" and Labour not giving a reason (maybe not even being asked for a reason, just not giving a reason) for the cancellation? --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury, it was a paraphrased summary based on the cited sources. If you see room for improvement, feel free to make changes. Do you agree there is due weight in the sources to support some mention of this cancellation? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If the necessary clarification would be to say that it was the Daily Mail alone that drew the connection between the event being cancelled and Beergate, I'd expect that to fall under WP:DAILYMAIL, even if it was being quoted by other press sources in a what-the-papers-say manner. But I don't really know how Wikipedia handles self-referential articles about media coverage. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury, it's not only the Mail making the connection, as we can see in the Evening Standard, the Independant, News, the Telegraph, BBC News, and the Guardian. They don't attribute their take on it to the Mail. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It all seems speculative and not very notable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It's notable in the sense that several media outlets have covered it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This issue was addressed (Labour denial of) just 15 seconds into the BBC R4 Today 8am headline news [this morning]. Also more extensive coverage 4m25s - 5m48s into 8am slot of Today, and mentioned again at 24m59s-25m20s ("cancelled planned meeting .. he would have faced questions"). I think that indicates it is highly notable as UK news goes. Rwendland (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Also appeared on the News and in World at One at lunchtime today, as the second item, after Putin. No mention of the Queen's Speech. Wes Streeting said the cancellation was "trivial". All of the analysis by Andrew Fisher was centred on whether Starmer might resign if fined, with no mention of him cancelling today's speech. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think, after it came to light that he's cancelled everything else he had planned too for today, that it's now been subsumed into the broader speculation as to what he's likely to announce about his future later. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:NOTNEWS, I don't think we need to cover speculation about what Starmer might say about future hypotheticals. When he says something, we should report that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is why, as you must have noticed, I didn't. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Later? I've seen no suggestion that he's going to announce anything "about his future". Especially considering that the new police investigation in Durham may take up to three six weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, later. And, three weeks? The article says six.-- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Later today? What time did you have in mind? About 10:04 pm? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Set your timer for 30 minutes... ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 14:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What an uncanny prediction. I see he has now taken the very noble and honourable route of saying he will step down as Labour leader if he is fined. Sounds a bit like he has "taken the moral high ground" over this, doesn't it? This is exactly what Johnson should have done from the start. The contrast is quite startling. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry it was a bit behind schedule. I'm not sure I understand your point about moral high ground though. Don't you think that, now being in a similar situation to what Johnson was in when it was first announced that he was the subject of a police investigation, that the only honourable action would have been to resign forthwith, as he demanded of Johnson when he was in the same situation? All he seems to have committed to now, is to what the country would have demanded anyway given his attitude and behaviour, to resign if he is given an FPN. In other words, he has nothing to lose. It will be interesting though to see how the party and the press spin it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Johnson was very different. Not only in the huge scale difference. But because Johnson lied. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Scale of what? And it doesn't matter how loud you shout, we do not know that. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm emphasising not shouting, thanks. If we follow your logic we can never know anything about anybody, as there is always the possibility of misunderstanding. I believe Johnson to be liar. You think that there is no difference in scale between a meal shared by 15 colleagues in a work-place and at least 12 parties which are he subject to an ongoing Parliamentary enquiry, with at least 50 FPN fines officially served by the police so far? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding your bold, I'd use italics for emphasis. It's not the amount of mud that has been slung that should be the measure though, surely it's the level of culpability for any regulation breaches. And we don't know that yet for either of them, and may never know it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, everything is terribly uncertain and can never be proven 100% either way, so everything has to be carefully qualified with limitations and we can never really know anything for sure. Facts are only opinions in disguise. And don't be fooled by so-called encyclopaedias (which are probably written by delusional keyboard warriors suffering from chronic cognitive bias). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I like it - I'd support that as a compulsory footnote for all articles, if you propose it.! -- DeFacto (talk). 06:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Late curry delivery

So it seems the late delivery of the curry was partly to blame. What was Starmer to do? Just tell people to leave, taking their curry takeaway portions with them and eat them back at their hotel? in their cars? on a park bench? I imagine they were all quite hungry by then. Sorry if this thread looks like WP:FORUM, but it's in regard to this addition. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It is for us to provide the info, but not for us to judge it or speculate about it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"The Daily Mail splashes its "Day 12" story on Starmer “running scared.” That fine bastion of independent journalism. Seems the Glen Owen article also now in need of an update? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance of the Mail is here, and I don't know anything about Owen, but you seem to, so why don't you add that suggestion, with further explanation perhaps, to that article's talkpage? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As you know, the Daily Mail is banned at Wikipedia as it is considered wholly unreliable. That newspaper is primarily responsible for the re-emergence (or was it the complete invention) of the whole Beergate controversy; I thought that was obvious from this article. Owen is the journalist named in the Politico piece which you recently added. If you know nothing about him, I'm guessing that the Angela-Rayner-ginger-minge-gate fiasco must have wholly passed you by. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It is because it is banned (although I'm not sure if yours is the full reason) that I haven't taken any notice of any mentions of it. And no, I was aware of some, although apparently not all, of the Rayner story. Are you going to create that redirect to it, wherever it is covered? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone else suggested Growlergate. Whatever the full reasons for why the Daily Mail is banned here, is there not a tiny modicum of irony in the fact that the whole reason this article exists is because of its wonderful "scoop"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Create that shortcut too then, if you think readers will find it beneficial. The Mail were clearly vindicated in publishing both of those stories though, so I'm not sure why it matters that it was them who broke it, as the rest of the press weren't slow in picking up their stories. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, right. The Daily Mail has no political bias, does it. The lovely Angela and his uncrossed legs are really only peripheral to this story, as her "presence in the building" has been used only to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Labour response (a "genuine mistake"). So not sure why she appears in the lead section, unless as some kind of "distraction." There is no suggestion she might be fined? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

With it not being used as a source for anything, I'm not sure why it matters what political bias the Mail might have, especially when it breaks a significant story. In fact in this case, this story might never have been aired if they hadn't found it, so we could say they've provided a commendable service to the public, couldn't we? On other hand, do you think it matters what bias the the Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent, or BBC News have, which are used as sources for political stories? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"A commendable service to the public" ah yes, or maybe "scurrilous muck-raking as a biased distraction from Partygate". But as you've mentioned the public, I'm wondering where are all the reports of public outrage and disgust at Starmer's late-night curry. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

