Talk:List of political scandals in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous discussions[edit]

Should the government's handling of BSE be called a political scandal? Are scandalous incidents leading to political resignations appropriate for this page?

Also, what about foot-and-mouth; the Poll Tax; sleaze; the Dome (although this partially comes under the second question with Peter Mandelson).

We'll end up including everything...!

Then there's the Ground Nuts scheme from the 50s, that business from the 70s with some northern councils being bribed by building companies; some think the Formula One & tobacco advertising business to be scandalous (particularly that they got what they wanted and their money back), and there's always Gladstone and his fallen women. Perhaps we should just redirect the page to British political history....There is of course the traditional observation that with Labour the scandals involve money, and with Conservatives they involve sex. Malcolm Farmer

surely Mark_Oaten gets the honour of being added to this list! KevinCarmody 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i can't help but question weather the Burrell_affair was actually a political scandal, but rather a royal scandal. i think there should be a page of royal scandal. KevinCarmody 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about local politics[edit]

I just finished this article about UK political scandals and was thinking it may be a good contribution here. I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia works so I will let the pro's decide. http://www.pfhub.com/top-9-political-scandals-in-the-united-kingdom/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.129.251 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

like this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/3594421.stm

Requested move[edit]

British political scandals → List of British political scandals – {It is a list, afterall}

It is a list, afterall. 203.214.49.113 12:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support It's a list as opposed to an article, good catch Mr. IP! --Lox (t,c) 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th century and after[edit]

What about Queen Caroline and, quite distinct, Charles Parnell - and a few other events beside.

There should also be mention of the first election for Mayor of London - probably one of the most interesting political events in recent history.

Could also make reference "somehow" to the Chiltern Hundreds. Jackiespeel 17:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British political defections[edit]

Should this be in the See also section? Defections are rarely connected with scandal. Sceptic 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Political Sleaze (UK Politics) here[edit]

I think Political Sleaze (UK Politics) should be moved here. It's not very substantial as an article and basically just lists a couple of scandals in paragraph form rather than bullet form (as on this page). Tocharianne

  • merge Tocharianne 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (much better here - let the facts speak. It even has an empty Talk page as I write.)[reply]
  • Merge. I completely agree. I've just tagged the articles with merge tags, I hadn't realised it had been proposed before. I'll leave it a little while for potential discussion, but this is looking like consensus. That article has a recentist and cherry-picking problem that isn't solvable. Fences and windows (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't entirely merge it away. "Sleaze" is a word that's seen a lot of notable use (e.g. "an end to Tory sleaze"). Even if the article is currently little more than a list, the usage of the word 'sleaze' merits at least its own section in an article on political scandal in the UK. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about moving this to "Political scandals in the United Kingdom" and merging Political Sleaze (UK Politics) in? Then this can be more than just a list. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with the previous suggestion. Getting rid of the list article and retaining the more article-orientated title Political Sleaze (UK Politics) has greater appeal. Of course, the same thing can be achieved by the original proposal, followed by a name change. Also satisfies the suggestion to retain "sleaze" on its own merit. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with AlmostReadytoFly's suggestion. Well, that merge suggestion's only taken 2 1/2 years to discuss. Fences&Windows 21:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can call that consensus. I'm tagging Political scandals in the United Kingdom for speedy move. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnythingGate[edit]

Do we really have to follow the press in titling everything as ...gate? Surely more appropriate titles can and should be found that do not play on the name of an American building.

Request for appropriate titling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinCarmody (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, further to this, the sections need to (a) demonstrate that there was actually a 'scandal' rather than a few minor press reports, and (b) Follow the sources cited. I've removed sections on the so-called 'Smeargate scandal', and on a supposed 'Labour party immigration scandal' as neither offered evidence of notability, and neither followed the sources. This article shouldn't be used as a dumping-ground for badly-written political sniping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a disgrace[edit]

Doesn't anyone contributing to this article understand Wikipedia sourcing policy? Nothing belongs in this article that hasn't been described by reliable sources as a 'scandal' - and on that basis alone, much of more recent the material could be (arguably should be) deleted under WP:BLP policy. Furthermore, the 'Sleaze' section is entirely without cited sources and appears to be original research. I'm going to template the article for now, and if something isn't done to sort problems out pretty rapidly, delete everything that isn't properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful as a list. I don't think there's much doubt that the rest should go. JRPG (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of political scandals in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

