This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partygate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
For a while, the article has begun "Partygate was a political scandal..." Today, 92.15.144.174 changed it to "is", and DeFacto reverted and suggested a Talk discussion. So, what do people think?
I was fine with the "was" wording, but now the issue has come up, I am less certain. Most of the impact of Partygate has passed, with Johnson out of office, but he does still face the Privileges Committee investigation, which will surely be a major topic of media interest. I thus lean in favour of "is". I'm not clear how best to apply MOS:TENSE, but it possibly favours "is" too. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I edited the article from "a political scandal" to "a major political scandal", citing the new ITV News podcast. DeFacto reverted this, saying, "their subjective view should not be asserted as fact in Wiki's voice". ITV News are a reliable source. We use reliable sources. DeFacto has repeatedly tried to re-write Wikipedia's rules to cast reliable sources as being subjective.
There are many political scandals in the world. I think we should be clear that this one stands out. It was a major factor in bringing down a Prime Minister. I think an adjective to make that clear is appropriate. If we need more citations, the i called it the "biggest scandal" Johnson faced, [1] and The Guardian said "The “partygate” scandal is vying to be the biggest political mess of Johnson’s career." [2] The National called it "the biggest scandal of his tenure." [3] Politico said, "Johnson now faces the greatest challenge to his penchant for rule-breaking". [4] So, lots of reliable sources think it was a biggie too!
What do other editors think? Can we call it a major scandal? Bondegezou ( talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Concern has been expressed at the length of this article, but it continues to grow with more details still coming out and the forthcoming Privileges Committee investigation generating a lot of column inches. What do we feel about splitting off some portion of it to a separate article?
My first thought is that the Privileges Committee investigation coverage stands somewhat apart from the other content, and is also liable to grow in size. I suggest making that a separate article.
My second thought, which I’m less certain about, is to split off the detailed timeline of events into a separate article, with just a table or something left here.
What do others think, or does anyone have other suggestions? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
John Cummings ( talk) 13:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partygate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
For a while, the article has begun "Partygate was a political scandal..." Today, 92.15.144.174 changed it to "is", and DeFacto reverted and suggested a Talk discussion. So, what do people think?
I was fine with the "was" wording, but now the issue has come up, I am less certain. Most of the impact of Partygate has passed, with Johnson out of office, but he does still face the Privileges Committee investigation, which will surely be a major topic of media interest. I thus lean in favour of "is". I'm not clear how best to apply MOS:TENSE, but it possibly favours "is" too. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I edited the article from "a political scandal" to "a major political scandal", citing the new ITV News podcast. DeFacto reverted this, saying, "their subjective view should not be asserted as fact in Wiki's voice". ITV News are a reliable source. We use reliable sources. DeFacto has repeatedly tried to re-write Wikipedia's rules to cast reliable sources as being subjective.
There are many political scandals in the world. I think we should be clear that this one stands out. It was a major factor in bringing down a Prime Minister. I think an adjective to make that clear is appropriate. If we need more citations, the i called it the "biggest scandal" Johnson faced, [1] and The Guardian said "The “partygate” scandal is vying to be the biggest political mess of Johnson’s career." [2] The National called it "the biggest scandal of his tenure." [3] Politico said, "Johnson now faces the greatest challenge to his penchant for rule-breaking". [4] So, lots of reliable sources think it was a biggie too!
What do other editors think? Can we call it a major scandal? Bondegezou ( talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Concern has been expressed at the length of this article, but it continues to grow with more details still coming out and the forthcoming Privileges Committee investigation generating a lot of column inches. What do we feel about splitting off some portion of it to a separate article?
My first thought is that the Privileges Committee investigation coverage stands somewhat apart from the other content, and is also liable to grow in size. I suggest making that a separate article.
My second thought, which I’m less certain about, is to split off the detailed timeline of events into a separate article, with just a table or something left here.
What do others think, or does anyone have other suggestions? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
John Cummings ( talk) 13:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)