One person's "holding politician's to account" is indeed another person's "scurrilous muck-raking". The sooner we realise that neither side has the monopoly in virtue though, the better. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of scale. Johnson still seems to have the monopoly on lying to Parliament. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

But only through the eyes of the those who suffer from chronic cognitive bias? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you can supply links to all the WP:RS claims that Starmer has "lied to Parliament" about Beergate. Or even one? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That would only be useful if we were to assume that being WP:RS implied that assertions of fact made in the voice of the writer of the source should be unquestionably accepted as incontrovertible facts, rather than as personal opinions, tainted by the writer's agenda and personal biases. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you agree there aren't any. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not at all - I do not know whether there are any, or not. What I do know though is that, whether there are any, or not, is irrelevant to your assertion about Johnson. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. There could have been hundreds. But no one has noticed any of them or, if they did, they've not seen fit to mention them here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether there are hundreds, or zero, it has no relevance to this point, although it might be an interesting research topic for someone interested in studying the psychology of those engaged in producing political propaganda and/or selling newspapers? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

My point is that Starmer did not lie to Parliament. How can it be anything other than 100% relevant? I don't "suffer from chronic cognitive bias", thanks. I just watch the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How do you know that he didn't, and why are you assuming that Johnson did? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that Starmer is not a mass-murderer, or doesn't run a secret paedophile ring, or cannibalizes illegal immigrants. But it's a fair assumption these things are not true. There's just no evidence. Meanwhile, over at BoJo we have an entire section headed "Lying"; and the fact that he's been referred to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee to investigate whether he knowingly misled Parliament; and the many accusations by his parliamentary colleagues that he's done just that on a number of occasions. Not much of an assumption there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

He may have a Wikipedia section about it, but is there any evidence that there were any actual lies? A lie, by definition, needs to be intentionally false, but surely there also needs to be a nefarious motive. The subjective personal opinion of a journalist, even if sincere, cannot be taken as evidence of the latter. How about humour, irony, sarcasm, figures of speech, quotes from literature, etc. Are they to be interpreted literally, or taken with a pinch of salt? Was it a lie when he said they'd unleash the "terrors of the earth" on the MP who supplied the story about the legs? He certainly couldn't have delivered that promise. How about if he tells his son that the tooth fairy has been, or says his wife has gone to powder her nose, or whatever. Sure, there will be journalists who insist that a lie was told, but without the full context, and a thorough understanding of the motive, that definitely needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. If, as a reader of the journalist's output, we choose to believe they are lies, but without knowing the full context and fully understanding the motive, then we are surely guilty of bad faith (or very possibly have a chronic cognitive bias), at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, maybe it was just the tooth fairy who attended all the parties. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Shall I take that as a 'no' then? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This thread has definitely gone into WP:FORUM territory. Suggest you both grab some beers and take it to the office kitchen. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, have you got my Korma?? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ivo Delingpole

If Delingpole has agreed for his name to be published by a WP:RS (and there is no evidence that he has not), I see no reason why he should not be named in the article as the creator of the video. He seems to be quite keen for his motives to be understood. Here's the article from his University magazine Palatinate.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a platform for promoting video creators on. Per WP:BLPNAME: "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories". Do we know of many scholarly journals mentioning him? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point us to some scholarly journals which mention the names of Starmer, Rayner and Foy? I thought this chap had performed "a commendable service to the public"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Wiki a platform do you think, for you to showcase people you personally think performed "a commendable service to the public"? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We should obviously mention the name of key players in events when those names are being discussed in RS, as Delingpole's is. Bondegezou (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What we need to agree is whether naming this otherwise unknown individual actually adds any worthwhile value to the article. I can't see that it adds any value at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Other editors and, more importantly, RS clearly feels it adds value. This article details the particular curry eaten: you think that adds value, but we can't name the person who took the video? You cite WP:BLPNAME above, which says, "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories". Ivo Delingpole has not received merely a "brief appearance [...] in news stories": there is an entire Guardian article about his role. I am happy to give "scholarly journals [...] greater weight", but given there is no scholarly journal coverage of Beergate at all, there is nothing to give "greater weight" to. In other words, we use news media when all we have is news media. If there is extensive scholarly analysis in the future, great, we will use that when it appears, but that's not a reason to selectively omit details from the article now. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So, what value does his name add, and why is his parentage important? We don't need to add stuff because a biased or agenda-driven news report includes it, we need to add stuff because it is relevant and adds value to our article. And if it does add value (which we haven't yet seen quantified) there's no rush to jump the gun on scholarly articles, we can wait for them, and see how important they think it is. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What "scholarly articles" were used when this article was created? By you. Just asking. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't gratuitously reveal the name of an otherwise unknown individual, so didn't need to consider that particular provision from WP:BLP, did I? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No-one gratuitously reveal[ed] the name. They reported what RS said. That's what we do, follow RS. Your talk about waiting for scholarly articles is sophistry and not based in policy. There is no scholarly article coverage for anything in this article. So, we follow the reliable news sources we have. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What just one RS said, so possibly undue weight. And either way, we are not obliged to add it, and we should follow the BLP guidelines when deciding - and it is there that we find the advice about scholarly articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The identity of his father is not "agenda driven". It's a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So why do you think the Guardian name the student's father, yet do not mention ancestors of any of the other people involved? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Because they consider it pertinent information. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And as they are the only ones to give it, it presumably suits their agenda. If it didn't, they probably wouldn't give it either. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Their "agenda" for unambiguously reporting all the facts? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you say so. Are you party to their agenda, as I'm not persuaded that would be a fair summary of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've not read their manifesto lately. And I won't be admitting to any "parties". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