@DeFacto: Hi, could you explain your revert of my addition in the "See also" section at the List of political scandals in the United Kingdom. Just a rationale of my edit: my newly created page is specifically about Corruption in the United Kingdom (mentioned in the article), and is actually linked in sidebar in the article (Template:Political corruption sidebar). If you could briefly justify how my article is not relevant I would appreciative. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: I don't consider your one-word edit summary sufficient, please elaborate. Thank you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P,TO 19104, I don't see the relevance, especially given that so few of the so-called scandals included mention corruption. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto Please self revert your removal of the sidebar, which could be potentially contriversial since that has been on the article for quite a while, and other editors may consider it relevant. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P,TO 19104, I do not agree that it is applicable here. Scandal does not imply corruption, and is not a subset of corruption. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: Your repeated removal of cited items by claiming "not a scandal" should stop. Please use the talk page before removing them. 1. Ministers found to have broken the law over covid contracts 2. a sex scandal that causes a minister to resign Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R Hunter, Wikipedia requires all assertions of fact to be reliably sourced and verifiable. We need to apply that requirement to this article too. Neither political tittle-tattle and unfounded allegations in the tabloid press nor the normal business-as-usual mischief-making by opposition party members and scoop-seeking journalists satisfy this requirement. Please show that either of the entries that I removed are considered to be "political scandals" by the consensus of mainstream reliable sources. WP:BRD applies here too. If an addition is challenged, a policy-based consensus is then required before it is re-added. WP:BLP is also applicable, and serious assertions such as the one you make about the reason a ninister resigned need serious and solid sources. I suggest you self-revert unless solid sources are found and until a consensus for its inclusion is achieved. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto For the two cases of government ministers being found to have acted illegally, I have added links to the high court judgements. I believe these to be both reliable and are not 'tittle-tattle'.
For the case of the minister resigning over having broken covid rules on social distancing. I believe the fact that he resigned over the reports is sufficient to show it meets the criteria of being a scandal.
If you can find backing for your position to remove these 3 items I will gladly join in the discussion to find consensus. As it stands the original posters have been supported by myself and others, whereas you are currently a lone voice. Brian R Hunter (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brian R Hunter, did you find any sources saying that the inadvertent non-compliance with minor legal technicalities constitutes a scandal then, or is that personal POV? And, no matter what you personally believe, we also need to be able to demonstrate that the consensus amongst reliable sources is that a minister doing the honourable thing and resigning over having broken Covid guidelines is that it is a scandal nevertheless. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto added two more references describing these events as scandals. Your view that these unprecedented events are not scandalous seems to be your POV. Please gain some consensus to support your view. The world view is that these events were scandalous. If unsure, please google "scandal" plus a detail of an event and you will find a lot of links. Brian R Hunter (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brian R Hunter, more cherry-picked references using the word do not help, you need references that substantiate the use of the word, and anyway, per WP:HEADLINES, relying on headlines only (such as the case in your latest addition) will not do as they are considered unreliable if the body of their article does not support that use. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MPs trying to pervert the course of justice[edit]

83.100.188.53 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a political scandal[edit]

@SPC27205, you say: "Both events caused a public feeling of shock and disapproval". How do you know that?

As far as I can see, wrt to the Downing Street story, all we have is mischief-making from the media and opposition parties whipping up a storm based on unsubstantiated allegations. Or as the police said when asked to look at the allegations: The correspondence and footage does not provide evidence of a breach of the Health Protection Regulations, but restates allegations made in the media. Based on the absence of evidence and in line with our policy not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations, the Met will not commence an investigation at this time.[1] I propose, per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER, that we remove it until we have proof of wrongdoing.

