Talk:Beergate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Dave souza, I think I got got your edit edit summary spot-on verbiage-wise, but seem to have dropped a link, sorry about that.

However, I did read WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, and my point still stands. In neither of the two uses that I removed were we debating or challenging what either of the deprecated sources said. We were simply stating facts about what they reported, supported by reliable sources. Now if we had been challenging what they had reported in some way, I agree you might of had a point, but as we did not comment on what the Sun said about Labour's line, we don't need to cite the deprecated source to support their take on it. We trust reliable sources, unless there's another reliable source saying something different, that's business-as-usual for Wikipedia.

Just to clarify, these are the two statements that I most recently removed the deprecated sources from:

• "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"."

If you think I have misunderstood the use you think those deprecated sources were serving, please explain what, from both of those statements, you think the deprecated source is needed to support and that is not already supported by the reliable sources that provided the reasons for adding them in the first place. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• • @ DeFacto, you're ignoring points made at WP:RSN#Daily Mail and Beergate:
    [If] we have an RS explicitly pointing to a nonRS piece, all this being considered DUE to include, then including the cite to the nonRS piece immediately next to the RS cite is fair and reasonable. (Masem) That we mention the the DM article as playing a role in the events at hand, and including the specific article at the center of the controversy, not because it is a good source, but because we discuss it in the text and it should be accessible for the reader for further inspection, seems valid. (Jayron32) a third or fourth-hand partial of the Daily Mail words just seems less desirable than a direct cite to the whole piece. (Markbassett)
    These are excerpts, and should be read at WP:RSN. The newspaper articles are shown by RSs to be particularly significant to the topic, and including a citation to the deprecated source adds value. This arises particularly where the RSs quote from these sources.
    [In the] WP:RS/QUOTE guideline's words: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." The original source being quoted is Daily Mail, and in this case The Guardian should not be used per WP:RSCONTEXT, the context being what Daily Mail actually said. (Masem) For [direct quotes] Daily Mail is a reliable source, and an acceptable source (WP:NEWSORG), and the source that is necessary to "ensure accuracy" while not being "partisan secondary" (WP:RS/QUOTE), and a better source than The Guardian which has been shown to distort (WP:RSCONTEXT) (Peter Gulutzan)
    Ignoring these points, or deleting issues raised by reliable sources to evade them, makes the article worse and less informative. dave souza, talk 11:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not ignoring anything, but I do not agree that, in the two instances I referred to, the addition of cites to the deprecated sources adds any value at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    Well, clearly those editors at WP:RSN agree that these cites add value, as I do. You seem to be arguing that if a deprecated source doesn't add value it should be removed, and if it does add value then that addition and the source should be removed. That's contrary 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." Here, reliable sources show these deprecated sources are primary sources which played a central part in creating this "controversy". . . dave souza, talk 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    As I've already said, the source itself is not the subject of a discussion which could could have an other viewpoint - unless they are arguing that they did had not "published a story with pictures from the video online on the evening of 1 May 2021". -- DeFacto (talk). 13:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    And, as I've already said, the timing of "published a story with pictures from the video online on the evening of 1 May 2021" needs a source, and that particular story is shown by reliable secondary sources to be a significant primary source which they discuss. . . dave souza, talk 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Have found we have a secondary source for publication on 1 May, but doesn't make it clear that's the online date, and also has brief quotes from Con and Lab, which means that the primary source adds value by clarifying publication timing, and enabling readers to see these quotes in context if they want. . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We're going round in circles a bit. Deprecated sources can be used when they are part of the story, so let's step back and think, what is the story here? The story is Beergate: what happened on 30 April 2021, was it within the COVID-19 regulations, what will happen because of this (e.g., Starmer has said he'll resign if given an FPN)? The story is not "what did the Daily Mail say?" We're not writing a summary of media coverage: we're writing an encyclopaedia article about the events themselves. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of the story is how the news broke. The Sun on Sunday first publishing pictures from the video seems important. The 15 Jan 22 Daily Mail headline doesn't: it wasn't about breaking some new part of the story. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree with point one, The Sun on Sunday was very quick to publish the photos which became the mainstream story, but at first the story died, until the Daily Mail put the Durham pictures on the front page of its 15 January print edition"[1] Things seem to have quietened, then the third phase got under way on 28 April when "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" [2] . . dave souza, talk 14:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Strike DM / phase 3, see Northern Echo noted below