They even have a manifesto? How very party political. A party's party that you apparently weren't party to then. That clarifies that matter nicely. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, let me rephrase that... Didn't you say that this chap had performed "a commendable service to the public"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would have any relevance though, even if I did, but I did not. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it has been edited recently, but the Durham student magazine article currently does not name him. The Guardian article does (as do sources that clearly picked up their information from there), but other sources like the BBC etc. do not. On second thoughts I do think we need to exercise some caution about this, unless and until his name is more widely disseminated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you object to the creator of the video being identified as the son of a Breitbart journalist, or just the use of his name? It does put a different spin on the video having been "forwarded to friends and then to anti-lockdown activists", and initially ignored by mainstream press. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Previous edits seemed to suggest that he was named in the university student newspaper. In the current online version of that article, he isn't - which may suggest that he (or his family) have privacy concerns over his name being used. The points about the video being uploaded and disseminated are still valid, irrespective of whether he is named. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the student paper ever named him: archive.org has a copy of it from the day of publication, which includes no name. For family privacy concerns, The Guardian article states that it contacted James Delingpole and he confirmed it was his son. But either way, if there's an argument for omitting the name, does that argument also extend to omitting the fact that the student is the son of a journalist? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I take your point, Ghmyrtle. The situation is changing fast. I'm happy to see how much reliable source coverage this continues to garner rather than insisting on an edit now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In terms of the history of the reporting, Ivo was first named by Guido Fawkes back in January, I believe. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, "biased or agenda-driven news". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably, just like most news media sources are too. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's ban the lot of them! Maltese Journal of Electronic Dendrochronology is the way to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to review what WP:BLPNAME says in a more rounded manner. It says: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." So, the key question is whether the name here has or has not been "widely disseminated". BLPNAME is concerned about names that are not widely disseminated. We've seen a bunch of articles naming Ivo; let's see how that develops.

BLPNAME also talks about family relationships, as here with James Delingpole. To quote: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." So, again, if something is getting plenty of RS coverage, that's fine for us to report. It also matters that James is himself a public figure. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that "more rounded" (i.e. accurate) review of that policy. If James Delingpole himself has confirmed his own son's name to the press, and in so doing has clarified the family connection, I don't see how he could have any qualms about being named here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that only one RS gives the name, I would suggest something fairly bland like: "According to The Guardian, the student was Ivo Delingpole, the son of Breitbart writer James Delingpole." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I see multiple international RS giving Ivo's name: e.g. [1] and [2], for example. So, I don't think, "According to The Guardian" is needed, but I won't object if others want that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We'll have none of your obscure Czech or Indian agenda-driven news-scraper sources here, thankyou. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

More rounded? You selected your 'key question' as being whether the name was "widely diseminated", and you said "we've seen a bunch of articles" using it. Where? The only RS source I can find it in is one, from the Guardian. I'd say that the more important 'key question' in BLPNAME is though, whether the name "has been intentionally concealed". Judging by the results of a Google search, and especially the "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe" message at the bottom of the results screen, it's very clear that he, or his family, have been proactively trying to get it "intentionally concealed". As if those two weren't reason enough not to use it, another 'key question' is whether the removal of it "does not result in a significant loss of context", and as the name does not add any context at, it's a no-brainer, it should clearly not be given. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise to you, but newspapers sometimes get what they call "a scoop", which limits the number of places a news story is published. Without knowing why we see Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe at the bottom of a Google search it's WP:OR on your part to assume that it relates to this story. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought the claim was that it was in more than one. If not, then it's lacking in weight anyway. As for the removal - results for it seemed to have been removed from Google, suggesting they had received a request to remove them. That's not OR, as OR only applies to stuff added to the article, not opinions on the talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

All newpaper scoops lack weight? That's quite a bold claim. Yes, you're right, not OR, just a bizarre conspiracy theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we wait and see if other sources pick up on it, like we did with the whole 'Beergate' concept. This was a scoop, but as it is now widely covered, it has gained due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, that's a bizarre conspiracy theory even for you! No, you cannot presume a Google search message is indicative of an attempt to conceal an identity. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look into that. What about my other points? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As I thought, here's were the link in the message goes. So, given that there were apparently more hits before, and now there's only one amongst our usual RS sites, no, it's not a conspiracy theory, there has apparently been a request to conceal the name. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And what was the reason, given by the applicants, to request concealment of the name? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, that's speculative WP:OR and has no place on Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, I wasn't proposing we add that to the article though, so whether it's OR, or not, is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons if your speculation is appropriate as a means of filtering out RS sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

My 'speculation' is not relevant here, I was just trying to find a reason why it seems to have disappeared from the RSes. As it's not featured in the mainstream RSes, except that one from The Guardian, it doesn't have due weight to add it for any reason anyway. Add to that the BLP need for caution, I don't see why we would want to keep it. Do you see any policy-based reason to keep it that would trump the reasons for not keeping it? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So we can all disregard your comment about GoogleSearch cautions. From which RSs has the name disappeared? As I already suggested maybe The Guardian had a scoop on that. I think the reader might reasonably want to know whether or not the photograph and video was the work of some hack, from a right-wing newspaper, sent to stalk Starmer and dig up any dirt on him. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It was an observation about Google, that's all.

You ask: "From which RSs has the name disappeared?" We were told above: We should obviously mention the name of key players in events when those names are being discussed in RS, as Delingpole's is. Yet now - it's hard to find him mentioned at all. And RS clearly feels it adds value. Yet they no longer even mention him. And Ivo Delingpole has not received merely a "brief appearance [...] in news stories": there is an entire Guardian article about his role. Where is it now? That's what we do, follow RS. Well they all, bar one, seem to have ignored him. So, we follow the reliable news sources we have.. Yes, and ignore him too. The situation is changing fast. I'm happy to see how much reliable source coverage this continues to garner rather than insisting on an edit now. Well it's not increasing, and sounds as if it has decreased? We've seen a bunch of articles naming Ivo; let's see how that develops. If there ever were any, where are they now? So, again, if something is getting plenty of RS coverage, that's fine for us to report. And if it isn't, as now? You see, it sounds like there were loads up until a few days ago - where's it all gone? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it "sounds like there were". I was asking for actual sources, i.e. the other news sources that named him. I didn't see any. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know which ones they were, because when I looked (following those assertions by one of our editors) I couldn't find any of them either, hence my curiosity as to where they've all gone. I suppose it could be that they never existed in the first place, but I was assuming good faith. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask them, all those quotes were from posts by Bondegezou. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So your argument for not naming Delingpole is... "lots of sources named him, but now they've changed their minds and removed his name, except you don't know how many or which they were"? Hmmmm. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it's that naming him fails WP:BLPNAME, as as I said in my first post to this thread. You started the thread, I gave the first reply - saying just that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So what's all this continued fuss about disappearing sources, if it's totally irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, there seems a reluctance to accept that there are none. To the point that we now see the desperate assertion: but there's one Czech news, and a trade press piece "that name Ivo", and a Political Fiber piece that reports that the Guardian "said something". Oh, and there's an Indian piece of doutbfull quality, and low quality news site repeating the news.