As for the second jobs one, all we have is more media sh*t stirring, but no scandal; so I propose that one is dropped too per WP:OR, WP:DUE, and WP:VER. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. How do I know that it caused a public feeling of shock and disapproval? Because I live in the UK, and I know a few people who are shocked about (and disapprove of) both the alleged parties and the second jobs controversy
2. The Metropolitan Police statement regarding the allegations makes no sense due to the fact that an investigation is needed in order to find definitive evidence of any wrongdoing - so even if the allegations are unsubstantiated, the Metroplitan Police still needs to investigate them
3. The Owen Paterson affair is not just some media sh*t stirring. Owen Paterson was found to have broken parliamentary rules by the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards and the Standards Committee after a two-year investigation. [2] -- SPC27205 (talk). 18:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reason number 1 fails as WP:OR, number 2 fails as WP:OR, number 3 fails as WP:SYNTH, conflating Paterson's case where rules were found to have been broken with the controversy over second jobs, fanned by media hype, where other MPs had not broken the rules. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly contest the idea that this is "mischief-making from the media and opposition parties", since the polls suggest about half of the public (including a third of Tory voters) think the PM should resign. But our personal opinions are irrelevant: the (alleged) Christmas parties have been called a scandal by numerous reliable sources, both in and outside of the UK ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] [9], [10]), and so should be included on this list. The CNN analysis even starts off with Boris Johnson has faced many scandals in his more than two years as UK Prime Minister. But the latest one is the gravest yet. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 17:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliably sourced proof of any wrongdoing to justify branding it a scandal? Remember, we need to comply with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER in our articles. Note too that neither headlines or sub-headlines are not considered to be reliable sources per WP:HEADLINES. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how one defines "proof of wrongdoing"; if you mean it in a legal sense, that isn't necessary for a scandal. "regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage" is how Google Dictionaries defines the term, and I think most people in the UK see this as morally wrong and causing outrage (legally, I couldn't possibly say). Regardless, we should be going off what our reliable sources say is a scandal, not our own (or Google's) definitions. The actual text of many of the articles I cited calls it a scandal, not just the headlines, so that's a little bit of a strawman argument. I've already cited the CNN ref – which is an opinion piece, admittedly, but there are more examples of non-opinion pieces calling it a 'scandal':
The scandal over the Christmas party has energized the Lib Dem campaign over the past week, one party official said. Bloomberg
Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi told LBC that a photo of Boris Johnson leading a Christmas quiz during lockdown was just the prime minister "thanking his staff" and tried to play down the party scandal as "hype." LBC
Senior police officers have warned that public compliance with new Covid laws will be affected by the Downing Street Christmas party scandal. ... An Opinium poll commissioned by the Best for Britain campaign group last week found that 62 per cent of respondents thought the scandal would negatively impact compliance with Covid rules. Independent
Lockdown party scandal hits Johnson Reuters
The story has become a scandal in part because it plays into assertions that Johnson and his government cannot be trusted and that there is one set of rules for the people and another for the rulers. The Washington Post
[The Labour Party] has agreed at national level to take a back seat so that the Lib Dems can capitalise on Johnson's recent woes, among them the evolving scandal over the party held in 10 Downing Street last Christmas when the rest of the country was locked down. Financial Times.
Boris Johnson’s new “Plan B” coronavirus restrictions to combat the Omicron variant face being overshadowed by the fury of the public, outrage in the press and near mutiny from Conservative MPs in response to Downing Street’s Christmas party scandal. Politico.
Johnson has survived multiple political scandals involving close associates, his own apartment and even the queen — but this one is cutting through to voters like few others. ... And the furor over the video follows weeks of revelations and scandal for the Johnson government. NBC
Almost half the British public are unlikely to follow any tighter Covid rules in the wake of the scandal over alleged Christmas parties in Downing Street. ... Mr Johnson's scientific advisers have tried to separate the fallout from the political scandal and the need for new Covid regulations. The Telegraph
... et cetera. I can't see how any of this violates the policies you cited, I'm a little perplexed? —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 00:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the media use sensationalist language, particularly in their headlines, or that they have fuelled interest in a subject by the use of unsubstantiated insinuation, or that government opponents had made political capital from the headlines and are helping to whip them up before the facts have been established does not make the subject of the allegations a 'scandal' - although it might be argued that the attacks are scandalous. The police were asked to investigate the allegations and footage and after their initial analysis said that they did "not provide evidence of a breach of the Health Protection Regulations, but restates allegations made in the media. Based on the absence of evidence and in line with our policy not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations, the Met will not commence an investigation at this time". Let's wait until dust has settled and until the facts are clear. There is no rush. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's purely your own opinion that this coverage is "sensationalist" or to do with opponents wanting to make political capital from it, and you're entitled to it. You are surely aware from the coverage that a very large proportion of British (and indeed international) readership finds this situation scandalous so much so that newspapers are using the term in their own voice – not political opponents or headlines, which seem to be red herrings here that you have brought up again, despite the fact I specifically chose examples where it was media using the term in its own voice. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 14:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ghmyrtle:, @This is Paul:, @Smartse:, @Bondegezou:, @Arcahaeoindris: and @Pepperbeast:, who have been involved on the (likely soon to be renamed) British government staff Christmas parties controversy article, for their input here. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 14:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. also pinging @Brian R Hunter:, per previous discussion on this talk page about deletion of cited content. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 15:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals can exist for all sorts of reasons - proof that a crime, or a breach of regulations, was committed, is not necessary in order for events to be described as a "scandal". Clear and unequivocal evidence of offensive and/or hypocritical behaviour, as perceived by most reputable sources, is often quite enough, as in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's definitely scope for this article to actually outline what a scandal is in the UK sense (actually having any kind of WP:LEAD would be a start!). However, for the purposes of this discussion I agree with @AFreshStart:. There does not need to be proof of wrondoing for something to be considered a scandal. If multiple, reliable, secondary sources characterise it as such, then our own personal political leanings bear no weight - to override the reporting of reliable sources would not be writing in a WP:NEUTRAL way. As always, just follow reliable sources. Note there was a similar discussion to this over on Talk:Dominic Cummings scandal. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with you on all points there. Thank you for alerting me to that discussion: also pinging @Andysmith248:, @CrazyBoy826:, @Seagull123: and @Felixkrater:, who were involved in the Cummings scandal article. I hope editors don't think I'm being overkill with the pinging here, but I want to make sure that we have a very firm consensus to call this a scandal. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 15:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think DeFacto's position (that we judge the media coverage as merely sensationalist) is unsustainable and WP:NPOV, but I do think we should be careful and cautious about the use of terms like "scandal". I don't often find myself agreeing with extinct lemurs, but I concur with Arcahaeoindris: we follow what reliable sources say, but it would also be good for this article to have some sort of lead that explained what was covered. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without a ruling, or at least incontrovertible evidence, that something 'scandalous' had actually happened, how can we say, in Wiki's voice (by adding it to this list, for example), that it was a scandal? Take the current allegations that government employees broke Covid rules in 2020. What actually is the scandal? We don't yet know for sure if the rules even applied to the offices in question; we don't know for sure whether, even if the rules did apply, any gatherings that would have broken the rules were held. All we know for sure is the police said the allegations had not been substantiated, and without evidence of wrongdoing they couldn't take any further action. So what is the current 'scandal' in that particular case? Can we brand that event as a scandal simply because the press are spinning that line? Perhaps we need to wait until the dust has settled and any inquiries and court cases have been completed before we can decide.