I am uneasy about this interpretation of a second and third phase. That looks like WP:OR. Do RS say that's what happened in those terms? (The Guardian piece is critiquing what the Mail says; it's not laying out a timeline of key movers in the reporting of Beergate.) There was a lull and a return to the story (your phase 2), which the Daily Mail was part of, but I think the return came from several political and media sources. The Daily Mail didn't do some key piece of investigative reporting (the way the Mirror did with Partygate): they were just pushing an agenda shared with others. Your phase 3 looks like a mirage to me. The Mail just reported what others (Holden, Durham Police) had done: they didn't have a central role in events. We can summarise your second and third phases quite easily without all these citations to the Mail or details of what headlines said: we can just say something like, "Conservative politicians and the Conservative-supporting press pushed the story back into the national agenda." (Presuming appropriate RS.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair point about "phases" which was just my attempt to summarise developments, the two linked Guardian articles are about why it took 9 months to become a big story, and Keir Starmer and Beergate: what happened and when? which sets out key dates. Some of them are tied to Daily Mail articles, such as the 28 April announcement from Durham constabulary, looking at our article again I'd forgotten that the Northern Echo covered it on 27 Apri[, apologies for my error. . . dave souza, talk 16:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That additional Guardian article is useful and provides some justification (but has to be considered in the wider context of all the reporting). So, let's look at how that Guardian article handles the topic. It does mention the Daily Mail doing things on three occasions. It mostly doesn't quote from the Daily Mail: it briefly describes the Mail's line and only has one short direct quote. Therefore, we can do the same here. We don't need these long descriptions of what the Mail is saying. The Guardian article also refers to "The Daily Mail and several other right-leaning papers...": we can also do the same, summarising the Mail's activity in a broader context. Bondegezou (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Good points, I'll review the wording and come back on this. . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just to ask about a possible alternative: Would having key items be better handled by an external references section to them ? The Guardian piece cited puts the Sun and Daily Mail articles as key parts in the topic timeline and the Daily Mail article creating it as Beergate. (i.e. The event and minor initial Sun coverage gets brought back 9 months later because of Starmer’s statements about Pizzagate in the Daily Mail article.) So external links seem a possible alternative to use in a cite — that is, if the editors want to include them at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Also, I suggest a rewrite for the line about Daily Mail. It’s a rather tortured phrasing that does poorly at conveying the material in the Guardian piece cited.

Instead of : 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".

Suggest : For its 15 January 2022 front page, the Daily Mail put the Durham pictures under the headline “Starmer the Covid party hypocrite”.

(Dropping the “allegations portraying” oddity and the redundant repeat of “front page”.)

As the Guardian line is : As the pressure mounted on Johnson, the Daily Mail put the Durham pictures on the front page of its 15 January print edition under the headline “Starmer the Covid party hypocrite”.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, good points. From the RSN discussion I've a feeling we might have to put the front page headline in ALL CAPS, ways around that would be to refer to the online edition or be less specific. Will try to work on better wording. . . dave souza, talk 16:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Have tried implementing that, ended up with "For its 15 January 2022 front page, the Daily Mail headlined the pictures from the video with "Starmer the Covid party hypocrite". Think that's an improvement. . dave souza, talk 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Here's a handy guide to use of partsan and deprecated sources in articles on politically charged topics:

Don't.