So if "we've seen a bunch of articles naming Ivo", where are they all now? Or shall we just take it out of the article and be done with it. I'd favour that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe there are sources which found the connection with James Delingpole too embarrassing. His son's identity still seems like a relevant fact to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

An actual conspiracy theory - wow! Find a handful of RSes to support that and I'll support it's addition. But without adequate RS coverage to add his name and father's name, we have to remove those. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Who suggested adding that? It's not a theory, it's a Talk page suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you might have been tipped-off about something. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll be sure to let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

How much RS

Ghmyrtle raised the question of how widely disseminated is this news. In terms of RS, I see the Guardian article, the Czech news source [3] and a trade press piece [4] that name Ivo and specify his relationship with James. There's a Political Fiber piece [5] that directly reports that the Guardian said something. There's an Indian piece [6], but I don't know how reliable it is. There's lots of low quality news site repeating the news (e.g. [7]), but I think we can ignore those. Guido Fawkes first reported the news, but that site is not reliable.

That seems enough to me. There's plenty on Wikipedia based on less! But happy to see what other editors think and to give this another few days to see what else emerges (or is retracted). Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So as it's almost totally absent from the mainstream RSes then. And we don't seem to have come up with a single suggestion of what value it adds to the article. You can be sure that if it was in any way relevant to the story, that it would be in all the mainstream British press. For those reasons then, and per WP:BLPNAME, I think we should remove it from the (in fact it should never have been added in the first place). -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Do newspapers still have scoops or not? Or has this been banned post-Brexit? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a good source and useful for other detail, I'm ambivalent about naming the student so can leave that out of the article text for now, even though the Beergate, son of Climategate, angle may come up in future. . dave souza, talk 13:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Including the information with the name

Personally I think that the name is ok to include, but if not, surely it is ok to state that it was recorded by the son of James Delingpole? rather than just "a student". SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would we want to say who his father is? We don't say who anyone else's father is. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove this as a subsection? It's a different point of discussion. As to why? Because RS reported on it didn't they? SmartSE (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear enough, I didn't see the need for a new section as this is all covered in the original thread.

I think you must know that the fact that some RSes choose to add certain information is not a good enough reason to include it in the article (see WP:VNOT if you don't). What value do you think that would it add. And how would you square it with WP:BLPNAME which says the addition of family members should be: "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject"? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it creates an NPOV issue. The way the article is written now, it implies that Ivo Delingpole was walking to the Nisa local for some milk when he turned his head and saw Starmer getting a bit too tipsy for what should be a work event. Now, that might very well be what happened, but RSes also talk about the suspicion that this may be another dead cat scenario (and really, the RSPCA must be complaining by now about the rotting feline pile of Johnson and Crosby have thrown onto the table throughout this entire affair), even before Delingpole was identified (which is probably why the Guardian, for example, described the elder Delingpole as a former Breitbart writer instead of an old friend of Johnson; Breitbart are an infamous fake news outlet which helped pioneer the art of the fake sting). Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Having difficulty placing Redhills any sensible route from Delingpole's home to that local Nisa. Not least because of the private grounds that surround the Miners Hall. BUt I see that this has now recently appeared in the local press. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to Delingpole, there is a block of student flats near enough to Redhills that someone with a decent enough camera could take a photo of inside the back rooms, although personally I find that particular story which is being implied by Johnson's fellow travellers one of the hardest to believe in the whole party saga (which is saying something). Regardless of my own view on the entire affair, I think context may be best served at the moment by naming Ivo in the lead, but perhaps leaving specifics such as his parentage and prior contact with Johnson to later in the article. Sceptre (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Really? That window is on the street where Ivo's block of flats is located? No telephoto lens required? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Google Street View doesn't give enough detail for me to make a determination one way or another, but whether Ivo was hiding in the bushes with a tan trenchcoat, sunglasses, and 300mm lens or saw it clearly out of his bedroom window is, without RSes talking about that point, irrelevant. All we have in RSes at the moment is a) that it was Ivo Delingpole who took and released the photos and b) some people are a little uneasy with it. Of course, if the idea this is a/another dirty tricks campaign gains traction, we can revisit talking about that, but atm, all we have is those two facts. Sceptre (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll have you know that Good Captain Facto runs a very tight ship here. We'd never get away with adding any dirty tricks. Even if it was all true. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

GoogleMaps Satellite view shows that the area between the CityBlock Student flats on Ainsley Street and the Miners Hall is heavily wooded. It's not possible to tell if there is any pedestrian access through the trees. But caution suggests that we can't name him because, as per WP:BLPNAME, he might have been trespassing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, if people get the impression that Delingpole was trespassing just from reading the Wikipedia article (which I doubt would be the case; any speculation of Delingpole's physical position and whether he had a legal right to be there would, without reliable sources, constitute original research), then that's his own fault. If he was trespassing, nobody forced him to do so, and nobody forced him to go public with the video either. Sceptre (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the volume of reporting. We've discussed some reporting above. (I feel there's enough, but I didn't feel there was a consensus on that.) If there are further articles that say James Delingpole's son (without naming him), then that adds weight to the argument that this article should too. Bondegezou (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Number of attendees

The Guardian' here says: "The revelation that the takeaway bill came to £200, in a Sun report claiming up to 30 people were present, was also cited as proof the gathering was larger than originally thought." Is that report in The Sun credible? The phrase "the group of 15 ate biryanis, bhunas, tikka masalas, rice and naan breads" is found in The Times source here, but of course there could nave been more people present who did not eat. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide if what the Sun reports is credible, or not. We only need worry about whether the Guardian is reliable. If we (as we no doubt will) decide that it is, then we need to decide whether that stuff from the Sun has due weight and adds value to our article. If we're still for it, then we should add it, sourced to the Guardian and attributed as opinion from the Sun. I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The Sun's claims do not meet WP:RS; The Times' do. When we're talking about the number of attendees present, we should follow The Times (& any other RS).