Basically, I can't see any Wiki-policy compliant reason to brand an event as a scandal until we can assert as an incontrovertible fact, in Wiki's own voice, exactly what happened that was scandalous. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Find a definition of "scandal" that requires there to have been a breach of the law, or other "rules", and others may agree with you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle, can you describe, in Wiki's voice, what the 'scandal' actually is then in relation to the government employee gatherings? I've tried, but cannot without relying on unfounded generalisations and exclusion clauses. All we have at the moment is the assertion that it is a scandal. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources describe it as a "scandal", because figures in authority are perceived to have acted hypocritically and mendaciously. If you think the sources reporting that are not reliable, the place to go is WP:RSN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? Either way, "perceived" is the problem though, that means it's an opinion, not a fact. And for balance we'd need to counter it (cancel it out, in effect) with those, especially the police, stating that there's no evidence of wrongdoing. And this isn't a "list of events that some people perceive to be scandals", is it? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
for balance we'd need to counter it (cancel it out, in effect) with those, especially the police, stating that there's no evidence of wrongdoing – no, we don't. The reliable sources it calling it a scandal in their own voice and in news reports (not opinion pieces) don't do that every time they mention that this is, indeed, a scandal. Obviously, the response should be mentioned on the the main page for the scandal controversy. They don't qualify it as "some people think this is a scandal"; they say it is one. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 23:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SAL: Stand-alone lists, like other articles, are subject to Wikipedia's:Core content policies, so WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, as well as all the others, apply equally to lists.
So opinions given in news publications (whether an event is a scandal, or not, is subjective) in their own voice need to be attributed as the opinion of that source, and they need to be balanced with alternative views.
Where living people are implicated, we need, per WP:BLPGOSSIP, to be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources (WP:WEASEL lists "some people say", "many scholars state", "it is believed/regarded/considered", "many are of the opinion", "most feel", "experts declare", "it is often reported", "it is widely thought", "research has shown", "science says", "scientists claim", "it is often said" and "officially, X has been described as Y" as to be avoided), and per WP:BLPPUBLIC to remember that if the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance.
So it still seems to me that if we cannot, while adhering to all the applicable Wiki policies, add a single sentence entry to this list stating in Wiki's voice "XXX is a scandal", then XXX does not belong in this list. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This to me doesn't seem to contradict @AFreshStart:'s and others points above, which I once again agree with. Nobody has proposed characterising something as a "scandal" on this list or on Wikipedia unless there is a weight of reliable sourcing to support it. I'll admit some points on this page, which have been there for some time, do need references, and if sourcing is not available probably need to be removed. If you're specifically talking about renaming the Xmas parties article, please take this discussion to that article's talk page. There are plenty of longstanding articles covering similar controversies in other countries that follow the same format as this one (USA, NZ, Philippines, others) and they all manage to have a list without the extensive caveating you're proposing and without violating Wikipedia's policies. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the general case, using the 'party' case as an example; the discussion belongs here.
Being in this list with this name implies exactly that: that the entry is "a scandal". If there are reliably sourced doubts and denials then they need to be given due weight (particularly wrt BLP), and any weight at all for the "might not be" side of the argument means we cannot assert that it definitely is a scandal.
The other articles you mention may well contravene the policies, but unless they are challenged we will not be aware of that, but they are irrelevant in this discussion about this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On point 2, that would be fine I think, but as there seems to be a weight of reliable sources kindly provided above describing it as a scandal, that should be enough to warrant its inclusion. What sources actually say that something "might not be" a scandal?? If the allegations themselves have been described as a scandal in several reliable sources then that is enough as something being "a scandal" is not something that is defined in law and thus can be "proven"... it is defined by the media and public reaction to events or alleged events. Look at plebgate for instance. The other country articles are relevant as they follow the same format as this. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I vote based on the weight of sources provided above that the Christmas parties controversy be included here.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) A "scandal" is what is perceived to be a scandal in reliable sources. There are no "rules" as to what is or what is not a scandal - it is always a matter of perception. Your idea that a "scandal" can only be defined in terms of legal or constitutional restrictions is flawed and wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can write a lead that makes clear that entries in the list are there because widespread coverage has described them as scandals. This may allay some of DeFacto's concerns. That said, I agree with Ghmyrtle: Wikipedia's epistemology is clear, we don't define things ourselves, we follow WP:RS. With respect to Partygate, DeFacto, can you provide some up-to-date WP:RS that say this isn't a scandal? I also note we've seen 2 resignations, Stratton and Bailey, which is a de facto admission that something was scandalous! Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow all of Wiki's policies, not just WP:RS, including the others I've mentioned above. We don't need RSes saying it wasn't a scandal, but if we say it is, we need to attribute that subjective opinion, balance it with the RS-supported caveats; including the question over whether the buildings in question were included in the Covid restrictions, the denials and possible exceptions related to work, the statement by police that allegations were unsubstantiated repeats of unsubstantiated news reports, etc. We can't just ignore the policies which we fail to comply with in our apparent unseemly rush to brand this ahead of any official findings of any wrongdoings. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at some definitions of the word "scandal". Oh, look .... "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage." Please note the words "regarded as...", "morally or legally wrong...", "causing general public outrage." Not everyone needs to be convinced that an event was legally wrong for it to be correctly and accurately termed a "scandal". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Ghmyrtle:. I also want to quote from an FAQ on Talk:Donald Trump: "Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media." DeFacto, you need to provide sourcing to support your viewpoint in order to argue that it merits due weight. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle, what do we think the "action or event" is in the 'party' example? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If all the RS call it a "scandal" and none say otherwise, then WP:RS/WP:BALANCE etc. says we should call it a scandal. WP:BALANCE reflects the breadth of what RS are saying, ergo the existence of RSes saying it wasn't a scandal is pertinent. Much of what you are saying, DeFacto, is more applicable to the main article than its mention here. I have recently added to the article in question some of what you are suggesting (notably the question over whether the buildings in question were included in the Covid restrictions), so hopefully that helps. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