Cite the FT. And, quite literally, nobody else. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated bonanza

Are the Daily Mail and Sun inclusions ABSOLUTELY necessary to the narrative of this article, because it really flies in the face of the whole deprecation process to be using these tabloids in exactly the subject areas they are least trustworthy, i.e.: gossip and politics. And it seems like of all these mentions should be replaced by reliable, secondary mentions, if available, of what the Daily Mail or Sun have claimed (and needed), filtered through a fact-checking editorial process. If the Daily Mail and the Sun are the only sources mentioning certain claims, said claims probably shouldn't be on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I had a closer look, and its was readily possible to remove the deprecated sources while leaving the materials largely intact, supported by WP:RSP sources Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment at WP:RSN, to repeat relevant points;
My aim has been to comply closely with the reliable sources, while cross-checking against the primary sources for date/timing and exact wording of quotes. .. I appreciate you've made good faith edits, some of which are helpful, but in this edit you've introduced the mangled falsehood that "The Sun on Sunday published a story on the video on page 2 in its 1 May 2021 of its print edition," implying that The Sun on Sunday publishes in print on Saturday. Clue's in the name. On closer inspection, the Graun consistently says "1 May 2021 The Sun ran a brief story about the footage", with "ran a brief story" a link to the Sun primary source, and in an earlier article the Graun said "The Sun on Sunday picked up on the clip and published a brief article on page 2 of its print edition". Both statements are true, but superficially confusing. Using secondary sources already cited, I've corrected the article, so it's now in line with the primary source. Which provides a useful check when summarising secondary sources about that specific story as published originally in a deprecated [not banned] source. When time permits, I'll examine your other edits. . dave souza, talk 22:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Well thanks for correcting that, but frankly it's all rather secondary and tangential to the actual point, which is: brief page 2 coverage in early May. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You're again ignoring the advice of regulars at WP:RSN that a [deprecated] primary source can be shown for information and context, even though our article content must rely in reliable secondary sources. Your error would mislead and confuse readers, and it's just one instance of an exceptional case where availability of the primary source helps to clarify matters even where it's not being used directly as a source. I'll try to get round soon to reviewing your other edits to see if they've introduced other errors. . . dave souza, talk 16:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian sources contain many of the links back to the relevant Daily Mail and Sun web stories, so there is little need to duplicate this in Wiki. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Skwawkbox

Bondegezou – "Attention was now drawn to the Durham video by left wing news sites opposed to Starmer, including The Skwawkbox." Think that's a reasonable summary of "some of the first outlets to revive interest in the old video were leftwing, anti-Starmer online news outlets such as Skwawkbox that had sprung up to support Jeremy Corbyn.[3] The primary source shows the timing, and the point that the video was put online at that stage, though it may also still have been on twitter. At WP:RSNP, Skwawkbox is considered generally unreliable, but not deprecated. However, I've not undone this revert as I'm inclined to agree it's a side issue, though worth noting on talk. Pulls out fragile LP for old time's sake, . . dave souza, talk 09:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Beergate" term in use, 3 May 2022

The National reported on 3 May 2022 that the term beergate was in use for efforts to divert attention from partygate – source says "Conservatives have launched a series of broadsides aimed at Labour leader Keir Starmer and his deputy Anglea Rayner as they attempt to deflect from the scandals around Boris Johnson’s criminal behaviour. The Tories’ efforts focus on an event labelled “beergate” ...." Other sources at or soon after that date put "beergate" in quote marks, it'll be helpful if anyone can find an earlier example. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

But that is not what the National reported. It reported that the Tories contributed to the already existing 'beergate' controversey.