If The Sun's reporting has broader implications in some way, e.g. they first broke some aspect of the story later confirmed by RS, then it would make sense to cite the later RS saying The Sun reported something first. I can't see something like that applying in this case. This is quibbling about numbers, not some new revelation from The Sun. Bondegezou (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok fine. As long as we all agree the article is not misleading the reader that there could not have been more than 15 people at this gathering. If it's only The Sun that has reported "up to 30" (whatever that means), then there seems to be no problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sub judice?

These events are subject to an ongoing police investigation (which may take up to SIX weeks)? Presumably that has no effect on what can or cannot be included in this article. I see no warnings at Talk:Partygate, the investigation for which is also ongoing, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sub judice applies to court cases. No court cases have arisen here or at Partygate. Ergo, there are no issues with sub judice. It is possible that a court case could arise, so we would have to cross that bridge when we came to it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Such an outcome seems unlikely now that both Starmer and Rayner have said they would do the decent thing if fined. I suspect one or more of the local minions might want to argue in court that they had been pressurised into a Beef Madras when they had in fact ordered a Chicken Bhuna. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Miners Hall

Was wondering if this needed clarifying. "The office of Mary Foy" and "Durham Miners Hall" are the same building, aren't they? Hansard has her saying "As someone whose constituency office is located within the magnificent Redhills, the miners hall in Durham..." --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A good idea. Obviously a large venue with many offices. Large enough to accommodate Angela Raymer's legs. Presumably, the window of Foy's office is on a public right of way that allows passing undergraduates to film without having to trespass. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I still don't fully understand the geography of the event (the photo was of a kitchen specifically attached to Foy's office, within the Hall, rather than a general kitchen in the building?), but I've now edited the article from "taken through the window of the office of Mary Foy" to "taken through the window of the Durham Miners Hall office of local Labour MP Mary Foy", which I hope is no less accurate. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences at Redhills, Durham. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

p.s. looking at GoogleMaps it seems like there are no public rights of way around the Hall. It's all enclosed in its own grounds? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

FPN clarification and comparison to Partygate

DeFacto has added clarification that when Starmer announced that he would resign if he were to receive an FPN, he also meant that he wouldn't resign if he didn't receive a FPN. If "announced that he would resign as leader of the opposition if he were to receive an FPN" isn't a clear enough opener to the paragraph, we should reword that, but it seems clear enough to me.

DeFacto says in their edit summary that this is important because Starmer "was demanding Johnson resigned with no FPN" over Partygate, but that importance doesn't make it into the article text. Maybe it should? It's a little surprising that the only comparison to or named mention of Partygate at all in the current article is Rees-Mogg considering the two controversies (prior to Starmer's announcement of possibly resignation) to be equivalent "fluff". --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that should be properly sourced, and shown in the context of Starmer's case that he was calling for Johnson to resign for having repeatedly misled parliament over the parties having occurred, not for being investigated. Also should note that whips were telling Conservatives not to demand that Starmer resign, as that would bounce back on Johnson. . dave souza, talk 19:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It also seems perfectly clear to me what Starmer intended. But I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain how he might still be found to have broken the law (or even that "the police reasonably believed he had breached the regulations") without first receiving an FPN. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Took a quick look at the source, the point made by The Telegraph is that the same police force had set a precedent when deciding that Dominic Cummings might have committed a minor breach of lockdown rules at Barnard Castle, but no action would be taken. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see, they can just say "a minor breach of lockdown rules" has been committed. But they don't find anything. And no one gets fined. Do they still have to "reasonably believe" a breach has been committed? Or can they just say it has? I wonder if this is also codified in the official COVID regulations. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Graun covered that a day before the Torygraph tried their spin on it, "Starmer has a loophole where he could potentially be criticised by Durham police but not fined – an approach they took after an inquiry into alleged lockdown breaches by Dominic Cummings, who was then the prime minister’s senior aide." By the way, due weight surely requires a [sub]section for Starmer's statement, rather than making it a continuation of trivia about opinion polls. . .dave souza, talk 20:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A "loophole". Goodness me. I'm sure what many people have done could be "criticised by the police" without that being grounds for resignation. Happy for you to start a separate thread for the sub-heading there, if you wanted to, which I also think is justified. It's really quite a lot more than just another "reaction". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Section for Starmer statement

Ridiculous that this has been buried partway into a paragraph that begins "A YouGov poll, published on 9 May 2022..." in a section on general "Reactions". A reader is very likely to be looking for information about Starmer's resignation statement, it's perhaps the main part of the story at the moment, and likely to remain a major one. I agree with Dave Souza that it merits a full section. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, likewise, I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Angela Rayner involvement

Sources seem to agree that Rayner was "in Foy's offices" during the evening that the meal took place. But only the BBC seems to say here that she was "also present at the meal." I think the Daily Mail claimed that the back of her head could be seen in the video, because the person has vaguely brownish/red hair. But this is pure speculation. The BBC claim was made 7 days after the Labour Party agreed that Rayner was present? Are there no other supporting sources? This seems very surprising. But does this mean she was one of the group of 15 who shared the takeaway meal, or not? Perhaps, for the purposes of the police investigation, it doesn't matter. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the lead section summarises this (apparently based on the single BBC source alone) as "Deputy leader Angela Rayner had also been present at the meal." So why not simply "Deputy leader Angela Rayner was also present at the meal"? Or would that imply, unfairly, she also ate and drank? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Richard Holden's "greasy night"?

Should Tory MP Richard Holden not be named, e.g. as per this source? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for adding that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Recent edits introduced factual inaccuracy, and left out significant recent developments needed for a neutral overview meeting WP:BLP requirements. Specific points:

Firstly, "a gathering in a Labour Party office" uses legalistic phrasing, it needs to be clear that under the legislation "a gathering" is two or more people, which isn't the common definition.

"The controversy arose .... after Conservative party leader and prime minister Boris Johnson was given a fixed penalty notice ... and Starmer called on him to resign" is wrong, it arose when Johnson conceded at PMQs that, despite repeated denials, he'd been at a social event and Starmer called on him to resign. Johnson got the FPN later.

"At that time .... legal restrictions on gatherings were in force, with an exemption for specific work events." I've added a reference to the legislation and included the wording, which makes no mention of "specific work events".