@AFreshStart, where's the closed discussion containing the "consensus" you allude to here please? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - widely reported as a "scandal". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems like this discussion has been hijacked for another purpose, let me ask @AFreshStart again, for a link to the consensus that they claim exists for the inclusion of the content that they re-added here. It is surely reasonable to be allowed to ask for clarification of an edit summary - isn't it? And without that request being interfered with by another editor? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, my apologies if I misunderstood you, but you didn't make yourself very clear.
Our purpose for being here is to make the article as good as possible, not nitpicking past edits, as per WP:TALK#USE. Why don't you WP:AGF of AFreshStart and drop the matter? Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you say a consensus exists then you should be prepared to give a link to it - no? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would presume AFreshStart came to a conclusion having read the discussion above, at Talk:List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom#Definition_of_a_political_scandal. You were in that discussion; I presume you have read it too. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you speak for them? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came to that conclusion having read the discussion, yes. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 09:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. However, I disagree that there is a consensus, so perhaps you'll self-revert, following WP:BRD, and wait for one to develop. See WP:CONSENSUS for details of a Wiki consensus is. It might be worth starting a new section for a clear discussion to try and decide it, the one above if about the general case of what defines a scandal, and there's no consensus on that yet either. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the discussion above, it is clear that I, SPC27205, AFreshStart, Ghmyrtle and Arcahaeoindris support inclusion of Partygate in this article, while DeFacto opposes. I am of the view that that is sufficient consensus for the material to remain in the article for now. We have Discussed, as per WP:BRD, and we have 5:1 in support, using policy-based arguments.
DeFacto: if you feel a broader discussion is required, you can start a discussion, maybe an RfC, on that and we can act accordingly based on the result of that broader discussion. However, I am concerned that you are edging towards actions that might be seen as WP:WL and/or WP:DTS at this point. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is over apparent WP:BLP infringements if we assert, by adding it to this list, that "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong" occurred (part of the definition of 'scandal'), when it has not yet been established whether one has, or not. That strong policy-based concern has not yet been allayed. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two people have resigned their positions because of their actions. They resigned because they'd done something wrong. Your argument that there is a WP:BLP infringement looks like WP:WL at this point. Meanwhile, edits like this one seem rather dubious. I would suggest that you peruse WP:DTS. We can all get too caught up in the moment with our editing. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guided by these extracts from the lead of BLP:
  • Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
Perhaps we need to take it to the BLP talkpage and see if we can get assurances there that it is compliant and that I am indeed paranoid. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resigned? No he hasn't[edit]