The term 'beergate' was coined at the begining of the year, as far as I can tell. It was used on Twitter here on 15 January. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Ties in with the controversy being relatively dormant until late April. I've rephrased it as "The National reported on 3 May 2022 that Conservative efforts to divert attention from partygate centred on the "beergate" event". Hope that meets your concerns. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

While that's a primary source, "John Hill @Sales2great". Twitter. 15 January 2022. Boris/ party gate no mention on broadcast media of Starmer beergate ... 10:41 am in context comes on the day the DM had its front page story, so worth showing it there, as part of the Partygate section. . dave souza, talk 16:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Police investigation

As shown by reliable sources discussing this topic, the Durham investigation was in the context of the Met previously opening an investigation and setting criteria for looking at cases. I've included this necessary context, while leaving the focus on the Durham police. . dave souza, talk 05:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, what do you mean by "was in the context of the Met previously opening an investigation and setting criteria for looking at cases", and which reliable sources do you think show this? Also, in what way do you think Starmer's attack that you included with that edit is related to that Met stuff? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

There are two sources in the article for these points. . .dave souza, talk 08:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

So:

1. What do you mean by "was in the context of the Met previously opening an investigation and setting criteria for looking at cases", and can you give the urls and quotes of the sources you think support them then please.
2. In what way do you think Starmer's attack that you included with that edit is related to that Met stuff?

Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The urls are there as links in the article. Please read the sources carefuly, the answers to your questions are there. . . dave souza, talk 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sun article, Labour response

This source confirms that "Approached for comment, a Labour spokesman pointed back to the party’s previous statement, in which it insisted no rules had been broken. 'Keir was in the workplace, meeting a local MP in her constituency office and participating in an online Labour Party event,' the statement from the time said. 'They paused for dinner as the meeting was during the evening.' ". The lead needs to be clear about the timing of the Labour statement. . .dave souza, talk 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

What change are you suggesting then - before/after text would be useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Allegation broke COVID-19 regulations

In the first sentence of the lead, "thus broke COVID-19 regulations" is not supported in the article. It relates to "political controversy developed in 2022 following allegations", in the rather stale discussion above on #Partygate's significance? DeFacto says "the "lying" allegation was the last straw, the trigger, the catalyst". That puts the start of controversy at 13 January, when a Tory briefed that "Sir Keir has spent the past two months criticising people for doing the exact same thing he's been doing himself". There's no statement in the sources that it "thus broke COVID-19 regulations", so I'll remove that until a source is provided. This source does put it in the context of "Boris Johnson under mounting pressure over a series of gatherings in Downing Street", so I propose that the sentence should conclude "was equivalent to the multiple Conservative Party staff and prime minister Boris Johnson had been accused of breaching COVID-19 social distancing rules. . . . . dave souza, talk 08:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
typo "multiplehere" corrected to "multiple", dave souza, talk 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's try it like this:

1. It's self evident, isn't it, that the whole point of this article is that there is an allegation of regulation breaking? I don't suppose there'd be any press or police interest if no-one thought that.
2. The 'lying' allegation triggered a senior Tory to respond, apparently, yes. That doesn't imply that's when the whole controversy started though, does it? That sounds like WP:SYNTH - a home-brewed conclusion not supported by any of the sources.
3. And another SYNTH - to surmise that the accusation against Starmer has to be compared to all the wrongs done in Westminster whilst Johnson was PM. Starmer might have been indignant about being compared to Johnson, but at the end of the day, Johnson was only found to have broken the regs once himself, and that was when he thought he was at a work event.