I've corrected these points and copyedited the revised version. . . dave souza, talk 12:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

All valuable improvements, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough - there were good reasons for my edits (72 word opening sentence (!), "Kier", etc.) but I probably overdid it a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the wording: "Shortly afterwards, the story with photographs appeared in one newspaper report, which noted the Labour Party claim that it was an exempt work event and the meal was reasonably necessary for work. Other newspapers ignored it." It's true, but we shouldn't be giving any weight to the fact that "other newspapers ignored it". It's not relevant - and it's commentary through inference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's true, is highlighted by the source, and points out the gap in news coverage between 1 May 2021 and January 2022, with not much coverage until May 2022. Have made it "A newspaper report then covered the story, including photographs, and noted the Labour Party claim that it was an exempt work event and the meal was reasonably necessary for work." Have also made some other tweaks and will think about it. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Update: made next sentence "News coverage resumed in 2022 with allegations that the meal was a social event." . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Sun, May 2021

As shown by reliable sources, a significant part of this topic is the report in The Sun at the start of May 2021, and the immediate Labour Party response. Citation of The Sun comes under WP:RSPUSE, which notes that context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia, with more detail in WP:THESUN, which notes it does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. This edit restored content sourced from the Wayback Machine, an initiative of the Internet Archive, rather than directly from The Sun. The automatic editing banner points out that there are limited exceptions to the rule on deprecated sources "(such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed)" – as is the case here. I consider this a useful and reasonable exception. If this is disputed, we can seek consensus on this talk page, or as the WP:RSP explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline points out, widen the discussion at WP:RSN. . dave souza, talk 12:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, you are not using The Sun to support stuff about itself though, you are using it to expand on what RSes have said it said. It doesn't matter whether you use an archive copy or a mirror site copy, or whatever, it's still the same old Sun stuff. We should not include anything that we need to cite the Sun to support. If there's stuff that other sources say it said, then use them to support it, but don't use The Sun, or images of it, etc. to support anything. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that because an image of the front page of The Sun can't be used as a reliable source for what was on the front page of The Sun? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We need a secondary RS to say it, otherwise it's OR too. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

People may think the image has been faked/photoshopped, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

They might do, but that's not why we don't use The Sun as a source. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't use The Sun as a source for anything it claims. But an image of it's front page is a simple "fact." If I uploaded an image of the front page myself that might be WP:OR. But if it is taken from a reliable source, how is that OR? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not an image of the front page of The Sun, it's a reference to a page on its website. What do you think is taken from a reliable source here? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I was asking in terms of a general case, about what is "OR". If information is added from a source published in the public domain, and that's all visible via an online link, how is that OR? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

From WP:OR: "[OR] is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". An image of an unreliable source is still an unreliable source, isn't it? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No, not necessarily, but it can be a secondary reliable source for what has been published by an unreliable source, like File:The Sun Front Page.jpg and File:Daily Mail 10 July 2021.png and File:Sunday Sport.jpg. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those images are being used as sources though. What do you mean when you say of an unreliable source, that "it can be a secondary reliable source"? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think they are being used as "implicit sources " for how the front pages of those newspapers appear(ed). The sources for The Sun and Sunday Sport images were reliable secondary sources (although I see they are both now deadlinks). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they're sources at all, they're just illustrations of a front page. They're like adding a portrait to a bio, they don't add or support any of the prose. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Do they rely on being taken from a reliable source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No, they're usually photos taken by Commons editors aren't they? Anyone can upload their own photos and use them in articles. In fact, if you uploaded a photo from news media, it'd probably be deleted as a copyvio wouldn't it? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I give up. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As noted above, deprecated sources can be used when the source itself is the topic being discussed. Reliable secondary sources discuss the significance of the Sun's story and what Labour’s line is, and always has been. The Wayback Machine is a reliable secondary source for what the Sun article said as of 1 May 2021, so that means the primary source hasn't been tampered with. It's thus a useful primary source for both points, showing what the secondary sources were discussing, and reaffirming their analysis. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

They can only be used if the article is about themselves or their activities. This article is neither, it's about 'Beergate'. And even if it was mainly about them, it still couldn't be used to support any claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the source. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, due to time pressures I'll leave it for now and review how things look a bit later. . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Messy structure

I don't know which editor did what, when, and I'm not going to run through the edit history to find out, but the section on "Media coverage and responses" is now a mess. It skips from "On 12 April, when the Prime Minister and Chancellor Rishi Sunak had both been issued with FPNs, Starmer said "Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have broken the law and repeatedly lied to the British public. They must both resign"" to "Labour initially said that Rayner had not been present, but...". There is no flow there. It reads as though several connecting paragraphs have been taken out and dumped elsewhere, which I suspect is almost certainly the case. Action needed, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel your pain! My recollection is that at one time it went from police investigation to preceding events, but the start of the investigation was confused. Think this works better .. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess any news-based article like his has a choice between "chronological flow" and "topic flow". It's very easy to get them tangled. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for DM headline

We have a good source for the point that on 28 April 2022 "the Daily Mail returned to Starmer’s case, saying Durham constabulary had said they would consider a request from the North West Durham Conservative MP Richard Holden to look again at the case." Supplementing this, Paperboy Online Newspapers has a page on the Daily Mail (UK) Front Page for 28 April 2022, with the text "Police Review Over Starmer’s Lockdown Drinks" as well as an image showing that's the banner headline. Disagree with the comment that's not a secondary source, that is a site showing the images of frontpages, and does not excuse the use of this deprecated source – in my view Paperboy Online Newspapers is a good secondary source for what the headline was, adding useful information. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to make the same point above. But to no avail, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly an argument to be made that if secondary news coverage (like the Guardian) doesn't consider it worth reporting that the Daily Mail used a particular headline, or that it ran a particular story on its front page on a particular day, Wikipedia can live without mentioning that detail either. Why is it important to quote the headline and/or say it was front-page news? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the first point is supported by The Guardian. But 'Paperboy' isn't a source, it's a mirror. Anything you cite from there should give the work name as that of the original, and use the 'via' parameter to make it clear that it isn't Paperboy's own work. All you are doing by citing Paperboy is citing the Mail via Paperboy. Do you honestly think you can bypass the need to use reliable sources by finding the very same sources relayed by a third party website? I don't. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Responses to Starmer's and Rayner's statements Section