The article ends "It later led to the resignation of the Prime Minister himself." He has not resigned, he never mentioned the words resign or resignation. He has agreed to step down from the position of party leader at some indeterminate future point, probably in October, once the Party Conference season is over and a new party leader has been appointed. He remains as Prime minister currently - very much not past-tense resigned. 2.31.162.109 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Burns[edit]

The sacking of Conor Burns appears to be a political scandal. I'm new to editing and I'll admit I don't understand the edit note reason @DeFacto: gave for removing it, so I'm seeking support on adding the following, taken from the Conor Burns page.

TurnipWatch (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TurnipWatch, none of the sources there describe a "scandal", so it we brand it as one in this article that would fail the WP:V and WP:BLP policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like a scndal. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like run-of-the-mill politician behaving badly stuff. Give it a few weeks, and see if anyone is still writing about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might have been at one time. No longer, unless more to come.Leaky caldron (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McShane, Asher (7 October 2022). "Tory MP Conor Burns has whip suspended following 'complaints about his behaviour' at party conference". LBC News. Retrieved 7 October 2022.
  2. ^ "Bournemouth West MP Conor Burns 'asked to leave government' over allegations of inappropriate behaviour". Bournemouth Echo. Retrieved 2022-10-07.
  3. ^ LGBT+ Conservatives (7 October 2022). "Following the suspension of the Conservative parliamentary whip..." Twitter. Retrieved 7 October 2022.

Owen Paterson[edit]

SmartSE (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1208283382"