There's more work required on this, I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You've been provided with a source which is specific, your "self evident" is SYNTH as is your presumption of "triggered", and the proposed text doesn't make your third "surmise". . . . dave souza, talk 14:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"Self evident" is not synth. That Starmer's response triggered a response in sourced. Can you write "was equivalent to the multiplehere Conservative Party staff and prime minister Boris Johnson had been accused of breaching COVID-19 social distancing rules" again please, without the typos, I may have misinterpretted it, and I'll reconsider my third point which was based on that. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dave souza, I see you've corrected it now, and it was as I imagined, so my point 3 stands as written. I don't see sources saying that was what was meant by the accusations, although I do see them being challenged as if that was actually meant, which is, frankly, disingenuous. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The word "triggered" sounds rather woke, and appears to have multiple meanings. The source has "Hitting back on Thursday, a senior Tory" which the body text puts as a "senior Tory" had responded to Starmer's statements. I definitely think "triggered" is unsuitable wording. . dave souza, talk 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That was my paraphrased summary of a source, nothing more. Starmer's demand, given the photos, apparently triggered the Tory 'hypocrisy' response. That's what many of the sources say (disclaimer: in their own words which may vary from my paraphrasing). (Disclaimer: I'm proffering these comments to inform the discussion, not as a proposed replacement for the article in whole or in part). -- DeFacto (talk). 06:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The source sets the context which the Tory was hitting back at: "With Boris Johnson under mounting pressure over a series of gatherings in Downing Street, the Labour leader on Wednesday claimed that the public could see he was 'lying through his teeth'." So, he was hitting back at the mounting pressure over a series of gatherings, and at the points Starmer made at PMQs, particularly the point about public perception. Which the speaker ruled as acceptable parliamentary language. Also, that disposes of the odd idea about "compared to all the wrongs done in Westminster", it was specifically compared to Partygate. . .dave souza, talk 17:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You may be of the view that a source sets that context, but although that view may also inform the discussion, it does not "dispose" of anything. To say that there is no hypocrisy because others were accused alongside Johnson is one argument, but is not necessarily representative of the views of others. Others were also accused alongside Starmer. But there were many parties in Downing Street, but so what - hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, but.. It's all subjective. (Disclaimer: I'm proffering these comments to inform the discussion and they are not necessarily my personal opinion in whole or in part). -- DeFacto (talk). 06:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, this particular source puts the Tory comments it reports in the context of Downing Street gatherings. You said above "to surmise that the accusation against Starmer has to be compared to all the wrongs done in Westminster" – where did that come from? . . dave souza, talk 01:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That was my summary of your "was equivalent to the multiple Conservative Party staff and prime minister Boris Johnson had been accused of breaching COVID-19 social distancing rules" (which still isn't absolutely clear, tbh). -- DeFacto (talk). 06:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Sir Keir had himself been photographed drinking with a number of party staff in a constituency office in Durham" implies this equated to what Johnson had been doing, "The country was at that time in step two of the roadmap out of the third lockdown, with indoor mixing between different households prohibited except in work scenarios" points out the work exemption, and it cites Labour pointing to the same exemption. Doesn't say rules were broken. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You may like to think it equates to that, but others will disagree (as I do, in fact). There were always work exceptions, even in Downing Street. That doesn't mean they were complied with though, even if they were claimed to have been. Hence the investigation, which is to examine the circumstances and to see if they held up as valid excuses for what took place.

(Disclaimer: I'm proffering these comments to inform the discussion and they are not necessarily my personal opinion in whole or in part, although if they are, I may indicate that). -- DeFacto (talk). 07:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"Sir Keir has spent the past two months criticising people for doing the exact same thing he's been doing himself" – so, alleging all were having a drink at a work event, still not saying rules were broken. And not what Starmer actually said, according to The BBC. Sure looks like spin. Which makes the "hypocrisy" allegation spurious, though tactically useful. As said by the opinion piece DeFacto linked earlier, Johnson's selling point is he's a fun liar. Maybe wearing a bit thin. A lot of the public and a proportion of Tory MPs felt that at the time of those PMQs, hence the need to hit back. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but "still not saying rules were broken" implies that you believe his claim that he didn't break any rules. Spin? By who - the reporter, Starmer, the Tories? The hypocrisy claims relate to the perception that he was saying one thing and doing another, no matter how it was framed, or by whom. It's a well understood concept, and does not rely on scale or precise actions. Your interpretation of that opinion piece is irrelevant and has no bearing on the course of events. We should use conclusions from sources, and not knit our own.

(Disclaimer: I'm proffering these comments to inform the discussion and they are not necessarily my personal opinion in whole or in part). -- DeFacto (talk). 07:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Re (Disclaimer: I'm proffering these comments to inform the discussion and they are not necessarily my personal opinion in whole or in part). – sad you're not simply making well sourced proposals for article improvement. . dave souza, talk 01:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The wording was okay before, we haven't reached an agreement on your interpretation of the source. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)