The Responses to Starmer's and Rayner's statements section is far too long. There’s a lot of repetition. The Daily Mail, Times and Tory MPs are all advancing the same view: we don’t need to say it 3 times. We don’t need soundbite commentary from opposing MPs of a dog-bites-man form. Bondegezou (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Or dog-bites-policeman form. But one wonders how the likes of The Daily Mail, Chris Philp and Michael Fabricant would have commented if Johnson had made the same promise. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

If you properly reflect sources they're different, though by remarkable coincidence Micky Fab and Philp echo the DM line. There were several papers describing it as a gamble, iirc, so we'll need to hunt out sources for that. . . dave souza, talk 11:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC) sig accidentally omitted, added 14:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail coverage

I removed the initial paragraph about the Daily Mail's coverage but Dave souza re-added. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source and it's claims should have no room on Wikipedia unless supported by actual reliable sources. The paragraph in question seeks to get around this by citing a Guardian article about the Daily Mail's coverage, but if we are citing that article, we should reflect what that article says, not use it as a back-door excuse to include the Mail's views. As per WP:BALANCE, if we want to cover what newspapers are saying about Starmer's statement, we should cover a spread of them, not have the largest chunk of text in this section be on what the Mail said. So, I still think we should cut this paragraph. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've now trimmed it a bit to focus more on the Guardian's analysis, which covers the DM as an exceptionally influential part of the "controversy". You perhaps missed the equally deprecated Sun being quoted from an uncritical mirror of it: worth including as part of the story, and I've since found a secondary source about that point. As noted above, the WP:RSP essay you're referencing is clear that "Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations." . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You are using the Guardian citation to get around the rule that we can’t use the Daily Mail. You are not actually reflecting the thrust of the Guardian citation. This is inappropriate. There is no wriggle room in WP:RSP here.

More generally, we’re meant to be writing an article about Beergate, not about media coverage of Beergate. We do not need endless accounts of what newspapers or minor politicians said. We’ve trimmed that sort of material from Partygate. See also WP:NOTNEWS. We should focus on what happened and what the key players have said. Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sought additional input from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_and_Beergate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Section heading for Partygate

The Partygate article has a section heading, Partygate#Labour Party investigation. Either both articles should have a section heading leading to the other article or both articles should have the section heading removed. Otherwise this is not neutral. how it appears as I type. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Although that section has two paragraphs and this one has only one. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it gives undue weight to that section, which has little relevance in this article anyway, so is totally unnecessary. What happens in other articles is irrelevant and the need for neutrality only applies within the article, and is not dependent on the what happens in other articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your claim that Partygate has "little relevance in this article" is laughable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Provide a suggested wording then that provides that relevance. As it stands, it is not apparent, and it certainly doesn't merit a sub-section of its own as it is. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the section in this article could be expanded. Partygate has more media coverage than Beergate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be slimmed down, as it adds no value to the subject of this article. Please read WP:OFFTOPIC, which starts with this: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". That paragraph is, at best, "only loosely relevant". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion the Partygate scandal has provided the entire context for the Beergate controversy. To remove it or "slim it down" would be a complete travesty. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123 made a good point. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You see, folks. It can be done. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

if this should be slimmed down Partygate#Labour Party investigation should be slimmed down too. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? Please point to the appropriate Wikipedia policy which makes you think that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I waited for a consensus, Martinevans123 and Proxima Centauri want the section heading, DeFacto is against that. DeFacto is outvoted 2 to 1. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

We might get a stronger consensus if we heard from the other regulars. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the argument that there has to be a parity in how the articles refer to each other. Both articles should mention the other, but what subheadings there should be should be determined by what is best for each article on its own terms. How they relate to each other is different. Beergate exists within the context of Partygate, so you need to understand that to understand Beergate. Beergate is a tangent from Partygate: you can talk about Partygate without needing to know anything about Beergate. So the Beergate article talks about Partygate from the start, whereas the Partygate article talks about Beergate only at the end. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Any view on the section heading? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This article’s first section is called “COVID-19 regulations and Partygate”. That works for me: those are the key things you want to start with. Maybe we could have a More at: link there? Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

There, I’ve added a Main article: tag there pointing to Partygate. I think that helps the reader with navigation and hopefully helps with Proxima Centauri’s concerns. Bondegezou (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, but you didn't get a consensus. See WP:Consensus, which clearly says: "editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense;" and "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote" (my emphasis).

There were no-policy based arguments in favour of your argument given, let alone agreed upon. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Which policy prevents a section heading here? You argue above that "Partygate has "little relevance in this article"". I think that's very mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said above. How is this exempt and what policy insists that this paragraph alone gets given such exceptional prominence at the top of the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In my view it belongs at the top of the article as it came first and provides the whole context for the controversy. Are you now suggesting it should be buried away somewhere near the bottom? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I never suggested moving it. Just that it doesn't need to be the only paragraph being given the extra prominence that a sub-section title would give it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment pieces

DeFacto feels a comment piece from, 'The Telegraph' merits inclusion, here. The Telegraph is biased and is sometimes called, 'The Torygraph'. Earlier I wrote, Archie Bland wrote in, The Guardian, "Partygate In terms of scale, it’s pretty hard to argue that Partygate and Beergate were alike. The Partygate roster runs from May 2020 to April 2021. In total, 16 events were examined by civil servant Sue Gray for her report, 12 of which were also the subject of police investigation. Boris Johnson is reported to have been present for six of those 12 events. {...) he has been issued with a fixed penalty notice in relation to one incident."Tuesday briefing: Partygate v Beergate: Everything you need to know The Guardian here. Archie Bland is notable, 'The Guardian' is certainly not more biased than 'The Telegraph', which DeFacto frequently cites and isn't behind a pay wall like the 'Telegraph. Will DeFacto please expalin why a comment piece in the Telegraph is felt worth reporting while a comment piece in, 'The Guardian' is not. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri, well no I didn't think comment pieces deserve inclusion actually, but when I have tried to remove such pieces before, they have been swiftly restored, so I was tending to believe they were actually expected and very welcome in this article, for some reason. Although my addition only lasted about 7 minutes, thankfully. But you seem to be suggesting that comments supporting Starmer are ok, but those criticising him are biased - or have I misunderstood your post? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I broadly support cutting the amount of newspaper commentary in this article by a considerable amount. Some is appropriate for context, but we seem to have far more here than in, say, the Partygate article. When including such material, we need to respect WP:BALANCE. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Reason to omit?

We are looking for a reason (valid and policy compliant preferably) not to add a reliably sourced opinion poll to the article. Is it:

1. Actually an not a reliably sourced?
2. A partisan source (I guess if that's the problem then we will have to remove everything from the article sourced to UK media sources)?
3. 'Premature' in some way?
4. Something else - if so, what?

Please provide a policy-based rationale, which has been lacking so far, for your choice. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A reason to include is more important, can you give us one of those?

I'd say the most relevant angle from that Evening Standard article is Ipsos saying that "the beergate row had not sparked an increase in the numbers who want Sir Keir to quit", which you chose not to quote. That the spokesman also adds that beergate "is not the top issue by which voters are judging the leaders" suggests that the poll is not actually very significant to this article. The policy buzzer says: WP:UNDUE. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(... that's the policy klaxon with flashing strobe lights and pyrotechnic effects.) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In another article DeFacto suggested, the Scotish Evening Standard is unreliable. Does DeFacto feel Evening Standards are generally reliable or generally unreliable? Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, there are at least 3 problems with your remark:

1. You gave the wrong diff, this is the diff I think you meant.
2. There the problem was with the Daily Express, not with the Evening Standard. The Express is considered 'generally unreliable' per WP:RSP, where the Standard has no consensus on that.
3. What happens in other articles is irrelevant irrelevant.

Do you want to reconsider your argument? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, which you cited deals with deletions and keeping. I was just looking for DeFacto to be consistent over the Evening Standard. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, thanks, yes, it should have been linked to WP:OTHERCONTENT. But, as I said, that previous discussion, in another article, was about the Daily Express and not the Evening Standard. The latter is used for the support other stuff in this article, so why not for this? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The poll was conducted by Ipsos, which is a standard and reliable source for public opinion polls. Here is the press release on the poll at Ipsos, which would be fine to use if people think Evening Standard is unreliable (I know nothing about them). No comment on whether there is material from this poll which is suitable for inclusion into the article. Endwise (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"The latest Ipsos Political Monitor, taken May 11-17th, shows 58% of Britons think Labour leader Keir Starmer should resign if he is issued with a fixed penalty notice for breaking Covid laws. However, if he is deemed to have broken Covid guidelines and regulations but not fined, 61% think he should not resign." So what? What does this add to the narrative? Starmer has made it 100% clear that if he is fined, he will resign? Maybe relevant to add at Keir Starmer, but not here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of polling. I think we should be careful of cherrypicking: we shouldn't have details of one poll while ignoring others. A secondary source that takes an overview would be useful, but I don't know if such exists. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, can you itemise any other relevant and reliably sourced polls please? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I've not gone through in detail, but there's Savanta on 9 May, there's a 10 May IpsosMORI poll (covered by multiple media sources), there's a 14 May Opinium poll, there was a 15 May Redfield and Wilton poll for the Sun on Sunday, and a very recent poll on who should replace Starmer if he goes. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, thanks, so it's only the last one that's supported by a mainstream secondary source. I'm not sure that inclusion of those with just primary sources, or supported by just the North Wales Chronicle would pass as WP:DUE. If that's the case, then we only have that one in the Evening Standard that is worthy of inclusion. Do you agree? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the IpsosMORI poll was covered by multiple sources: here's the Independent on it, plus the original IpsosMORI summary.

Another poll was YouGov's. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a bit of discussion in The Times. To quote: "Nor has beergate put any meaningful dent in Labour's polling lead. This week's survey of voting intention by YouGov for The Times instead sees the opposition extend their lead over the Tories - if only marginally." Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It might be worthy of inclusion, using that source, if it belonged here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Obsession with the use of deprecated sources

In this edit, Dave souza restored references to two deprecated sources - the Sun and the Daily Mail. In their edit summary they said "As discussed at WP:RSN#Daily Mail and Beergate, WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion: re Sun, both secondary sources discuss this article, cite adds timing and responses from Con and Lab."

To clarify, these are the sentences that those deprecated sources are cited in support of:

• "The Sun on Sunday published a story with pictures from the video online on the evening of 1 May 2021, and in the print edition the next day on page 2, as is usual for stories not expected to gain wide readership; it was ignored by media for the rest of the year."
• "For its 15 January 2022 front page, the Daily Mail used pictures from the video in a front page story with allegations portraying Starmer as "the Covid party hypocrite"."

I understand that there may be circumstances where such sources may be useful, and can see that the linked discussion on RSN might help clarify that, but I cannot see what the use of them adds here in this article. The sentences against which those deprecated sources have been cited contain just statements of fact about those two sources, and both are reliably and adequately sourced. Those sentences do not discuss those deprecated sources any further and do not need them to 'support' anything. I don't see any "responses from Con and Lab" in this article that those deprecated sources are required to support, so that doesn't make sense as an excuse to cite them.

And note too, there is still another place in the article where the Daily Mail is cited as a source, in the first paragraph of the 'Respones' section. This may need reviewing too. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see what harm those additional sources do. Some readers may want to see for themselves how all the fuss was manufactured. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with DeFacto. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@ DeFacto, sorry to read of your obsession. You've mangled my edit summary, as you know there's been extensive discussion at WP:RSN#Daily Mail and Beergate, which has pointed to WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources: "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint." To meet WP:V and WP:RS/QUOTE, the primary source is appropriate, or required for WP:RSCONTEXT.

• The Sun on Sunday primary source is used to confirm it published its story online on the evening of 1 May 2021, and in the print edition the next day, not shown in the secondary source, and also the responses from Con and Lab are informative, supplementing and showing context for the other secondary source's statement that "Labour’s line is, and always has been" that "indoor gatherings were allowed for 'work purposes' and that eating and drinking like this was allowed if 'reasonably necessary for work'."
• The 15 January 2022 front page of the Daily Mail is a primary source used by the secondary source there for its quote of the headline allegation "the Covid party hypocrite", the original is needed for WP:V, WP:RS/QUOTE and WP:RSCONTEXT

WP:DUE requires information on these newspaper articles as several reliable secondary sources have identified them as significant to the topic. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)